Five years ago today, my personal hero, Senator Paul Wellstone, died in a plane crash in rural Minnesota. For those who don't know him, Wellstone was rabble-rousing unbashedly liberal Senator from Minnesota. At a time when liberal was a dirty word, Wellstone wore the badge proudly. At a time when it was inconveinent to talk about the have and have nots, and when a Democratic President was proposing repulsive acts like the Bankruptcy Bill, Wellstone did everything he could to put his five foot, five inch body in the way.
And, in the middle of the 2002 campaign, when his opponent was running attack ads that featured pictures of Bin Laden next to him, Wellstone stood up when others backed down, and voted against the Iraq War. He was told it would lose him the election. Instead, his poll numbers went up.
Wellstone was a hero for me because besides almost always doing the right thing, he united such amazingly diverse constituencies. From Iron Workers, to College Kids, to Farmers, to Somali Immigrants, Wellstone had them all.
When he died, I wrote a piece for my college paper:
Do I know how my parents felt? I think I am beginning to grasp the feeling of having someone you could honestly, unabashedly and emotionally embrace as a true leader, and then watch as he is taken from you before his time. Is this what it felt like for them, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were taken out in a matter of months? Paul Wellstone was a hero, pure and simple. He was not murdered, we assume, like those hallowed 1960's leaders, but he came to his death too soon, nonetheless. He was a Senator and true politician for only 12 years. A political baby.
....
We talk about the rarity of voting your conscience, yet for Wellstone it was a shock the few times he did not (Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act). He refused to accept the Senate tradition of not actually recording votes when its known a bill will pass easily. Twice there were times before an election when the political wisdom said he could not vote his conscience, but he did anyway by voting against Welfare Reform in 1996 and against the impending war in Iraq a few weeks ago. Each time, he was the only vulnerable Senator to do so. He knew that he was defined by doing what was right.
Even as I write this, watching old interviews with him, he energizes me. One of the few times I met him was at a political fundraiser in Philly right around college selection time. During the mandatory handshakes my dad mentioned to him that I was looking at Carleton and Macalester. He turned as he was walking away and mentioned we should talk colleges, which is what every politician would say. The difference is that ten minutes later he found me, and he, Sheila Wellstone and I discussed where I should go. He asked me what I was looking for in a school, where I was from, what I wanted to do in life. He recommended Macalester. The man was at a fundraiser to run for President, and took ten minutes of his time to talk to a 17-year-old kid about colleges. Who else would do that?
Paul Wellstone was simply a decent, honest man. He had a wife he loved and who shared his passions. He had a daughter who took a semester off from teaching at a public school to campaign for him, including multiple trips to Macalester. And he had us. True believers. Who replaces him? Who gets the total trust I had in him to do the right thing, the just thing? Do I know how my parents felt?
Rest in peace, Senator Wellstone. Millions of Americans will miss your presence, whether they have heard your name or not.
The reason I am bringing this up is two-fold. The first is simply to pay homage to a man who, outside my own family, taught me more about standing up for my beliefs than just about anyone else. And second, to ask this bigger question:
In a City of 1.5 million people, virtually all Democratic, where is our Paul Wellstone?
John Edwards has captured my attention in the Presidential race for the simple fact that he has put poverty back on the national agenda. (Of course, the media thinks we should instead talk about his hair cut.) I don't think Edwards is a saint by any means, but the simple fact is that so many Democrats are so damn scared to be vocal about poverty, to speak in broad, transformational language, that they do nothing.
Which brings me to Philadelphia, and our current Washington DC Representatives: Bob Casey, Allyson Schwartz, Chaka Fattah, and Bob Brady. Casey is likely to be a one term Senator. A nice guy, a centrist, with one eye on the Governor's seat, and almost no visibility anywhere. Schwartz is pretty bad. When the chips are down, she seems to vote the wrong way, voting for the Patriot Act, version two, and the Bankruptcy Bill. Bob Brady is a decent guy, but is not really the type for soaring rhetoric. The best legacy he could leave us is to dramatically change the way the Philly Democratic Party operates.
Then we have Chaka Fattah. Fattah has done a couple very good things in Congress, like the Core program. His voting record is excellent. And, even in 1994, he stood up to the GOP on things like the destruction of our social safety net. But, in more recent years, we didn't seem to hear much from Fattah. That is, until he ran for Mayor, and started talking about things like ending poverty. Whether you believed in his policies or not, one thing was indisputable: Fattah was challenging us to talk about Poverty, and in doing so seemed more like a national candidate.
Well, now that Chaka is back in DC, how about some more of that? To a fault, no matter the question he was asked in the Mayoral Race, Fattah answered that we needed to end poverty in the City. He was asked about planning, he answered about poverty. He was asked about the environment, he answered about poverty.
Now, in the majority in Congress, and with the potential for increasing visibility, why can't Fattah become our Paul Wellstone? If we are going to end poverty in this Country, we need a lot more than Congressmen who vote the right way. We need hundreds of Paul Wellstones. We need leaders.
In our national delegation, the only one with the ability is Chaka Fattah. The question is, will he step up and lead?
'We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For'
I mean this seriously, NOT as a smart-aleck comment. I cried when we lost Wellstone. But, to quote Jim Wallis:
I hear you, and I agree.
I hear you, and I agree. But, at the same time, I think it is time for representatives from a City full of Democrats to start showing real leadership.
You left out the best, geekiest, part
where you dead-earnestly tell all the other college students how they should know and care about the intricacies of the Bankruptcy Bill.
Also, this--a strong voice forcing attention to poverty and to the needs of cities, on the national level--would be a wonderful thing to see.
Wait, most families
Wait, most families' 2000-2002 dinner conversations didn't involve talk about the bankruptcy bill?
Just yours
and the Bruce Mann-Elizabeth Warren family.
PS I totally ordered the book.
the book looks good
maybe it will help Dan understand why $45 k is not enough dough ;)
Haha, I kind of wanted to order
the the other one too, because I trust Professor Mann and by proxy anyone married to him unreservedly and secretly wish he was my grandfather and COULD give me advice about everything, but I just felt way too bourgeois and grown up with the whole financial planning thing so I put it off...
PS She was a strong, strong voice against the bankruptcy bill, for those not in on the double-nerdy in-joke.
And she runs a blog on
And she runs a blog on Talking Points Memo- Warren Reports, with her law students, that focuses on financial issues.
Fattah can set out a broad agenda
Unless things go terribly wrong, we are likely to elect a Democratic President in 2008 and pick up maybe as many as 5 seats in the Senate.
