Education

Blog: Confessions of a Community College DeanInvestigative reporting is great, when it makes the story fit the facts. It’s a lot less great when it simply ignores facts and tells a story that has nothing to do with them. The New England Center for Investigative Reporting fell into the second category with its story this week, in which it loudly proclaimed that “Massachusetts universities and colleges that say they’re trying to hold down costs have increased their number of administrators three times faster than their number of students.” The story goes on at some length to suggest that the primary driver of cost increases for students is administrative bloat, which combines a proliferation of positions with high salaries. To make the case, it includes a chart showing changes in the number of administrators at colleges throughout Massachusetts from 1987 to 2012, coupled with changes in enrollment over the same period. It’s sprinkled with quotes from Benjamin Ginsberg, the Goldwater Institute, and Bain Capital. (Bain’s is particularly choice: "'In no other industry would overhead costs be allowed to grow at this rate — executives would lose their jobs,' analysts at the Boston-based financial management firm Bain & Company wrote, in a July white paper, of administrative spending in higher education.”) It’s a familiar narrative -- even a bit shopworn -- and people who know the catechism can recite it. The story includes the familiar shots at government employees, such as one would expect from Bain Capital and the Goldwater Institute, In a halfhearted attempt at “balance,” it includes a few quotes from college officials gamely trying to explain that, say, campus IT demands in 1987 simply were not of the order of magnitude that they are now, or that you can’t build dorms and not hire people to run them. But then, there’s the chart. The chart is where the entire argument falls to pieces. It’s worth checking. If the argument of the article -- sorry, the “investigation” -- held water, then we would expect rates of tuition increase to run roughly parallel to rates of administrative increase. If administrative bloat is what drives costs, then surely colleges with more bloat would have greater increases, and colleges with less bloat would have less. Hell, the several colleges with administrative shrinkage should have gotten cheaper. Nope. Not even close. That’s probably why the chart doesn’t include costs from 1987 to 2012. Just for fun, let’s start with my own institution, Holyoke Community College. Using the chart’s numbers, from 1987 to 2012, “total administrators” (full and part time) increased by 14 percent. Over that same period, enrollment increased by 49 percent. Which means that the number of students per administrator actually increased. Using the raw numbers on the chart, in 1987 HCC had one administrator for every 73 students. By 2012, HCC had one administrator for every 96 students. How that constitutes “bloat” is beyond me. If the “bloat drives costs” argument were true, then, HCC should be cheaper for students in real terms in 2012 than it was in 1987. Um, no. Maybe community colleges are a special case, and I should look at private colleges instead. (That doesn’t help the “government employee” narrative, but whatever.) Take Smith College, a well-respected private women’s college just up route 91 in Northampton. Surely an elite college such as that has lined the pockets of its management! Again, no. According to the chart, its administrative ranks have decreased by 37 percent, even as its enrollment grew by 9 percent. Surely, it must be cheaper now! Nope. Well, maybe it’s a Boston thing. (We in Western Mass sometimes get overshadowed.) Let’s look at No

Investigative reporting is great, when it makes the story fit the facts. It’s a lot less great when it simply ignores facts and tells a story that has nothing to do with them.The New England Center for Investigative Reporting fell into the second category with its story this week, in which it loudly proclaimed that “Massachusetts universities and colleges that say they’re trying to hold down costs have increased their number of administrators three times faster than their number of students.” The story goes on at some length to suggest that the primary driver of cost increases for students is administrative bloat, which combines a proliferation of positions with high salaries. To make the case, it includes a chart showing changes in the number of administrators at colleges throughout Massachusetts from 1987 to 2012, coupled with changes in enrollment over the same period. It’s sprinkled with quotes from Benjamin Ginsberg, the Goldwater Institute, and Bain Capital. (Bain’s is particularly choice: ““In no other industry would overhead costs be allowed to grow at this rate—executives would lose their jobs,” analysts at the Boston-based financial management firm Bain & Company wrote, in a July white paper, of administrative spending in higher education.”)It’s a familiar narrative -- even a bit shopworn -- and people who know the catechism can recite it. The story includes the familiar shots at government employees, such as one would expect from Bain Capital and the Goldwater Institute, In a halfhearted attempt at “balance,” it includes a few quotes from college officials gamely trying to explain that, say, campus IT demands in 1987 simply were not of the order of magnitude that they are now, or that you can’t build dorms and not hire people to run them. But then, there’s the chart. The chart is where the entire argument falls to pieces. It’s worth checking.If the argument of the article -- sorry, the “investigation” -- held water, then we would expect rates of tuition increase to run roughly parallel to rates of administrative increase. If administrative bloat is what drives costs, then surely colleges with more bloat would have greater increases, and colleges with less bloat would have less. Hell, the several colleges with administrative shrinkage should have gotten cheaper.Nope. Not even close. That’s probably why the chart doesn’t include costs from 1987 to 2012. Just for fun, let’s start with my own institution, Holyoke Community College. Using the chart’s numbers, from 1987 to 2012, “total administrators” (full and part time) increased by 14 percent. Over that same period, enrollment increased by 49 percent. Which means that the number of students per administrator actually increased. Using the raw numbers on the chart, in 1987 HCC had one administrator for every 73 students. By 2012, HCC had one administrator for every 96 students. How that constitutes “bloat” is beyond me. If the “bloat drives costs” argument were true, then, HCC should be cheaper for students in real terms in 2012 than it was in 1987.Um, no.Maybe community colleges are a special case, and I should look at private colleges instead. (That doesn’t help the “government employee” narrative, but whatever.) Take Smith College, a well-respected private women’s college just up route 91 in Northampton. Surely an elite college such as that has lined the pockets of its management!Again, no. According to the chart, its administrative ranks have decreased by 37 percent, even as its enrollment grew by 9 percent. Surely, it must be cheaper now!Nope.Well, maybe it’s a Boston thing. (We in Western Mass sometimes get overshadowed.) Let’s look at Northeastern University. It’s one of the more expensive universities in the state, obviously driven by its negative 76 percent change in the number of administrators.*headdesk*Look, if you want to do propaganda effectively, don’t include a chart in your own story that discredits your entire narrative. Th

