Jeb Bush: How postsecondary opportunities for students are changing for the better
The question of value is front and center for policymakers across the country and in Washington.
For too long, postsecondary education programs have been focused on too many aspects not related to student success. We've encouraged enrollment without as much concern for whether students are completing or getting the most value out of the program. That's no longer good enough. Students deserve programs that lead to meaningful, high-wage employment, and taxpayers deserve accountability for the billions they invest each year.
Governors and policymakers must prioritize rethinking postsecondary resources to answer an important question: Is our system creating real value for students?
Fortunately, a growing number of states are embracing student-centered reforms that align educational opportunities with economic mobility. Their efforts are pointing the way toward a smarter, more transparent model of postsecondary education that prioritizes outcomes over inputs.
For example, Arkansas conducted a comprehensive return-on-investment analysis of every associate and bachelor's degree program in the state, assessing whether they help students earn more than they would with only a high school diploma. It's a simple benchmark that will be at the heart of every state's postsecondary strategy under the recently passed federal budget reconciliation bill, which will require states to measure graduates' median income four years after program completion and may result in decreased federal funding if earnings fall below a certain level. Now is the perfect time for states to innovate and customize even further using state funds to incentivize change.
Florida has taken that one step further with its 'money-back guarantee' for workforce education programs. If a graduate can't get a job within six months, the college refunds their tuition. That approach gives students peace of mind and creates a powerful incentive for institutions to focus on offering programs that have value and are continually updated to reflect an alignment with the skills and expectations of employers. For example, technology moves at a much faster pace than schools, so this requirement gives an incentive for schools to keep a pulse on what's shifted from 'new' to 'required to be successful' in a field.
A promising development is happening in Texas, where a new funding formula for community colleges links all state funding to a student's completion of a degree or certificate, with significantly higher bonuses for success in high-demand fields and with higher-need students. This ensures taxpayer investment is aligned with whether students finish and find meaningful employment instead of just the number of students enrolled in the program.
Some states are leveraging other strategies to support completion. Tennessee's 'Tennessee Promise' provides last-dollar scholarships and intensive mentoring to help more students complete associate degrees or technical certificates without debt. Colorado recently issued a bold executive order to reimagine the future of the postsecondary talent development. It codifies years of stakeholder engagement and data analysis to translate recommendations into actions. Utah has developed stackable credential programs that allow learners to build toward a degree over time while working, helping them earn and learn without starting over.
As states seek to create more opportunities for students to capitalize on education, it's important to make sure these programs are accomplishing what they set out to perform. Right now, many states don't know if they have underenrolled or lower-performing programs. Analyzing the existing landscape is the first step in preventing those programs from becoming the norm.
In Indiana, colleges and universities, following legislative action earlier in the year, recently announced they will merge or sunset more than 400 underenrolled programs they say offer limited payoff in the labor market. This kind of data-informed decision-making sends the message that public colleges should focus their resources on offerings that give students a real shot at success after graduation.
Editorial: Indiana University, Ball State and Purdue are gutted without logic or thoughtAt the heart of all these reforms is a shared understanding that postsecondary education should be a launchpad, not a dead end. Degrees and credentials should equip students with the tools they need to thrive in a dynamic economy. That means making tough choices about which programs to support, giving students the information they need to choose wisely while rewarding institutions where students achieve actual post-graduation success in employment, enlistment or enrollment.
Affordability remains a top concern as families plan for the future. But reducing costs without increasing value is a hollow victory. States must make education more affordable and ensure that students are enrolled in programs that prepare them for tomorrow's job market.
Policymakers in Washington are focusing on these issues, but state lawmakers can also take action. They have the tools, and many are already leading the way. By focusing on affordability, transparency and measurable outcomes, state leaders can reshape higher education into a system that works better for students, families and taxpayers alike.
The way we've historically approached higher education isn't getting enough Americans where they need to be, so let's build state postsecondary systems that deliver real value and help every student access an education that pays off.
Jeb Bush was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. He is the founder and chair of ExcelinEd.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas Democrats flee state amid heated redistricting battle. Has this happened before?
