Search DU CTLAT Blog

Monday, July 19, 2010

Inside Higher ED: Colleges and the Common Core


National standards aimed at ensuring students' readiness for college or work could prompt meaningful collaboration between K-12 and higher ed officials -- finally.



July 19, 2010
MINNEAPOLIS -- For years, educators and policy makers have been talking about the need to better align K-12 and higher education, so that students coming out of high school have the skills and knowledge they need to do college-level work (and, not unimportantly, to reduce the need for remediation once students are in college).


But while many colleges are involved in various ways in their local communities' school systems, and virtually all states have created "P-16" or "K-20" councils aimed, among other things, at aligning high school graduation and college entrance standards, progress in creating a "seamless" education system, for students and states alike, has generally been seen as limited.


Higher education and K-12 "have frequently operated as if they reside in different universes," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said here Friday at the first-ever joint meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.


The relationship between elementary and secondary education too often continues to be marked by finger pointing between the sectors, which the leaders of the two groups mimicked from the dais at last week's meeting.


"The reason we have problems is because you don't train the teachers well," is high school principals' frequent complaint about schools of education, said Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the state school officers' group.


The knee-jerk comeback from college professors and administrators, said Paul Lingenfelter, president of the state higher education officers' association: "The students you send us aren't prepared, so we have to spend all our energies on remediation."


The two men are hopeful that the impetus for the meeting at which they spoke last week -- the recent establishment of a set of common core standards for high school graduates -- presents an opportunity to start to end what Wilhoit called the "repetitive cycle of nonproductive activity" and take the collaboration between K-12 and higher education to a new level.


The establishment of common core standards for high school graduates is of course first and foremost a matter of concern for elementary and secondary school officials, and the creation of the standards is barely on the radar screen of many college administrators and professors. And yet it is clear that the standards will be truly meaningful and useful only if they are fully embraced by higher education.


Only if colleges align their own admissions and placement policies with the common core standards (and agree to use the common assessments that are likely to be developed to gauge mastery of the standards) will high school students and their schools know what to shoot for, Lingenfelter and Wilhoit said. And only if colleges of education begin to reframe their curriculums and practices for training teachers and school administrators and their professional development programs for working teachers in response to the standards will schools have the future work force to carry out the standards.


The discussions among the state superintendents and higher education chancellors and commissioners who met here offered some reason for optimism for those who believe that better alignment between high school and higher education is essential to the goal of raising the level of college attainment and completion in the United States. (So too did the fact that they took place at all; much was made of the fact that the two groups had never met jointly before, with one state school officer holding up the morning newspaper and joking that if BP had figured out how to cap the Gulf Coast oil well, "then I know we can collaborate with SHEEO.")


"The fact that we’ve stepped up and said, 'We expect for every student exiting our system to be college- or career-ready,' drops on your doorstep an opportunity: to continue to engage with us in a process of discovery," Wilhoit said to the higher ed leaders in the group. "I don't think the wisdom [to improve college readiness and completion] lies entirely in the schools or in colleges and universities. The wisdom resides in our collaboration -- in getting the people who really understand the problems on the ground together with those who, from a little distance, can help them solve those problems."

But the discussions here also made clear just how big a job remains to be done.


Setting Standards, and Beyond
The task of setting the standards -- which involved more than two years' worth of work by the school officers' group, the National Governors Association, and many others -- has been a big job, but it has been done largely without the involvement of higher education. At Friday's meeting, Susan Pimentel, a senior consultant for the nonprofit education reform group Achieve, who helped write the common core's English language arts standards, described the surveys of postsecondary faculty members that helped frame the guidelines and the involvement of numerous college professors on the work groups that helped draft the standards.


And while some college leaders have balked that postsecondary educators were involved too late in the process, the American Council on Education helped convene panels of experts (based on advice from the Modern Language Association and the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences) to assess the standards.


If higher education's role in crafting the standards was minimal, it is likely to be much larger, on many fronts, in bringing the guidelines to life and making them meaningful. While the groups describe the standards as designed to "define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K-12 education careers so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in work force training programs," they do not set specific levels of proficiency that students are expected to have. That will come only with the development of assessments that are tied to the standards; three coalitions of states and nonprofit groups are reportedly planning to develop tests that would measure students' proficiency in achieving the core standards.


Higher education officials have a clear stake in how those assessments are developed, but the big job for college leaders will then be to decide whether and how to use those tests in admissions and placement into public colleges, said Lingenfelter of the SHEEO group. "For that to happen, the standards and assessments are going to have to be organizationally understood and accepted" by public college administrators and faculty members, he said.


Kevin Reilly, president of the University of Wisconsin system, noted that Wisconsin is among 31 states that have joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, one of three that have applied to the federal government's Race to the Top program for funds to build an assessment aligned to the common core.


The 15 campuses in the Wisconsin system "don't have common placement practices," Reilly said, but the system's eventual goal is to set a single, common level of proficiency that students would need to achieve to know that they could avoid developmental courses and begin college-level work at any of its campuses (from the highly selective flagship at Madison to more accessible institutions like Whitewater and Superior). "The goal would be to help drive more sensible messages about what you need to do to attend any of our campuses," Reilly said.


Those involved in shaping the common core standards acknowledge that those sorts of discussions could be vexing for many colleges, given the belief among many faculty members that their own colleges should demand more of students.