Blog: College Ready WritingNote: I wrote this before I saw that the other guys had turned the current dismal job market into a game. My thoughts on that require another blog post. Right now, I’m entirely too stabby. Some of you may remember that at the beginning of this academic year, I decided to (literally) try my luck on the academic job market. I was not successful. It was frustrating, demoralizing, and certainly has caused me to question my future in higher education. I’m still receiving rejection letters in the mail (and emails). On an aside, the letters/emails that I am receiving are much more sensitive and sympathetic than they were five years ago when I was on the market the last time. The letter I received today (Monday) outlined that they had received over 500 applicants and conducted dozens of interviews. I’m just going to let those numbers sink in for a moment. Personally, this does little to make me feel better. Sure, I was up against some pretty stiff competition, but I wonder what ELSE I have to do to differentiate myself from the other 499+ applicants, most of whom have more recent PhDs than I do. I have an excellent publication record, a rather high-profile blog, glowing teaching evaluations… Sure, I could spend money I don’t have to make my application “perfect” but to what end? But more generally, these numbers undercut the rhetoric that all of us adjuncts or alt-ac academics (or those who left academia completely) are just “unworthy” of a tenure-track position. Now, I’m not saying that all 500 of the applicants were quality applicants; that particular position was in a very desirable location, which probably goosed the numbers, so to speak. But nonetheless, even if half of the applicants were unqualified, that still leaves 250 quality applicants. That they were able to conduct dozens of interviews also speaks to the depth of the applicant pool. And I can tell you that this year, there were not “dozens” of jobs out there. Trust me, I applied for them all. When “we” complain about the systemic inequities that exist in higher education, it’s because of this: 500 applicants, many if not most of whom were qualified for the position, one job. We complain because we were misinformed and mislead about our chances on the job market. And, out of fear and desperation, we go further into debt, we push ourselves harder and harder to publish, go to conferences (hence the debt), pay others to improve our application materials, and wear ourselves out trying to differentiate ourselves from the other 499 candidates. If we give up and walk away, it’s not because we couldn’t “handle” academia, it’s because academia has told us, in no uncertain terms, there is no room for us, no place for us at the table, but that the institution is more than willing to exploit us as adjuncts. When we speak up, when we fight, when we demand change, we are silenced, shamed, and shunned, not by everyone, but by enough people who hold positions of authority and power that it is clear we are not welcome. We’re told, you’ll never get a job with THAT attitude, or that we’re just entitled and unwilling to work, and I wonder if I even want to work in higher education with colleagues who would treat others with such disdain and disrespect. We are made to feel bad about staying (who would stay and allow themselves to be exploited as adjuncts?) and bad about leaving (obviously if we truly cared about academia then we would sacrifice everything to stay or that we are cowards unwilling to fight). We speak out and we open ourselves up to very public and vocal criticism that looks to discredit us; we remain silent and we are complicit. To those who are our allies, to those who would say, don’t give up, higher education needs you, I say, then fight for us, fight with us. Lobby the government, lobby the admi