But our Presidentail candidate is not likely to set out an aggressive agenda that addresses the problems of poverty and our cities. Obama has been campaigning in a way that, I think, can help re-legitiamte government after almost thirty years of anti-government rhetoric. Edwards has been addressing poverty in a more ideological way. But, given the way our campaigns are run these days--and the centrist tendencies of any two-party system--our Presidential candidate is going to more cautious than we like.
And that means this is a good time for some leadership of the kind that Dan is calling for. If you look at American history, dramatic changes in policy directin often bubble up from the states and from Congress.
This really is a role Congressman Fattah could play. He has been a figure willing to step out and present innovative ideas to deal with the probems of poverty and the city.
Fattah and a New College?
Since I'm in love with my own ideas, I'll float this one again: what about creating a new state Teachers' College in Philadelphia?
Fattah's best issue in Congress has been education. He's worked to help bring resources to Philadelphia schools, and to help Philadelphians attend college. The grapevine says that his long-term goal after his political career is over is to become a university president. Poverty, opportunity, education, technology -- it's all there. And in principle, it might be something that virtually all of the political principals in the city might be able to agree on, if someone like Fattah (with Michael Nutter and Ed Rendell and others) could put it together. That would be an amazing legacy.
--Tim
Why not improve the ones we have?
Schools of Education are not held in terribly great esteen in most universities. And their own deans often are among their sharpest critics.
Instead of spending all the money it would take to start a new teacher's college, why not make a major investment in expanding and improving one that already exists. Temple's school of education would be a good place to start.
Before starting and expanding such a school, however, we need to fiture out exactly what it is supposed to be; what kind of education teachers' need these days; and how best to provide it. The answers to all those questions are hotly debated in academia. I, for one, have no idea what the right answers are.
compromise
Good point Marc, but Tim's point stands too. Penn's Graduate School of Ed is well regarded by principals and superintendents throughout the region. Everyone wants to hire teachers who go through their program. However, Penn is expensive.
Creating a really strong, more accessible school for teachers is a great idea. And, I no longer speak for the Congressman, but this sounds right up his alley. It's definitely an idea worth fleshing out more.
Temple is also expensive. If
Temple is also expensive. If I met a prospective student interested in going into K-12 education, I wouldn't recommend Penn or Temple. En lieu of some serious scholarships or other grant-based financial aid, you're unlikely to make enough money to pay back your student loans, even with the programs existing for teachers.
--Tim
how do you define expensive?
Penn State is a Commonwealth University just like Temple. A whole new state school would be cheaper in terms of tuition--the state system is way more affordable than Pitt, Temple, PSU and Lincoln. But how would start-up costs for a new school interfere with tuition?
Start-Up Costs
This is where we need federal money (Chaka Fattah?), philanthropic money (Bill Gates?), and contributions from our city's existing industries and institutions. Tapping into the existing Penn State infrastructure helps reduce some of those costs.
I think it would be easier to get all of those things by creating a new, high profile teachers' institution than by expanding the existing offerings of Temple or Penn.
--Tim
As a matter of priority, we
As a matter of priority, we must realize why tuition is high at Temple, Pitt and Penn State. It is because they do not recieve as much funding as they need from the Commonwealth. The difference is made up in tuition.
That is why, as I indicated below, Temple is trying to boost it's endowment and funding sources by $350 Million--to keep tuition low.
Now, why is it that, at great schools like UVA and Florida, the tuition is cheaper than at our schools. It is a matter of funding priorities. Fund Temple, Pitt and Penn State like VA funds its schools, and people could afford to be teachers after they graduate.
I can think of a great source of funding revenue--gaming revenues. Instead of promising tax decreases, why didn't we promise our kids the opportunity of affordable college education. Priorities. Lack of leadership. It is easier to go to your constituents and say, "hey, I'm lowering your wage tax $200.00 a year." It is harder to say, "we had tough choices to make, and we chose to side on the future of PA and its economy."
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Surprised at you Gaetano
I could not agree with you more:
If casinos come to Philadelphia, this is a huge conversation we need to have. However, it seems like we can't really talk about this until we know if they are coming, right?
Is there a way to start talking about this now and not interfere with the effort to prevent or re-site casinos?
Not if, where.
The battleground right now is not "if" they are coming, but "where." Most of the nieghborhood groups are working to re-site the casinos--not remove them entirely. I can't speak for Casino Free Philadelphia, but I believe they are on the same page as the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance (formerly Delaware River Neighborhood Alliance), in that re-siting is the most acceptable cure. A lot of Philadelphians actually do not mind casinos, it is when told that they are in communities that people get upset.
I've given a lot of time and energy to this effort, and, to answer your question, it will not interfere at all with any efforts. This is a conversation that needs to happen sooner rather than later if any change is going to occur relative to spending. Philadelphia's casinos only account for 2. I believe 6 are operation state-wide.
Let's talk about it.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Back to 2003
When the casino bill was passed in 2003 by the Governor and State Leg dems, the promise made to citizens was that casino revenue would decrease property taxes used to fund schools--except in Philly.
So I totally agree, that if/when casinos come here, we need to have a more serious conversation about what happens to the revenue rather than just giving the money to the wage tax beast. I think Mansei has said this (i could be wrong), but why not dedicate casino revenue to the School District?
In Philly, it is wage tax
In Philly, it is wage tax relief. Property taxes everywhere else.
Money is also going to the School District too. I don't know how much, but a few million.
Gaming revenue is a state-wide resource (and burden). Personally, I think the money should be used to expand the economic opportunities of all Pennslyvanians. Putting it into our higher education system will help to drive technology, research and should mean new industries and higher paying jobs. Also, if we can, say, use the revenue to fund tuition for our students (in like with Rep. Payton's plan), everyone wins.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
i don't get it
This is a relatively minor disagreeement. However, as I said, I know Congressman Fattah would probably like this idea. It seems worth fleshing out in detail. That's why I don't get your attachment to Penn State.
I just went to Penn State's website, which was quite confusing, but I managed to find a tuition calculator. I came up with a higher cost at PSU Abington for a Master's degree than at Temple. Both were more costly than Slippery Rock (which I have heard is good for masters of ed). Slippery Rock is a real state school, unlike PSU or Temple.
Meanwhile, a lot of us have loyalty to Temple. It's a Philadelphia institution whereas PSU and other state universities have never been all that present here. I don't really care which is chosen, but I think Marc and Gaetano are right that an expanded program at Temple is probably the most pragmatic way to handle your innovative idea.