"When college faculty are asked to say what they think is important [for students in general to know and be able to do], they're good at listing 12 things," said Jason Zimba, co-founder of Student Achievement Partners and a member of the panel that drafted the common core math standards. But when asked about students should be required to know at their own institutions, Zimba said, "through admissions standards," they expect a lot more.


The second major task ahead for postsecondary institutions will fall to their education schools. "We're going to have to change the way we prepare teachers and school leaders," said Lingenfelter.


Wilhoit was more pointed. "Do we have a work force in place, and a structure to support those teachers and school leaders, to get children to the levels we now say we’re expecting of them? The answer right now is dramatically No," he said.


Changing that situation will require education schools and their professors to work with K-12 leaders in their states to rework their teacher training curriculums and their programs for teachers once they're embedded in schools. Much of the work, both on aligning the high school exit and college entry/placement requirements with the core standards and on better preparing teachers to carry them out, will take place between K-12 and higher education leaders within individual states, but the national organizations hope that their own collaboration can point the way.


Jack Warner, executive director of the South Dakota Board of Regents and incoming chair of the SHEEO group, said it and the school officers' group expect to set up two work groups to discuss aligning common core assessments with admissions and placement requirements, and educational preparation of teachers and school administrators, to see if they can "model the way" for leaders in individual states.


"The core standards open the door to more and more effective joint discussion between K-12 and higher education, but it's a question of seizing that opportunity," Warner said.


It won't be easy, several state leaders said. Robert L. King, president of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, warned that if past practice is any guide, college and high school leaders should expect legislators in their states to try to "dumb down" the standards and lower cutoff scores if students start failing. "While everyone in this room is persuaded [about the wisdom of the common core standards and the need to raise educational attainment], we should be worried about parents coming back on our state legislatures," King said.


"We would be foolish when we leave this room to underestimate the resistance [in the public] to the idea that more and more of our students need to go on and get a degree," said Reilly of the University of Wisconsin system.
— Doug Lederman
Share/Bookmark

Microsoft at Home: Email: 6 ways to streamline your tasks in OUTLOOK



Share/Bookmark

Faculty Focus Live Online Seminar: Learn Effective Strategies for Reducing Student Misconduct

Classroom Management 102: Working with Difficult Students
Date: Tues. August 10, 2010
Time: 12:00 p.m. Central
Length: 90 minutes
Cost: $279 ($304 after 08/03/10)
The fee for this seminar is per site, not per person. Invite your colleagues to join you and it won't cost a penny more. Plus, the seminar comes with a no-risk guarantee. If you're not satisfied, for any reason, we'll gladly refund your payment.

From minor annoyances to major disruptions, college students have no shortage of ways to test professors. Each class you teach could have: disengaged students who spend more time on their laptop or cell phone than paying attention … students who burst into tears during office hours … over-participators who repeatedly derail conversations … or entitled students who challenge your authority in front of the entire class.


The need for proven, targeted advice in dealing with inappropriate behavior has never been greater.


Faculty Focus invites you to attend Classroom Management 102: Working with Difficult Students, a new online video seminar coming August 10. During this 90-minute program, Drs. Brian Van Brunt and Perry Francis will provide you with the tools necessary to successfully manage the full-range of student behavioral problems.


Using an ideal mix of theory and application, this online video seminar covers:

• Recognizing and addressing problems in the earliest stages
• Appropriate intervention strategies for different styles of behavior
• Dos and don’ts of working with frustrated, unmotivated students
• Making referrals to appropriate campus resources
• Heading off potential problems with clear classroom rules
• The aggression continuum and aggression management
• Crisis containment and crucial de-escalation techniques
• Working within ADA guidelines to create an optimal learning environment


Left unchecked, troublesome behavior is likely to become increasingly distracting as a semester progresses. Learn how to nip potential problems in the bud by registering for this strategy-filled seminar today.


About the Presenters:

Dr. Brian Van Brunt is the director of counseling and testing at Western Kentucky University. He is also a senior trainer in John Byrne’s Aggression Management Program. Dr. Van Brunt currently serves as the president of the American College Counseling Association and recently joined the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM) as an affiliated consultant.


Dr. Perry C. Francis is a professor of counseling in the department of leadership and counseling at Eastern Michigan University and serves as the coordinator of counseling services. He is also a certified trainer of aggression managers through the Center for Aggression Management.
Share/Bookmark

Inside Higher ED: Continuing Debate Over Online Education

July 16, 2010
Online education has become a hot topic recently, with more and more institutions wanting to expand offerings. And that makes studies of the quality of online education important -- and controversial.

A new paper by the Community College Research Center re-examined and challenged the studies that the Department of Education used in a meta-analysis that stated “on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction” – a conclusion that received much attention and applause among advocates for online education.

But the Education Department's analysis was flawed, according to Shanna Smith Jaggars, lead author of the CCRC paper and a senior research associate at the Columbia University center. Based on its review of the data, the CCRC concluded that online learning in higher education is no more effective than face-to-face learning.



The Education Department study "continues to be cited frequently by people as evidence that online learning can be superior,” Jaggars said. “We just wanted to make sure that we were injecting a note of caution into how people were interpreting what they were seeing.”


