With an increased focus on the barriers that keep many students from enrolling in or graduating from college, the second White House Summit on College Opportunity invited a broader range of college leaders, precollege educators, and organizations to the table.
After the first such event, in January, the White House faced criticism from educators—particularly at community colleges and minority-serving institutions—who argued that the invitation-only summit had done little to address issues of college access for nontraditional, first-generation, and low-income students.
Thursday’s event was, in some ways, a response to those concerns. Did the White House succeed in making its second summit more diverse and distinct? The Chronicle asked three attendees what worked and what could be improved next time around.
What Worked
A broader range of institutions. One of the biggest criticisms of January’s gathering was the relatively elite group of institutions invited to the summit. “I think they really tried this time to be more inclusive, and it will be even bigger next year,” said Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, which serves a large number of women of color and low-income students in Washington.
Ms. McGuire, who was among the critics of the guest list for the January event, said she appreciated the chance to converse with leaders of a wider range of institutions—both those that already serve a more-diverse group of students and those working toward that goal.
“It’s very clear that our national leaders have personal passion on these issues, it is good to see them up close and personal, and see the fire in their eyes about this,” she said.
“I felt like there was a pretty good cross section of institutions,” said Greg Johnson, chief executive of Bottom Line, a Boston-based foundation that works to improve college access for low-income students. “They got pretty much every sector.”
Clearer commitments from colleges. At the first summit, there was confusion over the commitments to increasing access that the White House asked institutions to make. “When people were sending in commitments in January, I’m not really sure if they knew what they were committing to and how they would get it done,” said Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of the State University of New York system.
This summit’s call for pledges to improve access was better defined and more productive, she said. “Let’s talk about what can you do, how do you know what you’re going to do will work, and, more importantly, how are you going to scale good ideas?”
Mr. Johnson said he was glad to see many institutions making strong, focused pledges at this summit. But he still hoped to hear more about how they would actually meet those goals.
Sharper panels. A pair of panel discussions were generally helpful, attendees said, in providing case studies for how institutions can focus and refine their commitments.
A session on innovations provided “inside information” from online nonprofit groups and businesses, Ms. Zimpher said. And a panel on strengthening ties with precollege educators, in which she participated, was more direct, with input from local superintendents in Long Beach, Calif., and Dayton, Ohio.
At one point, Ms. Zimpher suggested a plan to make sure high-school students prepare financially for college: Tell them they can’t go to the prom if they haven’t filled out their federal student-aid application.
Mr. Johnson praised the innovation panel as particularly useful. “I keep coming back to the word ‘disruptive’—maybe I originally heard it at a TED conference or something,” he said. A disruptive innovation like introducing dedicated college counselors at local high schools, for instance, would help prepare students for the college-application process, he said, rather than a vague commitment to improve college access.
What Needs Improvement
Not enough talk about cost. A comment by Michelle Obama, Ms. McGuire said, was hotly debated by attendees. “We need to do as much as we can with the resources we have,” Ms. Obama said.
But Ms. McGuire said institutions like Trinity, which serve a broad range of students with limited financial resources, needed a clearer picture of what financial support the Obama administration and the Education Department could provide.
“Many of us that are not elite institutions are stretching our resources and are being asked to do more and more and more without raising prices,” she said. Investing in new laboratories and technology, she added, is a particular hardship.
“Everybody understands the budget situation,” she said, “but it’s unrealistic to ask about doing more without talking about cost.”
Rhetoric or commitment? Is the summit a once-a-year event or part of a sustained commitment to helping a broader group of students? That concern remains.
“I guess sometimes I’m frustrated with the slow pace” of change, Mr. Johnson said. “I think everybody is.”
Ms. Zimpher suggested a way of keeping attendees’ eyes on the ball: building more case studies into the next summit. “There could be an emphasis on how to use data to improve,” she said. “It’s one thing to collect data; it’s another to use it to improve.”
Ms. McGuire said she had hoped for more discussion between institutions and the various nonprofit and business-world officials than the brief breakout sessions offered.
“There’s so much knowledge that you don’t want to miss the opportunity to soak up all the wisdom in the room,” she said, suggesting that the summits could expand to include regional conferences with college administrators who are closer to the ground than are presidents and nonprofit leaders.
“I don’t think there’s a lack of partnership, but we left feeling hungry,” she said. “Maybe that’s a good thing.”