I think Temple would also
I think Temple would also work. One way or the other, though, the tuition rates would need to come down for the teacher's program -- closer to West Chester U than either Temple or Penn State.
Part of the reason why I'm fond of Penn State, besides the fact that it's in the Big Ten (go Spartans!), is that the other model I'm thinking of is the University of Wisconsin system, which has multiple campuses, including Stevens Point, which is largely devoted to teacher education. That's a gap in the Pennsylvania State system.
Loyalty to Temple aside, I think there is potentially a virtue in bringing Penn State into Philadelphia, rather than keeping that wall up. There's a certain halo around Philadelphia, where people are very loyal to Temple and Penn and other Philadelphia universities, but after that, it's all Penn State country. It would be nice if some of those Montgomery, Delaware and Chester County kids, for whom Penn State is already on the map, started to think about Philadelphia's universities the same way.
--Tim
i'm convinced
The more I think about it, I think building a new state school in Philly might be the hardest thing to do. SRU and West Chester do offer secondary Ed programs, and the 12 state schools are already fighting for scraps (bested only by community colleges in mistreatment by the Leg). They might (and i would if i was them) put up a fight if money was being taken from them in any way to fund a new school in Philly.
So maybe your theory on PSU expansion (and tapping into that big alumni network) could work, though, again, practically Temple expansion seems easiest.
That said, does anyone have any idea how to enumerate specific benefits of a teacher's collge in philly? in terms of new jobs, and the impact of highly trained teachers on city and/or regional economy?
They do . . .
Temple draws heavily from the burbs, as well as New York State, Maryland and the surrounding states.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
There's another piece to this, I think
What are people's opinions on the issues raised by this recent Times article on the problems retaining "quality" teachers and touching on the "prestige" of the profession. There are clearly ways that a heavily-invested-in urban-focused teachers' college could be a real force for change.
Some excerpts:
I bring this up in part
because, though I don't know the placement stats, my anecdotal experience is that a lot of people leave the Penn program and take jobs in the suburbs (if not at first, then soon). Of course, there are all sorts of reasons for this (salaries, safety).
I also am maybe bringing it up because my friend Chelsea, who I know sometimes reads this, has I think very interesting ideas about the need for urban-edcuation-specific teachers' education, and I'd like to hear them finally...!
Creating New Educational Institutions Is A State Function
Creating new educational institutions is a state function. Federal funds, however, would be a welcome contribution by any or all of the members of our Congressional delegation.
As Tim noted in the post he linked to, I am proposing the state take the actions needed to get the ball rolling. I do not think we have to answer all the questions about what a new institution will do before it is established. The leadership, the faculty, the student body of any new institution will allplay keys roles in determining its scope and mission. The clock is ticking on the expiration of the Rendell Administration, and we need to take advantage of this opportunity while it exists.
State universities have traditionally been the premier place for the education of teachers in our Commonwealth. State universities now include far more than just teacher education. Having a school that exists solely to educate teachers neither meets the needs of prospective teachers who wnat to be exposed to broader course offerings or the needs of many from low or moderate income families who need college educations for other career dicrections.
Historically, teacher's colleges were the exception to colleges that were either all male or disproportionately male, such as Penn when I attended it. It has long been true, however, that women are no longer basically limited to careers in education, nursing, social work, retail sales, or office administration.. The expanded role of women in our workforce was a major contributing factor towards the evolution of teachers colleges into broader functioning and much more popular and useful state universities.
State universities cost about 40% less than state related univerities to attend. Increasing funding for the much more expensive to operate state related universities to reduce tuition levels to those of state universites would cost far more than setting up a new state university in Philadelphia, and any other place that wanted them.
In addition, schools and their faculties have basically been neutral on the issue of how much state funding for tuition reduction there should be. The simple fact is that the less state funding there is as a percentage of the total, the more the school has an upper middle class bias in admissions, and jthe more prestigious it is in many circles. If there has ever been a group of Temple Alumni or Temple faculty, for instance, who has advocated more state aid for the purpose of lower tuition, they have not their presence known to me.
Pleas for more state aid of which I am aware have always concentrated on program expansion. Program expansion generally occurs in excess of the state aid provided, thus leading to long-term tuition increases and fewwer opportunities for Philadelphians.
When I attended the University of Pennsylvania as a member of the Class of '70, it was nowhere as good--in program choice, program depth, extracurricular opportunities, admission standards,student living conditions, or prestige-- as it is as now. One telling fact is that the now internationally acclaimed Wharton School of Business was then considered by many to be inferior to the rest of the University. Another telling fact is that Penn has shut down its undergraduate school of education because its upper class upperly mobile student body has little interest in pursuing K-12 careers.
Penn did, however, have a significant number of high school graduates from PHiladelphia when I attended it. Today, it is a far better intitution which far fewer Philadelphians are able to attend. It no longer even brags that it educates Philadelphians: it bases its claim for city loyalty on the gound that it employs many8 Philadelphians. It is great that Penn recuits quality people to Philadelphia such as Ed Rendell, Arlen Specter, and recently elected Chamber of Commerce President David L. Cohen (no relation to me), but that is not a substitute for educating people who are already here.
Philadelphia ought not to be a city that just provides educational opportunities for people who can afford high tuitions. It ought to be a city that can help elevate the people who live here. In the first six years of this current decade, the U.S. Census Department estimates that Philadelphia lost a NET 16% of all our white people and a NET 6% of all our black people. Net population loss figures understate the problem of poopulation loss, because people are always being born and moving in; the gross population loss has to be much higher. These figures indicate that our city is simply not meeting the needs of many of our residents. That 25% of our population--including 7% of our college graduates--are living in poverty is another statistic making the same point.
Tim is, to the best of my recollection, the first member of this community to back the need for a new college in Philadelphia. I certainly hope many others here join him. Michael Nutter has told me he supports this, as have key officials at the State System of Higher Education and various a growing number of Philadelphians. For those who seek organizing issues, this is a good one.
Pennsylvania State Teachers' College
Mark Cohen is exactly right that a new state university, college, or college branch would have to be created by the State government. But it would be much easier to get that process started with federal seed money and a strong Congressional champion -- and I think Chaka Fattah best fits that role (in addition to the fact that Dan started this thread looking for a progressive legacy for Fattah). I would imagine that even Arlen Specter and Bob Casey could get in on this one.
While there is definitely more that a state university or undergraduate college can do besides educate K-12 teachers, a teachers' college meets the biggest need that our city, state, and country have. They can also play a powerful role in continuing education and professional development for our city's teachers, and in doing research and outreach in our schools. (Can you imagine something like Penn Praxis for our city's school system? I would like to.)
