Policy based on Correlation: Institutionalizing Inequity

The higher-ed world (in the United States) is all aglow with “pathways”, both in the sense of program pathways with limited options and in the sense of mathematics courses. Both trends are heavily based on the use (and mis-use) of statistics, and both will tend to reinforce social inequities. Let’s explore “what’s wrong” with the policies hard-coded in financial aid guidelines about ‘courses not on the Program’ and the local & regional policies of “college math course in the first year”.

[Pell Institute data]

First, we must recognize the increasing levels of inequity in the United States. Those with wealth or higher incomes are likely to complete college degrees, so the upper class children tend to have wealth & income equal to their parents (or higher). Those with less wealth and less income are less likely to complete, and are much more likely to do so with significant student loan burdens.

As a result of this and similar statistics, federal financial aid is demanding that students only take courses on their program … based on the logical presumption that this will tend to result in more degree completions (compared to students taking courses not counting for a degree). All students are subject to this policy, which is an application of ‘equality’. Take a look at this image:

Whenever we apply equality to a situation with inequity, we tend to increase that inequity. Consider three prototypical students that we have in our institutions:

Eberle comes from a high-performing K-12 system, and a family with significant resources. He’s known what his college degree was going to be for ten years.
Tykese comes from a low-performing K-12 system in the city, and a family with economic insecurity. He did not even consider attending a college until earlier this year.
Kylen comes from a typical rural K-12 system with limited resources, and a family with economic challenges. He has been planning on attending college for three years, but is unsure whether to do “STEM” or business.

In the image above, Eberle is on the tall pile of boxes; he’s got a built-in advantage, and he will succeed (often in spite of his professors). The requirement to only take courses on the program will seem like a no-brainer to Eberle. Of course … what else would I do?

Tykese is the guy who can’t even see over the fence (‘reality’). His attending college is fragile, and he lacks a solid goal when he starts. He needs the equity image, where he is given the support to explore some options prior to being locked in to a program. What he gets is a demand to select a program and only take courses listed on it; in the equity image, he still does not have a fair chance. Tykese is likely to drop out, with student loan debt.

Kylen could be the guy in the middle of the images; he could also be the guy on the right. The rural settings can produce over-achieving students (left guy) or folks resembling the inequity guy (right). However, the demand to claim a program and stick to it results in additional academic pressure.

In a recent post, I wrote about ‘white privilege’ Gift as Responsibility: White Privilege. Some readers might have thought that I was advocating equality in a math classroom. I, personally, do not seek to treat students all the same … I strive for equity, understanding that this goal is not totally possible. An approach which says “I give all students the same” reflects an acceptance of the status quo; if there was not social inequity in our country and our region, this ‘same’ approach would make sense. In an era of increasing inequity, equality is mismatched to our educational mission.

[Cartoon related to school funding in Pennsylvania … though the pattern is not limited to one state or region.]

The ‘courses must be in the program’ rule is based on a goal to get more students to complete, and is a policy of ‘equality’. In reality, therefore, the financial aid rules are tending to reinforced the existing inequity. For community colleges in particular, this approach hurts the very students most in need of our institutions.

So, on to math pathways. Coupled with the financial aid rules, there is a strong push to get students to complete their credit math course in the first year. I’ve written on some of the issues Why Do Students Have to Take Math in College? Today, I am thinking more of the interaction between the “first year” policy combined with the ‘program courses only’ rule.

So, let’s go back to Tykese. He comes to college orientation, and meets with an advisor to figure out what he should do. The advisor notices the overall lack of clear goal, and suggests that Tykese consider programs with an ‘easier’ math requirement. There is a ‘tracking’ element happening here, where students with weak academic backgrounds are directed towards lower level programs; this would be fine if the credential for these programs led to long-term employment at a decent salary.

In most cases, however, the programs with lower level math requirements tend to be associated with weak employment prospects. The exceptions — primarily in health careers — have significant demands for science courses and high academic performance. Tykese is also at a disadvantage in science.

To make this a reasonable 2019 story, Tykese would be placed directly into a quantitative reasoning course with a required ‘corequisite’ course. Most of the other students in this ‘blue bird’ corequisite class are students of inequity like Tykese; segregation is alive and well. Few students like Tykese get to STEM oriented math courses, because their algebra background is poor and we don’t provide equity in their mathematics.

The motivation for the ‘first year’ rule about math is pretty much limited to correlational data: students who passed a math course in the first year are more likely to complete their degree. In other words, students like Eberle complete degrees and complete college math in the first year; requiring students to take college math in the first year will not magically create students who will complete their program. Students in the lower SES levels will still face the challenges making it difficult to complete; all we’ve achieved is to push the weaker students to take ‘easier’ math courses.

The ‘math in the first year’ functions as a rationale to track students based on where they happened to go to school.

I hope that you see equity as your calling, as I do. All of our students deserve access to economic security as well as a broad education. Rules like “courses must be on the program” and policies like “credit math course in the first year” reinforce existing inequity.

[By the way, all three ‘students’ listed are based on recent students in my classes; all three were ‘black’, though I’ve adjusted the biographical sketch for each of them.]

Developmental Mathematics Revival!

Bringing a new vitality to college mathematics 2011 to 2019