The CCRC report states that the Department of Education analysis’ flaws lie in the student populations studied and the conditions of the online courses. The meta-analysis examined the results of 51 published studies that looked at the effects of online versus face-to-face education. Of these, however, only 28 compared face-to-face courses with fully online courses. (The third option, hybrid courses, had most of the students experiencing as much face-to-face class time as they would in a normal course.)


The paper also states that most of these 28 courses studied contained conditions unrepresentative of typical college classes. Most of them looked at short educational programs (as short as 15 minutes) instead of semester-long courses, and some examined online learning in elementary schools or with postgraduate professionals. As a result, Jaggars narrowed the pool to only seven studies that accurately reflected fully-online learning in a college or university setting.


According to the report, these seven online courses “showed no strong advantage or disadvantage in terms of learning outcomes among the samples of students under study.” (Of course that finding may also cheer advocates for distance education, who still face skeptics who insist that the newer form of instruction can't be as good the traditional model.)


Robert Murphy, senior research social scientist at the Center for Technology in Learning and one of the authors of the Department of Education's report, said that Jaggars isn't wrong in her assessment, but that she was looking at very different things. "I'm assuming the center has a great concern for students with poorer academic preparation prior to entering the community college," Murphy said. "But they're taking our study apart for their own purposes: What does our study say about those courses and that group of kids? And they're saying the study doesn't say anything about them, and I would agree with that."


Both Murphy and Jaggars acknowledged the fact that the Department of Education’s conclusions have found support. “Proponents of online learning at a university setting have probably hoped they could erode the resistance at their universities [with this evidence],” Jaggars said. She expressed particular concern about the impact of such thinking at community colleges or institutions with a large number of low-income students.


Very little data in the studies considered by the Department of Education looked at online learning by low-income or academically underprepared students, she said. The CCRC report outlines that full-time employment, transportation costs, or child care may prohibit low-income students from attending face-to-face classes, but that there is no evidence that online learning helps them. In fact, Jaggars suggested that online courses may prove more difficult for such students to complete because they are less likely to have high-speed Internet at home. Other studies have also found that academically underprepared students are more likely to withdraw from an online course than a face-to-face course, and that overall withdrawal rates for online courses are two to three times higher than for face-to-face courses.


“[Online learning] is being seen as a general solution and a lot of people are saying that it should and could help that population” of low-income students, Jaggars said. “It has a lot of potential in helping students, but we need to be aware that it’s not a panacea, and it’s not going to automatically fix things if we just put these courses online.”


The CCRC is currently finishing its own study -- to be released later this summer -- that looks at online learning specifically at community colleges. “Withdrawal rates in that study are a lot higher” than in the studies the Education Department examined, Jaggars said, adding that her response to the Department of Education’s study was a way to lay the groundwork for the results of her upcoming study, “so it’s not so jarring.”


But comparing online to face-to-face learning may not be the best approach to assessing online education, says John Bourne, executive director of the Sloan Consortium, a group of colleges and other organizations that work on online education issues.


“I am exceptionally dubious of studies that tend to compare online education and on-the-ground education without even an attempt to understand the differences in the mechanisms of teaching,” he said, adding that he thinks both reports are flawed, albeit interesting. “The jury is absolutely still out on this, and I don’t believe for a minute that it’s about the delivery mechanism, but what the affordances are of the delivery.”
— Iza Wojciechowska
Share/Bookmark

University of Calgery Teaching & Learning Centre Website


Share/Bookmark

Diverse Issues in Higher Education: Maryland HBCU Developing Solar Energy Project


July 15, 2010
by Saraya Wintersmith

There’s no question that higher education institutions during this recession have implemented cost-cutting measures to reduce their operating expenses. Among those schools have been institutions, such as Coppin State University, that are seeking innovative green technologies to make permanent campus changes that save on energy costs.


Recently, the Baltimore-based historically Black school was awarded a $500,000 stimulus-funded grant to finance the installation of solar photovoltaic systems to help power eight of its campus buildings. The project is underway and the university expects to have it completed by April 2011.


Through its participation in Project Sunburst, a Maryland state program to increase the reliance of public buildings on renewable energy sources, CSU qualified for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grant. CSU is the only historically Black institution among 21 Project Sunburst Partners. Project Sunburst was launched by the Maryland Energy Administration.


Robert Underwood, CSU associate director of facilities management, estimates that the news system will save the university anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 a year.


“The combined systems are expected to have a power output between 500 and 750 kilowatts. Altogether, they'll provide about 3 to 5 percent of our total annual energy consumption,” Underwood said.


Monica Randall, associate vice president for public policy and government relations at CSU, believes there is a connection between social justice and environmental justice and says this grant enables the university to take its first steps towards demonstrating environmental responsibility.


“We established a sustainability task force two years ago to look into ways of reducing our carbon footprint. With the solar arrays, we hope to accomplish this by to reducing our annual consumption by the equivalent of 46,000 gallons of gasoline per year. It's a small step, but an important step for us,” she said.


In addition to reducing the carbon footprint and saving money, Randall says the energy-saving systems will have an important educational component. CSU plans to build kiosk stations that will provide information about the power the system is generating and how it works.


“Being able to provide students the opportunity to visually see a solar array will be an important part of our learning environment. It will give them an understanding that the university is taking a position of responsibility. I really believe that environmental stewardship is part of our responsibility as an education institution” she said. “Students who are concerned about the climate change would appreciate going to a university that tries to address that issue.”


