Search News


Browse Archives

News

Beyond Playing Defense

September 22, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As concerns about and criticism of American higher education have mounted in a series of reports in recent years, college leaders, fairly or not, have been portrayed as unresponsive if not outright obstructionist. That impression has been reinforced in the last few months by the forceful (and occasionally shrill) objections voiced by private college leaders about the work of the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, and the fact that higher education's lead representative on the panel, David Ward of the American Council on Education, was alone among its 19 members in declining to sign the report.

Thursday, days before Education Secretary Margaret Spellings plans to respond to the commission's report and lay out her prescription for the future of higher education, the six leading college groups sought to dispel the notion that higher education opposes change.

In "Addressing the Challenges Facing American Undergraduate Education," Ward and his compatriots at five other associations, representing community colleges, public and private four-year institutions, and research universities, "have gotten together on a strong statement that sets forth a number of challenges before higher education and embraces change to deal with them," Peter McPherson, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, said during a news conference of the group's leaders.

The other groups signing the document are the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Association of American Universities, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

The groups' statement comes in the form of a letter to presidents of their member colleges and universities, which include the vast majority of the country's nonprofit institutions. The association leaders frame the letter as a response to a series of reports about higher education that have come out in the past year or two, including the National Academies' "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," as well as legislation to renew the Higher Education Act.

But it seems clear, from the timing five days before Spellings' speech next Tuesday, that the groups acted largely to try to change the perceived posture of higher education as an impediment to the work of the secretary's commission.

The six associations have at times taken sharply differing positions on the work of the Spellings commission, with the independent college group by far the most critical, the two state college groups largely supportive, and the others somewhere in between. So the fact that they have come together around a common statement that, in its language at least, acknowledges problems in higher education and commits institutions to attacking them, struck at least one impartial observer as noteworthy.  

"The title of our report is, 'A Test of Leadership,' and this statement represents a constructive step in that direction," said Charles Miller, the chairman of the secretary's commission. "It admits to the need for significant change in our higher education system, and change is difficult and at times painful. The question is can we act now, soon, to do what's necessary?"

Undoubtedly, the college groups' aimed with this statement to stop being entirely reactive and to assume a role in setting the agenda rather than simply responding to it. The associations' letter acknowledges problems in higher education and the need for college leaders to confront them. It identifies as major challenges such things as providing more college access to low-income and minority students, keeping college affordable, increasing accountability for students' educational outcomes, and internationalizing the student experience.

But in the letter, and in their comments about it, the association leaders challenge the notion, implicit in the Spellings commission's report, that colleges have done little to address those problems so far.

"I think a lot of change is already going on, though it is often undocumented and unrecognized," Ward said at the news conference. "Though perhaps there is not as much as policy makers and the public would wish, and we want to energize even further change in response to these reports." He added: "We're arguing that the more we could do ourselves in a reform mode, the better."

The letter outlines a number of specific strategies that college associations or groups of colleges have begun or plan to undertake in coming months: a voluntary accountability system that the two state college groups are crafting, a major public service campaign, called "Know How To Go," aimed at encouraging low-income, first generation students to prepare for college, and yet-to-be-announced efforts to increase the number of science and math teachers colleges prepare and the number of high school graduates who are prepared for college-level work.

Those efforts aside, the letter is relatively thin on clearly defined strategies, which is no accident, the groups' leaders say. Most change in higher education must occur at the campus level, they assert, with the associations' role to prod and provide a framework for campus initiatives.

"We're very conscious of the distinction between dictum and dialogue," said David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "This is an effort to get a dialogue under way." More specific approaches are likely to emerge as that discussion evolves, he and the others said.

Perhaps the most visible sign of movement in the entire document is language that acknowledges that the nation needs a "better way to assess the educational success of students who attend more than a single college." That is a veiled reference to the highly controversial "unit records" system that would create a federal database to track students’ performance throughout their academic careers.

Private college officials have put that idea at the top of their list of the commission's most objectionable proposals, but most public institutions have supported the concept. In a nod to NAICU, the associations' letter states that "there are a host of technical/operational and personal privacy issues" related to unit records "that must be satisfactorily addressed." But the letter also notes that "interest in this topic is clear, and the higher education associations will convene a task force of associations and other groups to address these issues."

"It is important for this community, this group of six, to have such a statement," said McPherson of the land-grant college association. "We're saying, 'We're going to sit down and see what we should do.' " Warren, of the private college group, described the association chiefs as "collectively holding hands on this issue," adding: "There are principles that are in collision. Every now and then, this happens, and we're going to do our best to see if we can't sort it out."