What I would propose, were I a legislator -- and Rep. Cohen can tell us whether or not this is feasible -- is to expand the Pennsylvania State University system after the manner of Penn State Abington. And I would call it the Pennsylvania State Teachers' College in Philadelphia.
If you don't know, the Penn State campus in Abington (home to all good things) offers two different four-year structures. Students can complete their first two years on the Abington campus, then complete their degree in State College in any of the degree programs offered at the main campus. Or they can spend all four years in Abington, with a reduced set of degree choices.
The Teachers' College could be similar, offering a similar range of liberal arts/general education courses in the first two years, but with the four-year programs (and Masters', EdD, and certification programs) focusing on teacher education.
This would give Philadelphians access to a wide range of B.A. choices -- they would have to leave Philadelphia, but that's a much easier prospect at the age of 20, with two years of successful college education under their belt. It would fill a much-needed gap in our state education system, especially locally, with a model that could be copied at other campuses. And it would bring more of the valuable university influence to our system, including the help we need to kick-start our K-12 system.
And as long as I'm playing Sim City here: let's put it in Fishtown instead of the casinos. (Why not?)
--Tim
can you address Marc's point?
Why build new? Why not expand at Temple?
The benefits of the new
Well, since Marc (Stier's) point is based partly on cost-efficiency, Mark (Cohen's) comment above is to the point:
Temple, at this point, and even Penn State, are really awfully expensive propositions for people pursuing careers in K-12 education. So even if they beef up their offerings for Education, you still have to make it cost-competitive, which is hard to do without bringing down the price for ALL Temple students. It would be a good thing if that could be done, but making education more affordable for future teachers is a more pressing need. Focusing energies on a Teachers' College, even if it wound up being a part of the Penn State system (which I think would be worthwhile), gives you the benefit of that focus and can help you make the case to keep tuition costs low.
Plus, I think the city would benefit more by having another new institution. If Temple and Penn or Drexel were to expand, I would rather see them expand in the direction of more technology and computing programs, and particularly technology enterprises and technology and medicine, in concert with the telecom industries, hospitals, and other institutions in the city, as I laid out in my other post.
--Tim
so again
i think this is a great idea, but Mark Cohen is not taking into account the start-up cost of a new institution.
I don't really care if it is Temple or PSU, but PSU is much more aligned with Temple in terms of tuitions than state schools.
Tuition versus start-up costs
Well, tuition and start-up costs are two different issues, even if they're related ones.
Start-up costs are a problem if you can't get the political or financial will to get off the ground. Or if in the Philadelphia style, everyone tries to stick their hands in the jar. They're a problem for the legislator and indirectly, the taxpayer.
Tuition costs, instead, are a problem for the end-user, the student. If tuition costs are too high, you don't attract the range of students that you want, or there's a mismatch between the price of the education and the likely salary of the graduate.
Start-up costs are a problem for tuition if they are so high that they need to be recouped in large part by tuition. Tuition costs are a problem for the ongoing function of the university if they aren't sufficient, together with state and federal aid and donations, to maintain the university.
My bet is that the start-up cost issue is actually easier to clear than the tuition cost issue.
--Tim
Advantages of Expanding and Subsidizing Temple
Up until two days ago, I never gave much thought to this issue. So I don’t have much reason to prefer one solution or another. But as I think about it, I can see some two sets of reasons to prefer my solution to the idea of creating a new teachers’ college.
One set of reasons has to do with what makes for a good education for teachers. I’ll address this in a subsequent post. The second set of reasons has to do with which path does more to provide both equality of opportunity for lower income students and better teachers. I’ll address that here.
There is no reason that the state can’t provide extra funding for a particular program at Temple in order to lower the costs for that program. There are three good reasons to do that instead of starting a new college.
First, teachers get paid less than other college graduates and a subsidized education would encourage more students to become teachers. (If, as people have suggested, we can subsidize the education of public interest lawyers, we can do it for teachers.)
Second, expanding and subsidizing education at Temple would be a particularly good way of encouraging talented and well educated teachers. Given Temple’s good, and improving, reputation in the city and state, the quality of Temple’s student body is likely to be higher than the quality of students at a new school, especially if it is primarily teacher’s college.
And third, since Temple has such a good reputation—and the reputation of a school contributes a great deal to its later economic value—making it easier for students with fewer resources to go to Temple would do much more to provide opportunity to these students than creating a new, less prestigious and less valuable school for them to attend. Teacher’s colleges have, historically, been second class schools for lower class students. Why in the world would we want to replicate the model?
Expanding and improving teacher education at Temple and Penn State would really be a big step toward providing opportunities for lower income students and improving the quality of teachers.
And there actually is a precedent for what I’m calling for here. Did you know that Cornell is a state college? Actually, three few schools at Cornell are state subsidized. If I remember correctly, they are the College of Agriculture College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the College of Human Ecology, and the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Tuition in these undergraduate schools is, for New York State residents, substantially cheaper than tuition in the other undergraduate colleges. Students who, like myself, grew up in upstate New York looked at admission to these school at Cornell as a major prize. They were great schools, they had great students, and were relatively cheap.
Can’t we do that at Temple?
Nothing Is Impossible; Significantly Different Tuition Unlikely
If anybody asks me whether anything CAN be done or not, the answer is yes. As I have said before, I believe it is possible for there to be a Martian invasion. Anything is possible, but some things are far more feasible or likely than other things are.
The costs of education at any university are full of cross-subsidies. Science education is the most expensive, and science graduates earn the most money in their careers, and science majors pay the same tuition as everybody else does. Anyone who wants to spend many years of their lives working to create specially low tuitions for people who intend to enter salaried professions paying at or below the salaries of teachers (social workers and mental health workers earn far less than teachers do) is welcome to do so.
But my priority now is to make college education regardless of career choice attainable for the many more Philadelphians than can do so today at a time when we have a Philadelphian as Governor and a Philadelphian as Speaker of the House. That is why I am pushing for a state university for Philadelphia so that Philadelphians will have the same opportunities people in many other areas of the state have to commute to a low-tuition school and emerge from college without unmanageable debt. It will also create teaching jobs for many people with graduate degrees, who, when they are without a tenure-track position, are often in a position of being in low-compensation, dead-end positions.
There are endless other possible ways to spend whatever money a state university will cost. But when the state came up with a plan to spend $700 million for convention center expansion, not a peep of protest was raised on this site about other possible uses for that money. If individuals cannot in good conscience support having a state university in Philadelphia to benefit low-income Philadelphians, I would appreciate silence instead of outright opposition.