Sites where CSU plans to install the solar arrays include two residence halls, a library, the Miles W. Connor Administrative Building and the physical education complex. The buildings were selected to host the arrays based on their flat roof structure and amount of square footage available for the technology.


The average DOE award to the Project Sunburst Partners was $483,000. Other recent award recipients included the Maryland Port Authority Marine Terminal, Carroll Community College, the City of Salisbury Fire Station and several public school systems throughout the state.
Share/Bookmark

Inside Higher ED: The Real Challenge for Higher Education

July 15, 2010
By Garrison Walters
America, once the world’s most educated nation, is fast losing ground. Although we are still second in overall education levels, we are much weaker -- 11th -- in the proportion of younger people with a college degree. In a world where knowledge increasingly drives economic competitiveness, this is a very serious problem. The issue is more than abstract economics, it’s also a moral concern: Since 1970, the benefits of higher education have been very unequally apportioned, with the top income quartile profiting hugely and the bottom hardly moving at all (despite starting from a very low level).

America’s education problem has been apparent for 30 years or so, and there have been a lot of suggestions for making us competitive again. Ideas on the K-12 side include: better trained and motivated teachers, more and better early childhood programs, better prepared school leaders, improved curriculums, higher standards, financial incentives, better data systems, and more rigorous and frequent assessments. On the higher education side, proposals include: motivating professors and administrators with formulas that reward success rather than enrollment, more use of technology, more data, improved administration, and (at least for general education) more testing. And, of course, better funding is relentlessly advocated for the entire educational spectrum.



All of these approaches have at least some potential to foster improvement. Some have already demonstrated benefits while some are being seriously oversold (more on that in a separate essay).


My fundamental belief, though, is that even if one takes a very optimistic view of the achievable potential of each of these strategies and adds them together, the net result will be significant but insufficient improvement to allow us to catch up in educational levels. If our scope of action is limited to the ideas advanced so far, we will actually continue to fall behind.


What makes it so difficult for us to catch up in education? Our lack of a pervasive education culture.


A large part of American society understands and appreciates the importance of education. But a large part doesn’t really see the value proposition. I can illustrate this lack of a pervasive education culture with personal experience. I taught undergraduates for 17 years at Ohio State, mostly at the introductory level. The university at the time was open admissions. My practice was to interview students individually at the beginning of each quarter, using 15-20 minutes to learn about their preparation; my goal was to gauge their experience with essay examinations and, if they had little or none, to help them prepare. But I also inquired about their interests.


One question I always asked was, “Why are you at the university?” The most frequent answer was, “Because my parents wanted me to go,” followed closely by statements like, “Because my girlfriend is here.” Most of these unmotivated students were first generation, although I recall that similar expressions of indifference came from a significant percentage of those with parents who had gone to college. Over all, at best a very small proportion of the young people I talked to in my various roles at the university were convinced from their own beliefs that graduation was really important. My experiment would yield different results today at Ohio State, which has become selective, but I believe you would find the same pervasively weak indicators of motivation at most public access universities.


You might think that young people are typically uncertain about goals and that these examples aren’t shocking. But if that’s what you think you are almost certainly an American. If we consider the nations that rank ahead of the U.S. in science and math test scores and in graduation rates -- e.g., Korea, Japan, Norway, Finland -- you’ll find very different attitudes about graduation in both young and old. I’ve lived and worked abroad, and I’m confident that, if you went into a classroom equivalent to our sixth grade in any of these countries and asked the students if they thought a higher education credential was essential to economic success, you would get a consistent "yes" answer of around 100 percent. By contrast, the percent answering "yes" in American schools would vary considerably, with many ranging much lower that our Asian and European competitors.


An alert reader will note that so far I’ve cited only anecdotal information laced with speculation, and point out that in the U.S. today the percentages even of low-SES and historically disadvantaged minority Americans telling pollsters that college is important are quite high and rising. They are right; students (and parents) do reply positively when asked about college. But do they believe it? Agreeing that you want to go to college or want your child to attend has become the socially correct answer (a good thing, of course).


But there are many reasons to suspect that the percentages are artificially high. First, there are the hard numbers, especially the poor rates of high school completion and the low proportion of those going on to college. Nationally, only about 42 percent of 9th graders enter college by age 19. Although the stated goals are slightly different, this is a significant mismatch with the 91 percent saying they expect to get some post-high school credential. Second, a single question on a topic such as this isn’t likely statistically valid, a point reinforced by a study that showed the percentage of African-Americans who thought people needed to go to college to prosper in the workforce was the same as whites, but in a follow-up question the proportion that thought it actually feasible was dramatically lower, with only 16 percent of black parents saying the opportunity was there vs. 43 percent of white parents.


I’ve not been able to find good comparative data on the U.S. vs. other nations on attitudes toward the value of education. But what I’ve been able to find for the U.S. reinforces the point made by the study just cited: when asked if higher education is important, the answers are very positive. But follow-up questions reveal significant worries (or lack of conviction).