The fact that the higher ed leaders see the potential to overcome their divisions on that thorny issue lent an optimistic feel to their discussion Thursday of the commission's report. But when asked about what they expected from Spellings' speech about the report on Tuesday, most of them predicted that the response of college leaders would depend largely on how tough the secretary's rhetoric is. 

"How the individual colleges respond depends on how it's framed," said Robert Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities. "If it is framed in terms of being chiding, the response may not be entirely positive."

Warren of NAICU said he was waiting to see to what extent the speech would "inform us about the dialogue, to what extent it will inspire us to act, and to what extent it will inveigh against us." The key, he said, is "which of those will be primary."

In other words, they suggested, if Spellings fills her speech with tough talk about higher education's flaws and its declining competitiveness on the world stage, expect college leaders to start playing defense again.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Beyond Playing Defense

  • Would zero-based budgeting be better?
  • Posted by L.L. on September 22, 2006 at 6:50am EDT
  • “ .. If it is framed in terms of being chiding, the response may not be entirely positive ..”

    Ever gone through a zero-based budgeting process? That's when you start all budgets at zero, and EVERY line-item has to be justified, on a go-forward basis.

    Would that be better than 'chiding?' What exactly would make you happy?

  • Internet vs Classroom
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on September 22, 2006 at 8:21am EDT
  • Could better reach and depth be achieved by use of internet - what studies are valid on this subject? Why must education be so expensive? The studies have to be independent of those with vested interests in the present methods.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.
    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
    wss@jefound.org

  • Internet teaching
  • Posted by Jeremy on September 22, 2006 at 9:21am EDT
  • Faculty members who teach internet courses tell me that it is more work and requires more time and effort than teaching the same class face-to-face.
    As far as research on the differences between internet and classroom experiences, I think the literature has yet to be settled on this issue - there's no clear winner.
    Internet teaching is not a "golden bullet" that will solve all of the problems of higher education.

  • Internet and the Classroom
  • Posted by John Wabel on September 22, 2006 at 10:31am EDT
  • Very true, the Intenet alone is not an answer to cost-effective and efficient learning, but using the Internet to allow live synchronous instruction is. Real learning requires real interaction with real people. It is being done every day across the country. It is very doable but it requires a cultural change within the institition. Every department must buy in and learn another method of interacting on their computers. It is not brain surgery it only requires that old dogs need to learn new tricks. Old dogs bite.

  • Shrill?
  • Posted by Cat Warren , Assoc. Prof. English at North Carolina State University on September 22, 2006 at 11:31am EDT
  • Put it in parentheses, and it looks like a truthful little aside that all of us will acknowlege with a little wink and nod. We all know the shrill ones. Interesting that faculty and administration who have strong and principled objections to key components of this report are hysterical and in denial. Unwilling to face the reality. We know, of course universities are filled with risk-adversive, irresponsible administrators and overpaid spoiled tenured faculty. They are not only obstructionist, but are cheating and overcharging honest but naive Americans who are not getting their money's worth. These (occasionally shrill) voices, sadly, have been crying in the wildnerness about the serious problems of credibility this report has -- to say nothing of the credibility of the reports by the "consultants," such as Robert Dickeson's, which were used as the foundation for this report, to say nothing of the credibility of this administration.
    Yes, universities have serious problems. But no, they're not going to be addressed by Spellings' report.
    The dearth of serious reporting and investigation by news media on the failure of No Child Left Behind, which will now be compounded by No University Left Behind, is nothing short of -- and I hope I don't sound shrill here -- the media business as usual.

  • Internet and costs
  • Posted by Rob Rittenhouse , Assoc. Prof at McMurry University on September 22, 2006 at 12:40pm EDT
  • Very true, the Intenet alone is not an answer to cost-effective and efficient learning, but using the Internet to allow live synchronous instruction is. Real learning requires real interaction with real people.

    But it is exactly this real interaction with real people that makes the educational product so expensive.

    Internet education has some benefits relating to convenience to the student but going synchronous puts the same type of limitations on the size of class sections as conventional instruction. Just as it is impractical to have a discussion section with 100 students in conventional classrooms it is impractical to have synchronous discussion with 100 people online.

