Search News


Browse Archives

News

Deal Dead in Ohio

March 4, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A private company that sought to help the University of Toledo provide education courses for a share of tuition revenues has “deferred” its negotiations, citing a lack of “alignment” between faculty who opposed the plan and administrators who embraced it.

In an e-mail circulated on campus Tuesday, Provost Rosemary Haggett lamented the end of talks with Higher Ed Holdings and criticized faculty for their objections.

“The fact that they felt the need to take this action in the midst of exploratory conversations is something I believe reflects poorly on our university because we could not have reasonable dialogue about this proposal,” she wrote. “What could have been a truly compelling dialogue about opportunities to broaden the number of graduate education students benefiting from the expertise of College of Education faculty was never allowed to get under way by those who would seek to demonize those that disagree with them rather than debate what is best for the institution in a thoughtful and professional way.”

Haggett went on to say that she hoped to "begin discussions on other potential models that might help us achieve our mission."

Jon Strunk, a university spokesman, declined to discuss the matter further, saying “the e-mail speaks for itself.”

Tom Evans, vice president of Higher Ed Holdings, did not return a call for comment Tuesday.

The company, which was started by the Texas entrepreneur Randy Best, had proposed a partnership in which Higher Ed Holdings would help the university deliver two master's-level education programs online. In exchange for its support, the company was asking for 70 percent of the tuition revenues the program generated, according to faculty familiar with the negotiations.

Faculty in the college were critical of the plan, saying it appeared to emphasize profit generation over quality. Higher Ed Holdings had promised to expand enrollment in the Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Leadership programs by hundreds of students, relying upon the company’s “coaches” to engage most directly with the students. Through its distance model, which has been implemented already at Lamar University, in Texas, the company planned to offer the degrees for roughly $5,000, about half of what students pay on campus, a faculty member said. In addition to being less expensive, the programs would also have been offered in a compressed time frame.

Faculty reaction to the provost’s e-mail Tuesday was harsh. Leigh Chiarelott, chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, said he thought it was unfortunate that Haggett chose to blame faculty for opposing a deal that raised legitimate academic and financial concerns.

“We’re a little upset by the tone [of the e-mail], the sense that we dug our heels in and we weren’t open to this when in fact pretty much the opposite is true,” he said. “We had hours and hours of meetings and tried to make it work.”

The deal with Higher Ed Holdings was characterized by administrators as part of a broader effort to expand “access,” but meetings with company officials left little impression that Toledo would be reaching new students in underrepresented areas, Chiarelott said. The company was planning to aim its marketing at major cities like Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, he said.

“Obviously that’s where the big numbers are, but the idea of bringing accessibility to the state of Ohio is really a big misnomer,” he said.

Faculty were also concerned about the history of Higher Ed Holdings, which was founded by Best, a major fund raiser for President George W. Bush. Best endured charges of cronyism when he won lucrative federal contracts for testing programs designed by one of his companies. The programs were later criticized for showing little evidence of effectiveness.

A Toledo faculty member, who asked not to be identified, said objections to the company were well founded.

“Although we’re pleased that the administration is going to allow us the time to explore other options, it is disappointing that the [provost’s] letter suggests that the faculty members in the College of Education did anything wrong by wanting to be involved in shared governance, asking questions about data and questioning the reputation of Randy Best with Higher Education [sic] Holdings,” the faculty member said. “Faculty are pleased that the provost is going to have further discussions with us, explore other options.”

Tuesday was not the first time Haggett sparked controversy with e-mail. Last spring, Haggett wrote to President Lloyd Jacobs, advising him not to meet with a faculty group that had voted “no confidence” in their dean, saying that doing so “actually rewards bad behavior.”

Conflict of Interest Concerns

Faculty who opposed going into business with Higher Ed Holdings also raised conflict of interest concerns. Scott Scarborough, the university’s chief financial officer, once sat on the company’s corporate board. Scarborough said he had no financial interest in the company, but that assurance did little to quell criticism that the company was considered by Toledo officials only because of its connections to a key administrator -- not its reputation for quality.

Gregory Stone, an associate professor of research and measurement, said he was relieved to see the deal not go through. That said, Stone supports an expansion of distance learning models, and says he looks forward to more discussion about reform.