The Convention Center
That's just not true -- there was plenty of debate.
But in regards to what the state can/should do (and spend) in the city, the Convention Center is a very apt point of comparison.
--Tim
There Was a Peep of Protest
I was wrong. There was a peep of protest on the $700 million for the convention center.
Daniel UA wrote "The Convention Center and Economic Sense" which raised questions about the economic validity of the project but concluded "If the state wants to pay for it, more power to them."
Raideradam, JF Friz, and Dr. Stuff followed with strong endorsements of Convention Center expansion.
Ray Murphy was critical, sayiing that he was worried about the "walkability of center city" and the "division of the city" from Chinatown. He called for more transit funding, which the state delivered the following month.
D.E. II called for "solid evaluation...with significant public input" as a sign of his skepticism. Others, including Marc Stier, discussed pros and cons, but reached no conclusions on the merits of the project.
Creating a state university for Philadelphia is not among the priorities of powerful special interests. It is something that would enormously benefit low and moderate income Philadelphians.
There is no end of worthwhile things to spend money on. The only limits as to worthwhile projects is the amount of taxes people are willing to pay.
Iwould appreciate it if those advocating other uses of state money would do on the merits of the projects they envision, and not in opposition to this plan to create opportunies to attend a four year college for those that currently do not have it.
I don't understand the deabte
Dan says: Fattah should be a progresive leader; use Congressioanl power to find money to reduce poverty.
Short (Tim) says: I agree. here's a solid idea, let's start an affordable teacher's college to prepare teachers for Philadelphia's school system and its unique challenge.
few have added much else to Dan's original point, and the rest of the comments have been about small, semantic disagrement/constructive criticism of Tim's proposal. That's been great, but at this point, someone should pick up the ball, and work offline on Tim's proposal to make it more solid. Maybe Tim will do that, but you, Representative Cohen could as well rather than creating a sense of disagreement that does not exist.
We are all on the same page that affordable tuition is good. You seem to have conflated that though to a larger conversation about all tutition (including undergrad) when Tim was pointing to the very specific need for cost-effective teacher training programs.
And, Mark, for the record, the legislature you are a part of has helped defund Temple Pitt, PSU and Lincoln of public dollars and allowed the state appointed trustees you control though the Governor to affirm the plans of each of those institutions to try to become "public ivies" rather than schools for working people like they (at least temple and pitt) used to be.
So instead of criticizing people who want to see a teacher prep program housed at Temple, rather than starting a new schoo, do something about high costs at temple and/or write a bill and pass it to start a new state school here.
Online/offline
Really, the new college idea, and even Fattah's potential role in it, should be a breakout thread. I tried to write one yesterday afternoon but my browser ate it. Before you knew it, the discussion had taken on a life of its own.
I would absolutely welcome a post from Mark Cohen outlining his vision for a new state school in Philadelphia, what he thinks can be done, and what needs to be done, and we can take this discussion, including the teacher ed component there.
There are certainly lots of other big, progressive ideas that someone in Philly could champion on the national stage. Our antiwar politicians could be more outspoken. There is a lot more to be said about the causes of and ideas to solve or alleviate generational poverty. Philadelphia could become a new home for transgender activism. We have lots to discuss.
--Tim
Serving the working class: Temple and Alternatives
It is not a matter of conscience
It is a matter of trying to figure out what the best public policy is.
We have been arguing about both how best to prepare teachers and how best to provide opportunity to the working class. My recent point addressed both issues—thus my suggestion that tuition be reduced at Temple for an expanded education school. But Mark Cohen has been talking about a broader and actually more important issue, how best to provide to opportunity to the sons and daughters of the working class and poor in Philadelphia.
And really my question is, why can’t Temple provide to the current generation of working class kids what it did to my parent’s generation?
Ray points below that Temple, Pitt, PSU and Lincoln are not receiving the kind of state subsidy they once did. That is one reason tuitions have risen. He suggests that the boards of these institutions have decided to change their mission and turn them into “public ivies.” (In my experience, he is unfortunately right.) That is another reason tuitions have risen. And as I have argued on my own blog, Temple, in deliberately attempting to draw new students from the suburbs, has seen a declining absolute number (not just percentage) of students who are from the city and who are black. The construction of new residences in order to attain that goal is a third reason tuition has gone up.
Rising tuition at Temple is cutting the school off from its tradition mission.
If these trends continue, then we really do need a new university in Philadelphia to fulfill the mission that Temple once served.
The question for me, however, is whether the trend at Temple is really irreversible. Mark Cohen says yes. He may well be right although I’d like to know why. Why can’t we much more heavily subsidize tuition at Temple, at least for kids from lower income families?
And I have to say it would be a shame if we had to create a new institution because, as I pointed out above, creating a new school is not going to give working class kids the same education they could get at Temple. The new school will not have the same resources or the same cachet as Temple.
If the only way to create more opportunity for the kids of the working class and poor of Philadelphia is to find what will for a long time be a second class alternative to Temple, then let’s do it.
But I would still suggest we do it by expanding transforming CCP into a four year school. Starting a college from scratch these days is enormously difficult and expensive. Much of the CCP faculty is prefectly capable of teaching in a four year program.
I haven't been weighing in since some of this is sorta technical
but a couple quick things:
1. There is a weird feedback loop with the 'transforming Temple into a public-Ivy-style school.' Temple is a potentially great resource for poorer and minority city kids because it is a GOOD SCHOOL. It's respected. There are good teachers, good job opportunity and a decent chance to do post graduate work if you want. But the increase in reputation is linked up to greater selectivity in admission and a shifting balance towards suburban and out-of-area kids.
This stuff is obvious, but behind this is the fact that poorer and minority city kids have been failed by the schools before college admissions time. It is a hard delicate balance to keep pushing Temple towards being a top academic/professional school, and keeping its mission as a engine of social mobility and opportunity.
My job at Temple was specifically working with the class of students who were inner city kids, first in their family to go to college, who'd only been let in to Temple conditionally. There were a set of programs aimed at these kids, mostly state-funded (different programs for the different funding sources). Work is being done in this area. Yes, maybe it is not enough. Absolutely, aggressive direct subsidies towards this class of potential students would go far towards actually making college a financial possibility. Also, what UCLA has been doing funneling alumni donations directly into race- and income-based recruitment is promising or at least revealing of the issues (it's described in this Times Magazine article.