American Perceptions of Educated People
To better understand America’s lack of a pervasive education culture, consider the fact that as a nation we generally don’t greatly value educated people and don’t seem to believe that being educated contributes to quality of life beyond that offered by greater economic success. If you asked the 6th grade students described above a second question, something like, “Do you think it’s important to be an educated person in order to have a satisfying life?” I think the "yes" answers in Europe and Asia would be very high, and in the U.S. very low.


Our view of education is different from most of the rest of the world and certainly from those nations that rank ahead of us in education levels. A Nobel laureate in science visiting a school in Korea or Japan would occasion a high level of genuine student excitement. But in the U.S., even at our better schools, you’d have to invite an athlete or entertainer to get the kids turned on.


There are many examples of Americans rating education poorly. One is certainly the low status of teachers here by contrast with the rest of the world. Another is popular culture.


By far the longest-running television show in America, “The Simpsons,” features a boy who is a dreadful student and hostile to education but highly popular with his classmates, together with a girl who is smart and interested in learning but very unpopular. A fascinating episode is one where the father, the doltish Homer, has an operation that makes him smart -- and the result is a disaster for the family and even the community. Yes, I know that the Simpsons is satire. But the fact is Americans are very comfortable with these stereotypes. And, if you look across the entertainment landscape, you’ll see smart, educated people consistently played as seriously flawed, while those with “emotional intelligence” are the heroes.


Why is America Different?
Why is America so different in attitudes toward education? It’s an issue that deserves more thorough research than I’ve been able to give it at this point, but my study of history suggests several reasons.

One issue is that America was a leader in making education free and widely available. The objective was to support our revolutionary experiment in democracy. The experiment was a success and the diffusion of education obviously had an important role. But, apart from the civic aspect, schooling appeared to many as sort of a frill, since there was a very small market for educated people in the first century and a half or so of U.S. history (an important exception is agriculture, where the role of higher education has transformed productivity).


Another difference between the U.S. and Europe (and I think also much of Asia) is that many countries in these regions conflated education and nationalism: Schooling meant learning the national language and literature, and being highly educated meant being a standard bearer for your people. The U.S. experience with nationalism has been very different from most other nations (too complicated to discuss here), with the result that we’ve not made the education/nationalism connection in the same way (the U.S. response to Sputnik would be an exception, though a short-lived one).


But the most important factor in my view is that, unlike Europe and Asia, much of the U.S. long had plenty of reasonably stable and well-paying jobs in industry (and before that in agriculture). With good jobs to be had for all (with the notable exception of slaves and many of their descendants), most Americans believed that the key to success in life was simply a willingness to work hard, and that’s what our culture valued. The American situation was in sharp contrast to that in most European and Asian countries. Compensation in those nations’ labor-intensive jobs was comparatively much lower, as was the status of these occupations. People in other parts of the world worked as hard as Americans, but their effort was at best sufficient to keep them out of poverty rather than move them into a new kind of middle class, as happened in the U.S.


American workers’ good fortune in securing a high standard of living -- especially evident in the manufacturing areas -- seems to have resulted in education having a very different role in our national culture. The advent of compulsory schooling around the world was closely associated with the effort to end child labor. In most of Europe and Asia the newly added years of school were principally devoted to vocational study; only a small minority of students moved through the highly competitive system that prepared them for the kind of jobs where high levels of knowledge and associated intellectual skills were needed.


In the U.S., by contrast, study in the additional years was usually “general” in the sense that the traditional subjects of mathematics, science, literature, composition, and history were required. This curriculum wasn’t intended to prepare students for factory or similar work (mostly because no preparation was needed). It could prepare young people for college, but in many areas that was the goal of only a handful of students -- a group small enough to be ignored and often derided. The result? In many communities school became primarily a social place, a holding tank for the years before work. Students went through the motions of education -- doing enough to get to the next grade -- but the expectations for real learning were minimal. In many parts of the U.S., we effectively separated the concepts of school and learning.


The U.S. approach in curriculum did have benefits in the sense that it allowed more students to move on to college. But we shouldn’t give ourselves too much credit for this. Our success in sending students to college appears to have been more of an unintended consequence than a deliberate objective. For example, consider the surging college participation rates of the baby boom generation: As the children of factory workers started to join others in going to college, the U.S. was entering a period of sustained surplus of unskilled labor. Many of the young people I talked to at Ohio State in the 1970s were there not because they thought education was important but because neither they nor their parents could think of anything else for them to do (Vietnam was a factor also). Equally damning, one of our greatest achievements, the G.I. Bill, had as a clearly stated purpose keeping returning veterans out of the work force, while improving education levels was secondary.


Manufacturing and the Two Cultures Problem
The United States doesn’t have social classes in the same way as many other nations, but we are of two cultures when it comes to education. Our first culture, smaller but growing swiftly since the end of World War II, understands the importance of education and imparts at least some level of learning-related values to its young. The second culture, shrinking but still very large, has begun to hear the message of education but is slow to assimilate it, not surprising because economic change has occurred in fits and starts. There was no single, unambiguous day in history when everyone should have realized that good-paying jobs at mills and factories for unskilled labor weren’t coming back. Here and there, a few good jobs did resurface, so it’s hardly surprising that many communities are still waiting for some company, nowadays probably foreign, to take over one of their excellent vacant sites and flood the region with jobs.