“You can look at this as a negative or positive. I tend to look at it as a positive that we want promote new and novel ideas like this,” he said. “But we want to do so in a careful, deliberative and thoughtful way, and not necessary [just focus on] how cheaply we can do this, making the biggest buck.”

Even if the university had hopes of increasing revenues, the plan gave little promise that Toledo would realize much in the way of gains, according to Chiarelott, who analyzed how the proposal might benefit the department he chairs. In order to accommodate the new influx of students that would be required to make the venture profitable for Higher Ed Holdings, the university would incur infrastructure costs that weren’t discussed, he said. Furthermore, there were sensible objections to a public university in Ohio sending 70 percent of tuition revenues to a private company in Texas, Chiarelott said.

“I looked at the financial aspect of this and didn’t see how it would work,” he said.

Students: President “Is A Threat”

The debate over Higher Ed Holdings has re-ignited criticism of Jacobs, president at Toledo. Jacobs is taking barbs for an e-mail he sent to the provost, insisting that the next dean of the College of Education be a business-minded leader from “outside the ‘educational establishment.’ ”

Student activists, who had already criticized Jacobs as insensitive to the role of liberal arts at the university, are now calling for his resignation in a critical two-page flier being distributed by the thousands on campus. “Lloyd Jacobs is a Threat to Your Future,” the flier declares in bold black typeface.

The flier gives a laundry list of objections, calling the Higher Ed Holdings deal a plan to transform Toledo into a “diploma mill,” and criticizing Jacobs for his $390,000 salary and generous bonuses. In a call to action, the flier presses students to contact trustees and “tell them Enough Bullshit, Jacobs Must Quit!”

Evan Morrison, a history major who is helping distribute the fliers, said the latest controversy in the College of Education is just another example of Jacobs’ poor leadership.

“This isn’t an isolated event,” said Morrison, a senior. “If we’re able to put a stop to this it would just be a matter of time before something else comes up.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Deal Dead in Ohio

  • Brovo to U. Toledo faculty!
  • Posted by Wade Hannon , Assoc. Prof., Counselor Educ. at North Dakota State Univ. on March 4, 2009 at 7:30am EST
  • I fully support the objections and actions of the faculty at U. of Toledo. Contracting out is a bad thing for everyone except the people who own the company and are making the profits! Higher education is not something to be bought and sold.

    I appreciate hearing of faculty who are not afraid to stand up to administrators! Good job folks!!

  • Mr. Hannon: HELLO!
  • Posted by Russell Kitchner , Governmental Relations at American Public University System on March 4, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • I could swear that I was not obliged to leave the planet the last time I visited the great State of North Dakota, but alas, Mr. Hannon’s misguided notion that higher education is NOT “something to be bought and sold” suggests otherwise. In fact, higher education has become a commercial commodity in every meaningful sense of the term, and Obama’s call for universal college education as a path to economic advancement is nothing if not confirmation of that reality. Furthermore, if Mr. Hannon takes a peek around his campus he will likely find contractors under every shrubbery. Unless he is writing and publishing all his classroom materials, his students also are routinely utilizing the services and products of external vendors. On-line/distance education has matured and advanced to the point that it is being embraced by institutions representing every sector of American higher education – public and private, for-profit and not-for profit, and with varying degrees of quality not uncharacteristic of more traditional, bricks and mortar institutions, It is not a solution for every student, nor is it a fit for every institution, but time and experience has proven that neither does it necessarily lead to bogus or unearned credentials.
    Finally, the notion that faculty need to “stand up to administrators” reflects a sad case of demonization and very narrow thinking. Quoting the late William F. Buckley, Jr. “I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.” As for how I feel about the matter, I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

  • Posted by Henry Vandenburgh on March 4, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • It's probably impossible for a college or university to use a private vendor for on-line courses in as much as the faculty is supposedly guarenteeing the courses and their quality-- canned, vended courses fly in the face of this principle.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on March 4, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • Of course the tenured faculty fought this effort. It would break their rice bowls. I offered to put together a hybrid course for our students for free if I was just allowed to teach it for two semesters. I wanted to make sure that it worked before turning it over to the department. A resounding NO by the tenured faculty. The goal is not to teach in higher "education". It is to drive up the salaries through union action and keep the students on the plantation as long as possible.