But I do think this has to be confronted aggressively and head-on, the way UCLA has tried to, because I think there's an inherent and unavoidable tension involved here.
2. I admit I don't understand why a new school would necessarily have less cachet. Lots of now-elite schools are relatively new in origin.
And I think that the current CCP-to-Temple feeder program helps CCP students way more than extending CCP to a four-year school would, unless there's evidence that Temple can't absorb enough of those students.
Somehow I don't think I really said anything in all that.
Just to pick up on a bit of a tangent
But the increase in reputation is linked up to greater selectivity in admission and a shifting balance towards suburban and out-of-area kids.
I once heard that when UPenn wanted to upgrade the ranking of its school of education, it upped the minimum requried standardized test score for admission.
I thought this (assuming its true) was incredibly telling. In a school of education - where you'd think they would know better - they didn't raise the ranking of the school by improving anything inherent about the experience of students, but by buying into the charade of how schools are ranked.
Obviously, the goal of making quality higher education available to a wider cross-section of our society is laudable -- and indeed fundamental to addressing the social problems of our City; but when people talk about the "ranking" or "reputation" of a school, there are all kinds of tacit assumptions being made which may not reflect the reality of students' experiences.
I'm not sure how that ties back into the main point of the thread - except to say that making some form of higher education more accessible to more students may be more efficacious in the long run than focusing on creating a prestigious or "elite" program, or focusing on getting more students into one school as opposed to another.
A case in point: UPenn's graduate school of Ed, from what I've heard (I don't really know first-hand, and would be interested in hearing more from people familiar with the program), is highly theoretical and "academic." If so, despite being an "elite" school, UPenn,- in contrast to some "lower-tier" schools in the area - might more focused on producing graduates that can write an esoteric dissertation that will sit unread on some shelf in a library than on graduating students can make solid contributions to improving our inner-city schools.
I did go on a 'field trip' into the 'ghetto' once
on a bus, with Elijah Anderson and a bunch of Penn ed grad students. Surreal. Anyways.
Yes, not to denigrate a lot of the other rationales for a new or expanded graduate education program here: I think what's needed and doesn't exist is a program designed to prepare people to teach in city schools. Period.
Prestige plays into all this in a sticky way, and this was discussed in some internet commentary on the first Times article on teacher retention I posted, I think: There's often this discourse that we need to make teaching more 'prestigious' so it can compete with other career options of people who, well, have career options.
Even though I think I'd have maybe been happier as a teacher than a lawyer, and never considered it partly because my teacher mother always strongly implied I was capable of 'more' (I guess, code for something more prestigious)...
...I think the Teach for America nonsense demonstrates that we don't need to add some gloss of prestige to the teaching profession to attract different ("smarter," "richer") potential teachers so much as we need to make sure education programs are attracting and training people who are specifically committed to and interested in figuring out how to serve urban school districts and students. Not as a stepping stone to policy or other work, and not as a temporary runner's up prize for people not competitive enough to land the job in Bucks County.
So much for a separate thread
Really, there should be at least three new threads here: starting a new college, what's happening at Temple, and the state of teacher education in general and preparation for urban education in particular.
My concept for all of this began with thinking about Philadelphia's economic future, particularly how to make Philadelphia and Philadelphia's schools better. The idea I came up with, thinking about Philadelphia's strengths in education and telecommunications, was a new college with a robust teacher's ed program that could work closely with the Philadelphia schools and be innovative using technology in the classroom. The catchphrase I used was "a 21st century teachers' college for the people left behind by the 20th-century economy," or something like that. So improving urban education is the cornerstone of what at least I've been envisioning.
--Tim
Furthermore
I don't think we necessarily need to make teaching more prestigious, but it wouldn't hurt if studying teacher education were anywhere close to as intensive or even as glamorous as studying at Annenberg or Wharton. It's close at Penn or Columbia's Teachers' College, and it's much better at midwestern publics like Wisconsin or Michigan State (whose SAT scores are much closer to Penn's). But here, not so much.
The mistake is to think that you can take, say, the Jennifers of the world and pour them into a classroom. What we need is for Jennifer's mom to be as proud that Jen got into Teachers' as she is that she got into Penn Law. We need to make teacher education itself better and more attractive. If that lets us poach middle-class kids who would go into other professions or study at other institutions across the state and the country, all the better.
--Tim
All good points
Speaking at least for myself, I would prefer an expansion of Temple or Penn State to the creation of a wholly distinct state institution from scratch. In addition to their prestige, both Temple and Penn State have advantages in terms of infrastructure, alumni, and other resources. Temple has an advantage in that it can pour faculty and students who are already in the city into a new program or campus. But lately Temple has been contracting its satellite campuses, not expanding them. In my dream of dreams, the new teachers' campus would be a joint project of Temple, Penn State, Penn, Drexel's School of Information Science, The Free Library, and others. Maybe partnerships like that can be worked out, either institutionally or ad hoc.
But I think there are some distinct advantages to creating a new college campus rather than expanding the programs at an existing campus, whether at Temple or Penn State Abington or elsewhere. First -- since the seeds of this idea came out of trying to sketch a framework for economic change in Philadelphia -- the benefits of a college campus compound themselves throughout a community. In North Philadelphia, Temple is already a juggernaut. In Fishtown or Germantown or South Philadelphia, a new, smaller campus can help bring resources to the neighborhood, while also using the existing resourced of the neighborhood to contribute to the school.
Second, it's often easier to create a new institution and to institutional culture than to transform an existing one. The idea here is to create a state-of-the-art, 21st-century teachers' college, with the goal of capitalizing on new research and new technologies and continued experiment, while at the same time primarily orienting itself towards the education of those left behind by the schools and economy of the 20th-century. We can't replicate the 19th and 20th-century model of the teachers' college. We need to reinvent it.
Finally, creating a new campus from scratch has the additional benefit of wide publicity. If you say Temple is expanding its School of Education, you get a short notice in the university and alumni papers. If you say that you're creating a new college campus with state-of-the-art resources and the goal of reinventing teacher education, then you get write-ups in national newspapers and magazines, television programs, etc. We need that kind of publicity if we're going to attract the best faculty and teaching candidates, statewide, regionally, nationally.
We definitely have to find some way to subsidize the program. Even if it's a moving-money-across-the-books tuition-minus-universal-grant solution. If there's a way to do it after the model of Cornell, great.