The problem for the second culture is greater because it requires two new ways of thinking. The first is understanding the economy’s shift to knowledge. The second, viewing school in a new way, is perhaps a more difficult change. It is extremely hard for parents who thought of high school in social terms to act on a radically different set of expectations for their children. Unfortunately, Americans’ high level of mobility has exacerbated the cultural schism because parents who recognize the value of education can physically move and put their children in different schools; those who remain are in an homogenous culture, never to hear the leavers’ voices pushing for change.


As it became important to have a more educated workforce, other countries gradually opened the control gates and allowed more students to move forward in higher education. Since school had always had a purpose in these countries, and since educational success had always held high cultural value, the speedup has been faster than in the U.S. This, I believe, is why others are catching up and even moving ahead in overall education levels, not to mention in mathematics and science learning.

Recent studies have pointed out a growing spread in salary among those in the U.S. with college degrees. It shouldn’t be surprising, though, that some college graduates are earning a lot more than others: it’s a consequence of our separation of school and learning. Once, you came in with a business degree and the company re-educated you. Now, they expect you to be an effective analyst and critical thinker from day one. The folks who sleepwalked through college in the same way they did high school are suddenly experiencing turbulence; the fact is, the value of a simple credential is slipping in comparison to the actual knowledge it is supposed to represent.


Are There Solutions to the Education Culture Problem?
The answer in my view is an unqualified “yes.” We know that culture can change because we’ve seen it happen in perceptions of education for a large part of our society; there’s no basis for saying progress is impossible and walking away from the problem. Certainly, though, making this change pervasive is a difficult task and won’t be accomplished quickly (which is perhaps why so many prefer to focus on things like formulas, longitudinal tracking systems, and attacking college and university management). That’s the bad news.


The good news is that much significant change can be accomplished with modest increases in funding. I’m a strenuous advocate of stronger support for both K-12 and higher education, but I don’t think money alone will get us where we need to be.


Here are seven ideas for changing culture.
First, we need to improve the aspirational focus of our schools. One good way to do this is to help students understand that education really matters, that it’s needed for jobs that are there and that they will want to have. South Carolina’s Personal Pathways to Success is an excellent new effort in this area. Beginning in the eighth grade, students create Individual Graduation Plans that focus on their chosen career cluster (for example, “Information Technology”). Some of their curriculum is then geared toward the cluster area and they have the opportunity of work experiences and the like.


Second, we must modify the biggest barrier to student success in K-12: mathematics. We teach math as an abstract exercise that excites only a few, and, especially in schools lacking an education culture, math forces a disastrously large proportion to drop out or fall behind. Pairing math with science, or better yet replacing it as a separate subject with computational science, could change kids’ perception of its value and make them far more interested in learning. Widespread anguish over mathematics is a major problem in building a positive education culture.


Third, we should support locally-led college access programs that emphasize total community educational change -- not just implementing a few programs or raising spending -- creating total community educational change. The reality is that, even if an economically disadvantaged community were to have well-prepared teachers, perfect curriculums, and state-of-the-art facilities, it wouldn’t get much return on investment if the kids went home to an environment of parents and other adults who believed that education doesn’t really matter.


The best example of community change I’ve seen is Kingsport, Tennessee. In 2001 leaders there created “Educate and Grow,” which offered financial assistance to help ensure that all students in local schools could complete at least two years of college. The public investment was modest but the impact was profound. I’m most struck by the 23% increase in high school graduation rates -- something that was accomplished with no new funding. What mattered, from my understanding of the process, was that business leaders got involved, persistently going into the schools and other locales to tell students, parents, and others that education was really important and that it couldn’t end with high school. As a result, in homes throughout the community, conversations about the future began to have a different goal, one that had an immediate effect on the schools. To follow an earlier analogy, changing culture is like decreasing a vehicle’s weight; it makes the existing engine more powerful.


A key point about community change is that it can’t be imposed. Outsiders can help with advice and some funding, but local people have to be convinced and then take the initiative on their own if real progress is to be made -- it’s the difference between what you believe and what someone else tells you to believe. The good news here is that, as more communities embrace education and demonstrate success, others will perceive the competitive disadvantage and have even greater incentive to undertake their own structural improvement as well.


Fourth, higher education should shift its approach in some areas of instruction -- particularly developmental education -- away from competing against time and toward academic assistance. Instead of a high-stakes (to these students) “pass in a given amount of time or be labeled a failure” approach to developmental math and English, we should offer self-paced, competency-based, and (at least at the module level) no-fail options. Especially for returning adults, a more positive strategy can offset a pervasive lack of confidence in their ability to learn and thereby make them more optimistic about the value of education in their lives.


Fifth, consistent with the principles noted above with respect to developmental education, we need to design a “New Front Door” for adults to enter higher education. If we want them to have an opportunity to change their lives, higher education will have to change how it operates. Because so many of these adults are also parents, bringing them back into the educational stream with positive experiences will encourage them to set better goals for their children. This process of creating a “New Front Door” is well underway in South Carolina.


Sixth, and surprisingly, we can help create an education culture by improving general education. The goals of general education are superb, but the way we teach now doesn’t get us there. Serious change is needed. One idea is to use technology to thread instruction throughout all four years, allowing for a reinforcement of skills and abilities not possible now. For example, business majors would complete second, third, and fourth year online modules on environmental issues that draw on and reinforce knowledge and skills gained from their first year biology course.