WASHINGTON - A president jumping out of a window, a senator carried feet-first from their office, and state legislators moving into an out-of-state hotel: For as long as Americans have been legislating, they've been fleeing from legislatures to prevent votes from happening. Texas House Democrats fled the Lone Star State on Aug. 3 in an attempt to block a redistricting that would give Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives up to five more seats in the 2026 midterms. The Democrats dispersed to friendly blue states: Many traveled to the Chicago area in Illinois, greeted by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, while other groups landed in Boston, Massachusetts and Albany, New York. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to expel any Democrat who was not back in Austin by the time the legislature reconvened Aug. 4 at 3 p.m. CT. Republicans need what is called a quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers needed to be present on the floor to carry out business. But the tactic of fleeing to deny quorum is one that's been used by both parties since the 1800s. Some lawmakers have hid out in their offices, while others have fled their state to avoid being compelled to show up to vote, as is the case with Texas Democrats. These are some of the most prominent examples from history. 1840: Abraham Lincoln jumps out of a first-floor window Before Abraham Lincoln served as president, he was a member of the Illinois state legislature from 1834 to 1842. He once jumped out of a first-floor window to try to prevent a quorum on a vote to shut down a state-run bank in 1840, according to The New York Times. Lincoln, a member of the Whig Party at the time, was an advocate of the state-run bank while his Democratic colleagues were not, the Times reported. Samuel Wheeler, who is the llinois state historian, told the Times that Lincoln had already been marked present for the quorum, making his effort pointless. 'It's not an episode that he's very proud of later,' Wheeler said. 1988: Bob Packwood carried into the chamber Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood, a Republican, tried to avoid a quorum call in February 1988 amid opposition to a Democratic-driven campaign finance reform bill, according to the U.S. Senate. He hid in his office until Capitol police later found him. The New York Times reported that Packwood had placed a chair against one door to prevent the officers from forcing it open. 'It was their mass against my mass,' he said at the time. The officers entered Packwood's office through another door, and they 'transported him feet-first into the Chamber,' the U.S. Senate website says. 2003: Texas Democrats protest redistricting effort Texas Democrats fled the state in 2003 to break quorum over Republican redistricting efforts. House Democrats went to Oklahoma until the regular session of the legislature ended, the Texas Tribune reported. Eleven Democratic state senators went to New Mexico after former Gov. Rick Perry called a special session, according to the Tribune. Then Democratic Sen. John Whitmire returned to Texas, officially allowing Republicans to advance with their redistricting plans after reaching a quorum. 2011: Wisconsin Democrats challenge anti-union bill Wisconsin Democrats fled their state in February 2011 in an attempt to block a budget-repair bill that would curtail collective bargaining rights from public employee unions, though the bill still ended up passing, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The lawmakers went to Illinois, but stayed at different places due to security concerns. When they returned in March, nearly 70,000 trade union and Democratic supporters greeted them at Capitol Square, according to The Guardian. 2011: Indiana Democrats flee to Comfort Suites in Illinois Indiana Democrats fled their state 14 years ago to halt legislative business and challenge the passage of a controversial anti-union legislation, The Daily Illini reported. They headed to the Comfort Suites hotel in Urbana, Illinois, on Feb. 22 that year and didn't return to their home state until March 28, the paper reported. Their bill total came out to be over $84,000 dollars. 'It was a very difficult decision - very difficult - and it got more difficult every day,' State Representative Ed DeLaney, who fled with his colleagues, told The New York Times in an interview. 'You only have so much ammunition, and this is a way to spend an awful lot of your ammunition on one point, and draw a lot of criticism in the process.' Contributing: Savannah Kuchar, USA TODAY
Global News
16 minutes ago
- Global News
Rwanda reaches deal with U.S. to take upto 250 migrants, Reuters reports
The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to potentially accept hundreds of migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration. The agreement, under which Rwanda would accept up to 250 migrants, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Story continues below advertisement The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. 2:36 Venezuela releases 10 jailed Americans in prisoner swap with El Salvador Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect some of the most fundamental human rights. In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States. The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public. Story continues below advertisement Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. The Trump administration has pressed countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Rwanda signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges.
Winnipeg Free Press
16 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: 'You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