--Tim
We Cannot Lower Tuition With Branches of Temple or Penn State
The key to expanding college opportunities is meaningfully lowering tuition. By that I do mean converting regular annual increases of about 6% a year annual tuition increases of about 4.5% a year. Modest gains like this have no relevance to making four year college education affordable for people who cannot afford it today. Tim is right that start-up costs are not really a big issue, because so much money can be borrowed at low ocst over a long term by the state.
Temple and Penn State both charge over $10,000 a year tuition now. The variations from campus to campus are very small. A new teacher's college charging over $10,000 a year tuition has nothing to do with expanding opportunities for Philadelphians to attend college. If Temple or Penn State Abington are deficient in their curriculum for teacher education, we should look at whatever other opportunities exist, but I have no information that this deficiency in fact does exist. I believe Philadelphia's main problem in attracting teachers is that its working conditions are far more difficult and its salaries are far lower than is the case in the vast majority of suburban communities which cumulatively have the vast majority of teacher vacancies each year.
Only a state university branch or a four year community college (something that now exist in Pennsylvania but does exist elsewhere) has the potential to meaningfully expand college attendance opportunities in Philadelphia beyond the status quo.
I am not a big fan of fast food restaurants or Wal-Mart. But many people who cannot afford to eat out at better restaurants or shop at better stores go to these places.
Price is relevant to people who have little money and to people in general who watch carefully where their money goes. We need an institution for people who eat at fast food restaurants and shop at Wal-Mart.
ok so do it
i mean you don't have to convince us mark. this conversation is not, at this point, about what is the best policy in the abstract, but what could actually happen.
if you think you can open a state school here or expand CCP, then do it. present the plan and tell us what we have to do to support it. you are the elected official here after all.
You Will Be Hearing From Me Soon
You will be hearing from me soon about next steps that can be taken in bringing a state university to Philadelphia. It is something that can actually, given demonstrable public support.
Or,
We need our leadership to act like "leaders" and fund the institutions it presently has with new revenue streams. Hey, just a thought.
I would suggest, looking into both. As if one is impossible and the other not, this conversation should not end.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Why so down on Bob Casey Jr?
The man has only been in office for less than a year for chrissakes. Give him a chance. I find him to be one of the most honest and genuine people I know. Perhaps he is not the most dynamic rep in the Pennsylvania delegation, he really is just starting to get his feet wet.
He may surprise you. Give him a chance.
Temple is the only Commonwealth System University in Town . . .
And, is presently trying to raise $350,000,000.00 to raise its endowment. Presently, according to the University, only 18% of Temple's monetary needs are met from the Commonwealth of PA. That means higher tuition and more fundraising. Same with Pitt and Penn State.
Why not increase money to colleges already in existence, like Temple, rather than creating new schools to fund?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
I think it's atrocious that
I think it's atrocious that Penn State, Pitt, and Temple aren't sufficiently funded. It's also atrocious that other states with great systems, including California, Michigan, and others, are starting to defund their universities.
But if I were to list my priorities, affordable education for teachers would trump a global decrease. Teacher education should cost less than other degree programs, just as community college should cost less than a four-year program.
If West Chester University, a state-funded school, can come in at $2500/semester, a Teachers' College can do the same.
--Tim
Will Fattah do it? Back to Dan's point
This is such a chicken and egg conversation to me. I don't have my Wellstone history down as well as I do some others, but parallels between Fattah and Wellstone, especially in the 70's, seem appropriate. However, Minnesota, as a state and maybe a culture (I am way out on a limb here) seem different to me than PA.
For instance, wasn't fusion voting (the Democratic Farm Labor party right?) a part of Wellstone's success? We don't have a way to organize diverse progressive power here electorally? I guess that doesn't really matter since Dan is talking about Fattah meeting the same kind of challenge, and he is already in office.
How much, Dan, are you focused on Fattah and what exactly would you like to see him do differently? And how much are you focused on creating future Wellstones?
More later, but, there was
More later, but, there was no fusion voting. The DFL is the Democratic party of Minnesota, retaining its name from when parties merged, etc.
my obsession got the best of me
jeez i love fusion voting. ok, expand later.
Two Issues:First, what my
Two Issues:
First, what my general point is, what I loved about Wellstone was not that he was just right on the issues, as Fattah generally is, but that he was an out and out, unabashed progressive spokesperson and organizer, who in a very tough environment endlessly talked about poverty, was against the war, etc. I want more leaders like that.
Fattah is a member of the Out of Iraq caucus, right? The only reason I know that is because you wrote it here, in a response to some snide comment, during the Mayoral election. Again, correct position, but, who knew it? I want people who are going to not just be representatives- but forceful advocates- for big change. In a campaign video last year, I saw Fattah standing on the House floor; standing up to the Gingrich maniacs, and it struck a chord with me. A lot of people, like the President, were about to go for a ride. Fattah, not so much.
Basically, to me, if we are going to change the focus in the Country, we need our elected leaders to start loudly talking about the reality of the poor, and about transformational change. I detailed above why, in Philly at least, I think Fattah is our guy. I think we need lots of them, all over. I think it is time to see him front and center.
As an aside- Fattah will have a much, much, much easier time doing that than Wellstone. Minnesota, as a whole, is significantly less progressive than Fattah's congressional district. While Fattah has a safe seat, Wellstone never, ever did, winning with 50 percent of the vote both times he won.
Back to this specific idea, of some kind of teacher's college as a legacy- that would be a great thing, and, we can talk that up, and I am interested in hearing how that develops. But that should be a great byproduct of a Congressman who now has power, who is progressive, who can be a pretty dynamic guy, and who is ready to step up to the plate.
Who fills this role nationwide?
There are a lot of Senators I admire, like Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and (for different reasons) Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Biden. And there are national figures, like Al Gore and Howard Dean. But who else (besides) Fattah has the potential to be the next Paul Wellstone?
--Tim
Dennis Kucinich
I'm an Ohio girl, what can I say?
some thoughts
Tim:
While generally, I know where you are going, I do think it is worth noting that if I recollect correctly, two times as many individuals graduate with degrees in education in the state as there are places for them each year. The competition is quite stiff to get into good school districts all over the state. Even getting a job in the Philly school district isn't a slam dunk anymore. I'm not sure that we need so many more teachers as we need more individuals who can teach math, science and computers.
Further, I'd note that we have at least one school in the region that is seriously under performing--and that's Lincoln. In fact, I think it may have been primarily a teachers' school at once point. Today, however, fewer than 20% of freshman graduate in four years. Certainly, I would imagine many Lincoln students come from disadvantageous backgrounds like --um the Philly public school system that don't prepare them for college--but that's a side point.