Challenging faculty -- instead of threatening them with budget penalties -- is the only way to make such a major revision happen. And how does improved general education foster an education culture? Simple. Students who have a better experience outside their major will have a stronger appreciation of education’s ability to expand the mind, something that should pay dividends in many ways and at many levels. Making general education more positive will also be of enormous value with opinion leaders -- after more than thirty years of talking with business and political leaders on a regular basis, I can tell you that a distressingly high proportion has a negative view of general education.


Seventh, and finally, we should build a serious R&D effort on education culture. One idea is to create carefully structured community-based pilots to find out what works best in changing attitudes about the value of being highly educated -- effectively R&D on the total community change idea described above. We’re implementing pilots of this kind in South Carolina and will very much welcome partners. We also hope to look hard at success: some students excel even in the worst schools in the most disadvantaged communities. Why? Anecdotal evidence suggests that the motivators are parents or relatives. But this begs the question of why and how those people are different. Through careful study, we hope to learn how to replicate their supportive and motivating behaviors. There are many other possible research topics of this kind that would be a great project for teams of educators and social scientists. And it needn’t be hugely expensive. We could ask that existing publicly-funded time (“departmental research”) as well as the topics of doctoral dissertations be directed to this task. Grant monies could then be used for coordination and summary analysis.


Concluding Thoughts
As we pursue the kinds of specific actions described above, I believe Americans need to remember three things.


First, we should avoid complacency about the competitiveness of our entire educational structure. Tom Friedman’s The World is Flat gave us a much-needed slap in the face for our overall educational competitiveness, and there’s been a great deal of angst about K-12 for some time now. But few among our political leaders appear to be thinking about education as a K to graduate system, and far too few appreciate the changing levels of knowledge needed to function effectively in today’s society. Once, Americans thought everyone should have around a fourth grade education, then the line gradually moved up to the eighth grade and finally to the end of high school. But the line of minimum necessity has long since crossed into higher education; now, if all you have is a high school diploma, you’re a knowledge economy dropout.


Second, if we want to think of our problems in management terms -- a very American thing to do -- we have to dispense with our enthusiasm for the hard, mechanical side of the concept and engage in the soft side. The U.S. automobile industry provides an excellent example of failure and success in the two dimensions of management.


Confronted by popular, higher quality vehicles from Japan, the Big Three responded with workforce quality campaigns that mixed threats and exhortation, then followed with a massive investment in technology (mainly robotics), all the while mixing in the inevitable reorganizations and incentives to executives. When all these failed to make a sufficient difference, the companies finally gave up and resorted to the complicated, messy, and slow business of creating positive relationships with their workers. After about thirty years, J.D. Power reports that Ford is on a par with its Japanese competitors and G.M. is closing in as well. That’s encouraging, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the gap could have been closed much faster if Detroit’s titans had been willing at the outset to think more holistically about the management challenge they faced.


In a recent essay on the origins of the Great Recession, the columnist David Brooks observes that economists’ practice has been to create elaborate mathematical models that make simple-minded assumptions about the manner in which people function in a complex economy. The utter failure of these formulas, he observes, is that they are “based on a stick figure view of humanity.” The lesson here is simple: the technical side of management is seductive (and has a role) but data and formula-focused approaches are at the periphery of the problem.


Finally, we -- especially those of us with a more positive view of higher education’s current effectiveness -- should be aware that significant additional investment in our public systems is unlikely. That isn’t to say that we should stop calling for appropriate funding levels -- as the economist Paul Romer points out, “Support for higher education is the lever by which the government can move the entire economy.” Rather it means we should acknowledge and accept the simple fact that there will never be sufficient resources to allow schools, colleges, and universities to take a great leap in effectiveness on their own. Instead, we’ll have to change the way an important proportion of our citizens think about the value of education. Having a much higher share of students fully understand and appreciate the importance of education will greatly enhance the productivity of our existing K-12 and higher education investment and help offset the size of future funding increases.


Culture change is the only real path to competitiveness for our nation, and time is short. I have some ideas; others will have better ones. Let’s get moving.


Garrison Walters is executive director of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.
Share/Bookmark

Inside Higher ED: Creating the Perfect Instructor


July 15, 2010
Take one part educator and one part entertainer, throw in a dose of feedback and assessment and mix thoroughly.


Although it may seem impossible to quantify, academics think they may have discovered the recipe for what students believe to be the perfect university teacher.


The formula, created by Mark Russell and Helen Barefoot of the University of Hertfordshire’s Learning and Teaching Institute, is based on an analysis of more than 400 student submissions to the British ­insti­tu­tion’s annual "Tutor of the Year" award.


A ranking based on the number of times the most valued traits were mentioned shows that, unsurprisingly, “great teaching” is the most sought-after quality in a lecturer. Less predictably, feedback and assessment was judged the least ­impor­tant of the ranked skills. Mr Russell said that he had not been overly surprised by this outcome, but was pleased that students were discussing such issues positively.
 
What Students Most Value In a Professor
Great teaching 30.5%

General positivity 28.1%
Influential 11.5%
"Edutaining" 8.1%
Going above and beyond 7.4%
Care for students 5.1%
Self-awareness of learning 4.8%
Assessment and feedback 4.2%


Mark Israel, Winthrop professor of law and criminology at University of Western Australia and associate fellow of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, said the results accurately reflected the fact that students rarely talk about assessment and feedback.



