Read on Twitter
I have neither the knowledge nor education to be a higher ed "wonk" so when I talk about "free college" I'm coming from a place of values, in that I believe this is a necessary condition for a thriving populace, so we should seek to achieve it. I also "know" it's possible.
We also need wonks who look at the nitty gritty and figure out the mechanism that achieves this goal. Kevin Carey offers an approach to making community college free. I found it interesting, but dissatisfying because it reifies existing inequalities. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/a-different-approach-to-free-community-college/
Enter @deandad who has the knowledge and background to get into the wonk-ish territory, but tends not to lead with his inner wonk, and instead starts from a base of values, in this case equity of resources for 2-yr v. 4-yr students. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/setting-free
All of the logistics and policy must flow from this value, that students deserve equal access to resources and that we should greatly increase the resources flowing to the schools that most students attend (primarily public non-selective institutions).
I appreciate Carey's piece and take it in good faith, but I also think it points out a limit to policy driven by wonk analysis, rather than values. We could figure out an efficient mechanism for free tuition at community colleges that doesn't address the underlying problem.
Not being a wonk, I always start from a base of values. I essentially try to envision the system that achieves the things I think are important and just and then describe that system. It's my approach in Sustainable. Resilient. Free. https://beltpublishing.com/collections/pre-order/products/sustainable-resilient-free-the-future-of-public-higher-education
I want to convince people that what I advocate for in the book is both desirable and possible, but I do not get into the weeds of the mechanics for funding beyond advocating for redirecting public subsidies from wealthy highly-rejectionist schools to accessible publics.
I have to acknowledge the shortcoming of my own approach. I do not work out the details beyond trying to prove it's possible and desirable. We must at some point, get wonky about it. But I also believe we can't start with the wonky part.
1st question is: What values are we trying to enact? In other words, what are we trying to do and why are we doing it? That has to guide policy, otherwise, we'll lose our way. Education is littered with examples of wonky hacks that lose sight of what we're trying to achieve.
It seems as though education wonks rarely engage with my work, possibly because I'm not as prominent as I imagine, but maybe because I don't give much for a wonk to latch onto and engage with.
At the same time, I find my eyes glazing over at higher ed writing that is fully wonk-ified, particularly work that explains why something desirable isn't possible. Inside I'm just saying, "figure it out!" If the conditions don't allow it, change the conditions!
Let this thread stand as my qualified appreciation of wonks, coupled with my frustration of the lens they bring to these big big problems, and a plea to put other voices into the conversation.