Blog: Technology and LearningIf you haven't guessed by the title of this blog post, I think that Yahoo is wildly overpaying for Tumblr. $1.1 billion in cash for a business that is not only not profitable, but has no clear path profitability. My assumption is that the people running Yahoo are smarter than I am. They are passionate, hard working, experienced, and dedicated to protecting the interests of their shareholders, customers, and employees. It is the fact that Yahoo's leadership is so smart, experienced, and hard working that makes bone headed acquisitions such as Yahoo buying Tumblr for $1.1 billion so instructive for those of us involved in trying to change higher ed. Some lessons: 1. We Are At Risk Of Believing Our Own Stories: In the case of Yahoo and Tumblr, it seems that CEO Marissa Mayer and the Board at Yahoo bought into a story that Tumblr's social network and mobile presence will provide Yahoo exactly the reach and platform necessary to sustain and grow its advertising business. Yahoo makes money advertising, Tumblr provides an audience and a place in which to advertise. Now of course Mayer and Tumblr's founder David Karp are saying that Yahoo will not screw up what makes Tumblr so great. The problem is that what makes Tumblr great is that it is a community first and an advertising platform second. Make Tumblr about the ads and the community will go away. Once they start to leave, once they start to disengage, there will be no stopping them. The web can scale dramatically - but it can also de-scale. In higher ed we also tell ourselves our own stories. Stories about our value to students, employers and society. Some of these stories are true, and some of these stories are not as true as any of us would like. The key is to be always looking for competing narratives, always looking to disconfirm our hypotheses. 2. We Will Make Bad Decisions Unless We Seek Advice From Those Outside Our Industry: One reason that Yahoo believes that it makes sense to pay $1.1 billion for Tumblr is that Facebook thought it made sense to pay $1 billion for Instagram. Since conventional metrics like revenues or business models don't justify the purchase price it is necessary to go and find other metrics - to find comparable deals. Yahoo must believe that they are different from other industries, that the normal rules of valuation don't apply in the tech / social media / user generated content / mobile world. How else could they justify this price? In higher ed we should be concerned if our only comparative group is other colleges and universities. Do we spend enough time trying to understand other information and service industries such as media, publishing, or hospitality / tourism. When was the last time we invited someone from the military, or the energy industry, to come to campus to reflect on how the lessons they have learned might apply to higher ed? 3. We Will Be Tempted By Shortcuts: It is not always a bad idea to buy your way into a business. Purchasing customers, products, and employees sometimes makes more sense than building your own. Yahoo needed to find ways to play in the social media, user generated content, and mobile space. The problem is that Yahoo needed to begin preparing for 2013, for the mobile and social media and community reality of media, way earlier than 2013. These trends have been clear for years, but Yahoo has been distracted by short term plays and bad management. We should learn from Yahoo and be sure that we are preparing for the future of higher ed today. It is clear that higher ed in 2020 will be different from higher ed in 2013, but if we wait to prepare for these shifts to 2019 we will be too late. Long term innovation requires long-term investment. Shortcuts, like what Yahoo is trying to do with Tumblr, are almost always both expensive and ineffectual. Show on Jobs site:

From EBSCO : EBSCO and Data-Planet have reached an agreement that for the first time provides statistical DataSheets within a discovery service. A growing collection of more than 5,000 summary-level data records from Data-Planet will be available within EBSCO Discovery Service ™ allowing mutual customers to link directly to Data-Planet DataSheets. [...]

Blog: Just VisitingIn my experience, our students see us as “teachers.” Please know that I have great respect for teachers, particularly at the secondary school level. I’ve long known that I don’t have the stuff, the spirit, the grit to do what they do. To ask college students to see their professors as something different from teachers is not to imply that professor is better, just that they are not the same, and students benefit from knowing this. Their working definition for a “teacher” is quite possibly something like, “Person whose existence on the planet is to teach me stuff and help me pass my classes.” I do not know many professors that see their role this way. Barring previous exposure to academics, the vast majority of our students will not know what a professor does or how professors function inside a university. (They also won’t really understand the full scope of a university.) It is most likely that they will see you through a similar lens as their high school teachers, the only difference being that you’ve jumped through a couple of extra hoops to earn a PhD. They simply do not understand the context surrounding the person at the front of the room. In service of proving a fuller context, one of the things I do the first day of class (and in my course policies) is introduce myself. In the policies it looks like this: My name is John Warner, and I am a native of Northbrook, IL, a northern suburb of Chicago, that is forever immortalized in the great John Hughes movies of the 1980’s (Sixteen Candles, Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, etc…). I graduated from the University of Illinois in 1992 with a degree in Rhetoric, which is really just a fancy name for “writing.” After a couple of years of work in Chicago, I returned to graduate school at McNeese St. University (go Cowboys) in Lake Charles, LA, where I graduated in 1997 with two degrees, an M.F.A. in Creative Writing and an M.A. in English Literature. For four years after graduate school I held a “real world” job as a marketing research consultant, where my background in creative writing proved very helpful. I returned to teaching in 2001 and since that time have worked at the University of Illinois, Virginia Tech, and for six years previous to coming to College of Charleston, Clemson University. This is my second year at College of Charleston. Last year I was known as “adjunct faculty.” This year my title is Visiting Instructor. In addition to teaching, I am a writer and have published several books and frequently publish my stories, essays and humor on the web and in print. My most recent book is a novel called The Funny Man. I also work as an editor of a daily humor-oriented website called McSweeney’s Internet Tendency (www.mcsweeneys.net) and as a columnist writing about teaching and writing for Inside Higher Ed (insidehighered.com). I also write a weekly column for the Chicago Tribune book supplement, Printers Row. All of these responsibilities keep me very busy, but I teach because, believe it or not, it allows me to get up in the morning and look forward to the work I have to do. I am an Aries. One of the things I want my students to know is that in addition to my classroom duties, I concurrently maintain a professional life as a writer and editor. I want them to know that I do these things because I enjoy them, but also out of a certain amount of economic necessity. Doing these things I enjoy requires a certain amount of hustle. I also want them to see that my route to the classroom standing in front of them has been a journey with a couple of twists and turns, that I am, indeed, human and that my purpose in the world extends beyond being their “teacher.” I believe this context is important for my students, particularly my freshman students, because rather than seeing me as their academic Sh