"Students might need more help to see the role that assessment and feedback plays in their learning," he said. "Academics could also continue to be more imaginative and engaging in the way that they integrate assessment and feedback into their teaching."


The study highlights the emerging importance of the "edutainer" – a teacher who is able to combine education and ­enter­tainment.


"It’s not just about the member of staff having a sense of humor or being funny; it’s about the education experience being enjoyable," explained Barefoot.


Professor Israel argued that this trend may in part be due to a decline in the attention span of students, which he said was "dropping in each successive generation."


He also pointed to the growing popularity among students of ­“info­tain­ment” shows such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" or "QI" as a possible explanation.


Russell and Barefoot plan to present their work at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning conference.


"This isn’t a discussion that’s just going on in the UK," Barefoot said. "There’s been a lot of work internationally, particularly in Australia, on recognizing and rewarding excellent teaching. This is something that people [around the world] are trying to define."


Israel said that the results of the study would show academics, particularly those who were new to the profession, "that these are the sort of things that the students recognize. It reinforces the idea that putting an enormous amount [of effort into teaching] doesn’t go unnoticed."


He added that it was also important to recognize the role that support staff played in enabling lecturers to do their jobs. "Much of what goes into teaching is not necessarily visible to students," he said.
— Sarah Cunnane and Times Higher Education
Share/Bookmark

Inside Higher ED: Blackboard's Bid to Galvanize E-Texts


July 15, 2010
ORLANDO — In a series of moves that could give a boost to an e-textbook industry that has been treading water for years, Blackboard announced Wednesday that it is partnering with a major publisher and two major e-textbook vendors to make it easy for professors and students to assign and access e-textbooks and other digital materials directly through its popular learning-management system.


The company, which controlled about 60 percent of the learning-management market as of last year, said it is partnering with McGraw-Hill, a top academic publisher, as well as Follett Higher Education Group and Barnes & Noble, two major distributors that operate a combined 1,500 college bookstores in the United States and Canada.


The McGraw-Hill partnership will allow instructors to search the McGraw-Hill catalog for relevant course materials, then assign them to their students, without ever leaving Blackboard. Students can then purchase and access the assigned materials, also through the Blackboard portal, via the Follett and Barnes & Noble online bookstores.



Blackboard timed the announcement to coincide with its annual user conference here, where delegations from its many clients have gathered to geek out about e-learning and present various projects being done with Blackboard's popular e-learning tool kit.


The company would not comment on whether it is negotiating similar deals with publishers other than McGraw-Hill. But the other big-time e-textbook providers have been making moves of their own. Earlier this week, CourseSmart, a consortium of five major publishers (including McGraw-Hill), unveiled its new “Faculty Instant Access” program, which lets instructors access e-textbooks and other online content directly through any learning-management system (including Blackboard). CourseSmart will be rolling out the program to a handful of "selected universities" in coming weeks.


Michael Chasen, the president of Blackboard, demonstrated his company's new integration with McGraw-Hill, Follett, and Barnes & Noble during a keynote address on Wednesday at the user conference. Chasen narrated as he logged into a dummy course page in astronomy; then, without navigating out of the page, he searched McGraw-Hill's titles for an astronomy e-textbook using a few keywords. Chasen selected one, along with some supplemental e-learning objects, causing them to appear in the list of materials for the course. He then simulated the ease with which a student would log in to the course page, see the title in the list, and purchase it with a few quick clicks. "We’ve heard from our clients and their faculty that they want easier access to all that great online content that’s currently available on the Web through professional publishers,” Chasen said.


The name of the game is convenience, Ray Henderson, president of Blackboard Learn, emphasized later in an interview with Inside Higher Ed. If a publisher’s content is easy to assign electronically through the learning management system, that publisher could have a leg up when professors are deciding which publisher to choose. “There’s recognition… that Blackboard does represent a significant opportunity to reach their end users,” said Henderson. “We’re a great amplifier for their message.”


But can Blackboard, through these arrangements — and other learning-management providers such as Desire2Learn, Moodle, and Sakai, through CourseSmart’s Faculty Instant Access program — help publishers move more e-textbooks? Despite substantial buzz, e-textbooks have so far failed to catch on in academe, capturing 3.5 percent of the total textbook market, according to last year’s Campus Computing Survey. Recent polling by the Student Monitor reveals that student awareness of e-textbooks this spring was down from the previous spring, to 50 percent from 59.


The convenience of learning-management system integration could give the digital textbooks a bump, says Eric Weil, managing director of the Student Monitor. “It certainly can’t hurt, and I think it will have a positive impact,” Weil says, adding that along with the buzz about e-readers galvanized by Apple’s iPad, this fall could be a breakout semester for e-textbooks.


But Kenneth C. Green, director of the Campus Computing Project, cautions against ascribing too much credence to top-down efforts to stoke wider acceptance of e-textbooks. “The issue is not one of delivery, but about making a compelling value proposition,” Green says. In other words: As long as students still think the benefits of using a bound textbook outweigh the convenience of being able to buy an e-textbook through their college’s learning-management system, they will continue purchasing the old-fashioned kind.


For the latest technology news from Inside Higher Ed, follow IHEtech on Twitter.
— Steve Kolowich
Share/Bookmark