  • Posted by John Wabel at Crown College on September 22, 2006 at 3:15pm EDT
  • I beleive sir you have made my point. Synchronous distance learning is not as cheap as correspodence (asynchronous) but it is not as expensive as a residential classroom. There is no building to maintain, grounds to groom, parking lot to attend. For the student there is no childcare required or transportation demanded. But there are live people learning in a socratic environment with qualified professionals who are the essences of the educationl process. Education of any kind, in its best form, is a three legged stool, the instuctor, students and content in the same place at the same time. If any one of those legs is missing you have a broken stool.

    To repond to your commment about the number of people in sections and lecture, I agree. 100 people in section is absurd. But in a synchronous environment you are duplicating the traditional classroom. 100 people can listen to a lecture together and groups of 20 people can breakout in 5 sections just as you normally would and each group would also have it's whiteboard.

    Are you the old dog I referred to earlier?

    /AIf you don't have and people that they are paying for and need

  • re: Internet and shrill
  • Posted by Jeff McNeill , PhD student and instructor at University of Hawaii at Manoa on September 22, 2006 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Dear colleagues,

    Just to note, in Internet-based education, there are "real" interactions with "real" people taking place. These interactions are simply done in a non-face-to-face environment. As well, the effectiveness of classrooms by themselves should be directly challenged, since this is the reason we need reform in the first place. In other words, there are some Internet-based courses which are more successful than classroom-based courses. Not because of the media or type of interaction, but because of the content and kinds of instruction being deployed. Yes, better teachers tend to teach better.

    The biggest challenge as far as I can tell consists of the fact that large swaths of academia are unwilling or incapable of agreeing to and holding themselves responsible for learning outcomes. This applies to faculty, departments, colleges, and universities.

    Because faculty especially tends to not provide alternative solutions when others are presented, and because faculty are seen as those folks who have gotten us into this mess, and because the responses to reform proposals are generally dismissive, is no wonder that these responses are seen as shrill? Yes, it is no wonder!

    The Internet and information technologies are complex sets of tools that require their own expertise. These tools can be expensive and time-consuming, but they can also deliver lower costs, better access, and increases in learning performance. As mentioned in other comments, we need to determine how these can lower costs and increase educational effectiveness.

    What is extremely interesting in this area is the use of Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs). This is not the headset virtual reality we heard about in the 90s. Rather these MUVEs consist of navigable 3d spaces rendered on 2d screens, with voice chat, and the ability to interact with a wide degree of freedom within simulations, as well providing a richer environment for collaboration and discussion.

    One example in lower education is Harvard's River City project (muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/).

    I look forward to this time of opportunity for authentic education reform.

    Sincerely,
    Jeff McNeill

  • One size does not fit all
  • Posted by kk , Associate Professor School of Music at Ball State University on September 22, 2006 at 5:01pm EDT
  • The interesting thing about all of these reports and discussions is the underlying notion that every subject could be "reformed" in the same way. The arguments about internet vs. classroom assume that the student needs nothing more than a computer and some type of text (physical or virtual); that the communication will be textual (verbal, written); and that all subjects are taught the same way.

    I'm not sure whether this is too superficial or too myopic (not knowing enough about education in general, or not being able to see beyond one's own discipline).

    Even basic intro science classes usually involve a laboratory component, without which the course loses meaning. Advanced science classes often require expensive equipment and careful guidance.

    The performing arts generally require intense and proximate interaction, not just between student and teacher, but between groups of students.

    Politicians (government and university) tend to see only coarse and crude solutions that lack the nuance to deal with the real problems that students, faculty, and universities must deal with. It's interesting that so-called conservatives tend to favor this top-down approach to education reform (although many didn't/don't even support the existence of a federal department of education), yet their approach to social services and business regulation is entirely opposite.

  • Financing Higher Education
  • Posted by Hammerhead , Craig Monroe on September 23, 2006 at 6:00am EDT
  • I have served as a administrator for fifteen
    of my forty years in higher education. I've
    learned enough in that time to applaud some of what the commission recommends (particularly regarding assessment). I am weary, however, of the resounding chorus arising from all levels of government and the public in general regarding rising tuition rates. I share an abiding concern that we are systematically pricing young people out of the opportunity for a higher education and burdening many others in a mountain of debt, but I object to conventional wisdom that places the blame for this on higher education, particularly public institutions of higher education. That diagnosis squares neither with my own experience nor with the data regarding higher education finance. Two recent studies--one by the Brookings Institution (2003) and the other by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (2006) quantify the quandary public institutions face.

    - between 2001 and 2005 enrollment in public institutions of higher education increased by
    14.3% and inflation increased by 14.2%.

    - in that time frame, state and local government support for these institutions declined by 18%.