As part of Teacher Appreciation Week, Secretary Arne Duncan recognized Mr. Noah Geisel as the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) National Language Teacher of the Year. Mr. Geisel, a Spanish teacher at East High School in Denver, said his enthusiasm for teaching Spanish “comes from my love of language and culture, and belief that language learning and understanding of cultures are essential to my students’ futures.” Secretary Duncan and Noah Geisel, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) National Language Teacher of the Year Secretary Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education share Mr. Geisel’s belief in the importance of foreign languages and global competencies to the future of our nation’s students and a key part of a world-class education. As Secretary Duncan has said, “to prosper economically and to improve relations with other countries, Americans need to read, speak and understand other languages.” And this is something that I have seen personally, both while working on the President’s National Security Staff and now leading our Office of International and Foreign Language Education here at the Department of Education. In the months ahead, we look forward to working with foreign language teachers like Mr. Geisel across the country as we continue our Fulbright-Hays and Higher Education Title VI programs and encourage new partnerships between institutions of higher education and neighboring schools and communities.  For example, Language Resource Centers throughout the country provide materials and training for K-12 teachers, who then are equipped with the tools and additional knowledge to further world language learning at the K-12 level. This is the kind of partnership that makes foreign language programs sustainable and develops the cradle-to-career pipeline that we need for foreign language competencies. Check out some of the opportunities offered by our International and Foreign Language Office, and be sure to sign up for our newsletter while there and please also send us your ideas and examples of the great partnerships you have developed to IFLE@ed.gov! Clay Pell is deputy assistant secretary for International and Foreign Language Education

You owe it to the Chinese. Stephen Colbert gives the 2013 Valedictory Address at the University of Virginia and tells students they don’t owe the previous generation anything and to choose the hard path in life. “While traditional paths may seem harder to find, that also means that you may learn sooner than most generations the hard lesson that you must always make the path for yourself.” (YouTube) The waiver wire. Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia have been awarded NCLB waivers. To date, 37 states and the District of Columbia have been awarded waivers by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. (Education Week) Measuring motivation. A new assessment from the Education Testing Service seeks to measure areas outside of academics including commitment, self-motivation, and social support. The test is designed to be taken upon enrolling in college and allows advisors to make customized action plans for students. (Inside Higher Ed) Technology may not be all it’s cracked up to be. A new study by The National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that computers may not improve student outcomes. The study conducted a field experiment that provided home computers to students, but found that there were no effects on grades, attendance, or test scores. (The National Bureau of Economic Research)

There are numerous worthwhile speakers in this segment, but at rroughly the 22 minute mark, AEI's Rick Hess shows up onstage in his trademark cargo shorts and flipflops, and delivers a rushed, somewhat impassioned speech that hits a lot of critical points about the narrow reform agenda, the inadequate response to setbacks, the chronic refusal to converse with much less learn from critics.  Others who appear include Jean Desravines (Moderator) Ann Friedman, The SEED Foundation Kaya Henderson, DC Public Schools Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute Neerav Kingsland, New Schools for New Orleans Jeremiah Kittredge, Families for Excellent Schools Ted Kolderie, Education Evolving Kimberly O’Malley, Pearson Larry Rosenstock, High Tech High Mark Shermis, University of Akron. Disclosure:  AEI sponsored two papers I wrote in 2012, and I am working with them again in 2013. Other recent sponsors include the Harvard Education Letter, NACSA, and Education Next.  I've also received travel reimbursement from outfits such as Education Writers Association and eaten a meal paid for by the American Federation of Teachers.

I don't have a ton of time to write today -- I've spent the past week teaching and learning alongside of some really progressive thinkers in Australia -- so I figured I'd share a few handouts that I've been using in class this year to teach nonfiction reading skills in my sixth grade science classroom.