Even small schools such as Cabrini, Chestnut Hill and Holy Family are filling their dorms with the current crop of college students. My point, however, is that I don't necessary see a new Teachers' College doing more than giving folks who will probably do so another option to study in the city. If you have any thoughts, please respond.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Wellll this is why I was really hoping Chelsea could weigh in
I think this is a bit off of what Tim was originally emphasizing, but what I could imagine being different is creating a school that would specifically focus on placing really well-trained teachers in urban (and poor) districts, and working hand in hand with the state, the federal government, and the districts themselves to create some joint solution to the staffing problems.
Because there are a couple things going on, I think: Lots of education graduates in general, strong preference for the higher salaries and relatively easier jobs in the suburbs, a small flood of 'elite' graduates spending a couple years thrown into teaching in urban/poor districts (with or without certification at time of hiring), and poor retention of new teachers in general.
Obviously this is a summation of some of the biggest problems, but an exhibition/experimental teachers' college that would specifically and explicitly aim to remedy them would be an incredible thing to see. Anyway, I don't really know what I am talking about (still paging Chelsea), but something like experiments coming out of the Penn Alexander school, writ large.
PS since I already embarassed her in like three ways today
I kind of feel obligated to mention that she is actually, like, TEACHING and thus is not on top of my every Dan UA-style 'write for YPP right now!' demand.
Teachers, please!
I would really like to hear what some practicing teachers think about this idea. I studied math education as an undergrad (go Spartans!), interned in public schools, and teach college now, but I've not a part of the profession.
In particular, one of the things I wonder about is what Philadelphia-area teachers do now for their continuing education, certification renewal, post-BA programs, and other professional development. Do most people go to Temple? That can't be cheap.
--Tim
Cheyney, Gratz College, Aracadia University, and others
Cheyney University is the leading provider of principal certification and advanced degree programs. A state univeristy located in Delaware County, it hires school administrators to teach courses in the public schools at night for which teachers get graduate credits that can be applied to masters' degrees and principal certifications.
Gratz College, a Jewish institution, provides many, many continuing education credits on a low cost basis through Bob Randall Associates.
Aracadia University provides many education credits and degrees in its suburban location in Eastern Montgomery County.
And then of course there is Temple, Holy Family University, Penn State, LaSalle, St. Josephs, and Villanova, which all provide graduate credits and probably all provide some continuing education as well.
The University of Pennsylvania is in a class by itself, both in cost and perceived quality of programs. All degrees lead to higher salaries (up to masters plus 60 credits) in the Philadelphia school district, but a degree from Penn or another high prestige University is a good ticket to promotions because of the perceived excellence of the programs.
County.
Lincoln and other area schools
Lincoln is a historically black college, about an hour away in Chester County, that has a small graduate and continuing education program in University City. It may be a good college option for some Philadelphians, and it may be a good option for some teachers. But a new four-year school in city limits, especially if it's specialized for teachers, would meet very different needs.
You say that you "don't necessarily see a new Teachers' College doing more than giving folks who will probably do so another option to study in the city." I don't think there's necessarily a problem with that, especially if it helps guide more people who might otherwise study at Chestnut Hill college or LaSalle or St. Joe's to working with our public schools and ultimately wind up in the teaching profession. And, I definitely don't see a problem with finding a solution for the people, both here and statewide, who want to go to college in Philadelphia, but can't, because even Temple is too expensive.
As Friedman points out below, there is clearly a lot of demand to go to college in Philadelphia, and a lot of demand statewide for enrollment in one of the less expensive state schools. To me, this suggests that the overlap in the Venn diagram, the unmet demand for an inexpensive state school in the city of Philadelphia, is likely to be very strong indeed.
--Tim
State Schools
Just a factoid related to this conversation:
"According to the Philadelphia Metro, Pennsylvania's state universities reported record enrollment for a sixth straight year. A total of 110,428 students are attending state universities this fall. One factor driving enrollment growth? Cost. Students at public universities paid an average of $12,796 last year, while students at private schools spent $30,367. The 14 state universities are Kutztown, Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock and West Chester."
The Above Figures Include Room and Board
The above figures include room and board.
For a state university, the average tuition cost is about $6500 a year; for a state related university, it is about $10,500 a year; a private university it is about $22,000 a year.
The cheapest available option for a Philadelphian is now to commute to Temple, a state related university, and pay about $10,500 a year. With a state university, the cheapest option would be to commute there, and pay about $6,500 a year. There are many thousands of Philadelphians for whom this makes the difference between going to college and not going to college, or staying in Philadelphia compared with moving to an area with cheaper colleges.
Does anyone have any links to colleges elsewhere that either
are entirely focused on urban education or have programs that focus on urban education? I know that for instance, The College of New Jersey was historically a teaching college and had a great rep for turning out excellent teachers. All teachers are required to spend a semester in urban school districts (although I'm sure that's true with most anywhere close to a city). The best student teachers, however, normally get jobs in good districts.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Wellstone's success
Wellstone's success was based on his straight talk. He could find common ground, and had great support from, Veterans groups, hunters , union members and environmentalists. He never talked down to people. the most telling story is he came back to his office in the middle of the night to thank the cleaning staff in the Capitol. This was the first time most of them ever met a Senator.
Wellstone Fought On Contested Ground; Philly Challenge Different
Wellstone fought for progressive values in a state with a strong progressive heritage led by people like Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and Walter Mondale in the Senate and Orville Freeman and Rudy Perpich in the Governor's office. He stood up against the cynicism engendered by a well-financed Republican minority which had taken over state government and the Minnesota Senate seats.
Wellstone worked hard and successfully to rebuild and update the progressive coalition that had governed Minnesota for a long time. He felt that if he could just reach out to enough people, he could unite them behind traditional Minnesota progressive values.
Philadelphia has a clear progressive voting majority. It is hard to imagine a Republican as Mayor at any time in the forseeable future. The Republicans are hard-pressed to hold onto their existing and likely shrinking four state house seats and one district City Council seat; it is hard to see how any existing Democratic seat will become a Republican seat at any time in the forseeable future either.
Our challenge is to do worthwhile things with that majority. Individual candidates have the task of selling themselves to voters, but voters already agree that government ought to act in significant ways to better the lives of the people. The test for progressives to make the clear voter support of progressive ideals meaningful in terms of enactment and implementation of worthwhile public policy.
The Other "Conscience of a Liberal"
There's a good conversation between Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein at the American Prospect site. Not only do they talk about Wellstone, but a lot of their discussion connects with what we've been talking about here for the past week or so.
--Tim