    - tuition and fee increases that in some years reached double-digit levels were insufficient to fill the resulting gap. Total spending by public institutions (per full-time equivalent student) declined 8.8%
    between 2001 and 2005.

    Most disturbing is the conclusion that, far from being a temporary phenomenon, this trend will accelerate as the pressures on state budgets from entitlements and mandates
    squeeze out of state budgets discretionary spending, generally, and investments in higher education in particular.

    Surely higher education needs to look at alternative delivery systems and structures not just to cut costs, but to increase access to a broader range of learners. On-line delivery in one such such strategy, but
    there are limits on the types of learning objectives that lend themselves to such non-traditional methods. I really don't want to
    have a brain surgeon with an on-line degree operating on me.

    At some point, we must accept the principle that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
    You pay for what you get and you get what you pay for. The question remains, how is that burden distributed. Until we face that issue squarely and honestly, we will exact increasingly false economies out of the higher education experience at the risk of
    depleting quality while simultaneously restricting access to that experience to the least fortunate among us.

  • Diversifying Instructional Methods
  • Posted by kgotthardt on September 23, 2006 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Most seem to agree that one size does not fit all in instruction and learning. Mixing and matching instructional techniques provides the best possible of all worlds for institutions, students, and instructors. I can see how this approach would enhance a traditional composition course that meets on campus three times per week. Having students complete just one of those sessions online, asynchronously, can help institutions maximize scheduling classrooms and instructors, enhance the curriculum by supporting development of students' computer skills, and provide a certain amount of flexibility for everyone concerned.

    In this model, students begin their instructional week in an Internet environment, complete with a learning module and assignment due before the live session takes place. Then, when the live class does meet, the instructor focuses on class-wide writing issues and/or holds individual conferences to assess drafts. More time could be spent on revising and editing which are time consuming and often require intensive instruction. This process provides the student with more instruction in a sense because there is less lag-time between initial instruction and production--the student is required to come to the live class having submitted a draft product to evaluate and discuss, and the online content is weighed just as heavily as the live instruction.

    Some schools already use this model. It would be interesting to see the fiscal breakdown and academic outcomes of courses like these as opposed to those of traditional classroom sections.

  • Rising College Costs
  • Posted by Ed Meehan , Partner at Rittenhouse Capital on September 23, 2006 at 1:30pm EDT
  • The other consideration that is often forgotten is that tuition only represents 15% to 17% of the total education cost at public colleges (according to NCES data). So unfortunately, unless all government support and other income sources that fund the 83% - 87% shortfall increase at the inflation rate, we can expect tuition growth to outpace inflation.

  • Reduce teaching costs
  • Posted by George on September 24, 2006 at 7:25pm EDT
  • One suggestion to reduce the cost of teaching (in addition to others like online teaching which have already been discussed).

    Standardize.

    Take an example of a high-cost program - BS majoring in Computer Science. In today's system, students have the option of selecting from hundreds of courses, some of them not even remotely related to CS, before they graduate. Instead, a college should come out with a ruling - the first seven terms will be uniform for all students who want to major in CS. The curriculum should not change for five years. The final term can be used for any specialization. Students will have to specify their major when they matriculate. (All this is closer to the British system of teaching.)

    What does this cookie-cutter approach achieve? Here is a list - feel free to add to it:

    (1) Reduced no. of courses and therefore reduced faculty.
    (2) Since the courses are same over a five year period, less expensive teaching assistants can take over faculty responsibilities.
    (3) Students get to share resources (books, labs etc.)

    What will the negative reactions to such an approach be?

    (a) You do not expect students to specify their major when they matriculate.
    (b) Students should be given the choice of exploring all facets of Computer Science before they graduate.
    (c) Teaching assistants cannot be given the responsibility of teaching.
    (d) How will you get this approved by the faculty who specialize in certain areas?
    (d) Feel free to add more...

    Well, it sure is a radical suggestion. But given where we are today - higher education getting to be unaffordable for the ordinary American - and the fact that it not getting any better, maybe it is time to think of something radical. Or else, we continue to pay for the privilege of studying in a very flexible system.

  • 5 year curricula
  • Posted by Hammerhead on September 25, 2006 at 7:10am EDT
  • While I agree that endless elaboration of
    curricula should be examined, the notion that
    programs should be frozen for five year periods boggles my mind, particularly in a discipline like computer science. The operant word is CHANGE! On the other hand, I
    think demanding more rigorous periodic examinations of academic programs generally
    would serve a lot of purposes, including
    weeding out courses that are obsolete, duplicative, not advancing the program's mission, etc.