  • Thanks for the Students, Toledo Faculty!
  • Posted by Senior Professor on March 4, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • You behaved as predicted, leaving more benefits for 21st Century higher educators who do not still teach as did their great-great grand-professors.

    Stand up! Show pride in your ignorance of modern learning sciences. Cash your paychecks with well-earned hypocrisy.

    We'll be taking your students from you in due course.

  • distance learning
  • Posted by Hope Immer , Assistant Professor/Education on March 4, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • Ignorance of "modern learning sciences" is a condition to be deeply desired, but difficult to maintain. The idea that "learning" consists of information that can be transmitted electronically to hundreds of students by a disembodied professor is attractive to many but it is as closely related to true education as Walmart is to community-building.

  • Online Educatiion Instruction
  • Posted by DFS on March 4, 2009 at 4:15pm EST
  • How in the hell does anyone expect to be taught, only in an online manner, how to teach?

    Did I miss something here?

  • Re: Senior Professor
  • Posted by UTCollie , Part-time Student, Full-time Toledoan at U of Toledo on March 4, 2009 at 4:45pm EST
  • Dear Senior Professor,

    I don't think so. No fast-food degree for me, thanks - and NO I wold NOT like fries with that.

    Sincerely,

    Collie

  • reread the opposition
  • Posted by Theron on March 4, 2009 at 5:30pm EST
  • Reading the article, I see little resistance to technology or to on-line courses. Instead I see two points:

    1. Disagreement about oversight, control of classroom content AND the way the administration approached the issue.

    2. Concern about the nature of the for-profit company, its goals and how they differ from edcuational goals (making money vs. teaching) and the degree of dishonesty withion that particular company.

    Given this read, I am surprised at the anger in the posts directed toward faculty who stood up and said no. The process was flawed and THIS PARTICULAR product seemed flawed.

    Why the anger directed toward faculty who define education as more than the amassing of data and see a degree as more than a commodity to buy? Are critical thinking and distrust of commodification that threatening? Maybe Brooks Stevens had something...that planned obsolescence actually works psychologically after all.

  • Thank Heavens
  • Posted by Cathiekl , Computer Goddess on March 4, 2009 at 8:45pm EST
  • Thank heavens this did not pass. C'mon Administrators! You are dealing with intelligent faculty members here. Why didn't you ask them what they thought FIRST?

  • reread the opposition2
  • Posted by Reply to Theron on March 5, 2009 at 4:30am EST
  • Congratulations, Theron. You can read--probably because you had good teachers who were trained in schools of education. This was about HEH and shared governance; not resistance to technology.

  • Underserved?
  • Posted by Associate Professor on March 5, 2009 at 8:15am EST
  • I take issue with the assumption that the citizens of Ohio in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati are underserved. There are major public and private universities in each of these cities, all of which are considering how to attract more students and to add appropriate online programs. In addition, there is a major initiative in Ohio to restructure higher education to have "One University" to meet the educational needs in both the highly populated and smaller areas of the state. This was an attempt to institute a for-profit online service within the Ohio public university system, which would have run counter to the goals of that initiative. Kudos to the College of Education faculty.

  • Reread the Opposition v3
  • Posted by DFS on March 6, 2009 at 2:45pm EST
  • Congratulations, 2, you too can read. It's too bad that you refuse to see Theron's point. Don't try to box in the discussion only for your parameters. Theron had a point to make, and I take his point, and perhaps others may as well.
    This is, after all, a forum, not your convenient pigeonhole.

  • Reread the Opposition v3
  • Posted by Reread the Opposition v4 on March 6, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • Quite the opposite; I agree with Theron! He was one of the few who saw the issues.

  • In defense of democracy on campus
  • Posted by Professor, Eastern Michigan U , Professor on March 7, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • Thanks to the University of Toledo College of Education faculty for insisting on open and informed debate on campus. What strikes me is the way the UT Provost condemns her faculty for taking "these actions." What exactly is she condemning? As I read it, the actions that the faculty took include requesting and analyzing data, investigating the record of HEH, and insisting on playing by the agreed upon rules of shared governance.

    The fact that HEH decided to "discontinue" talks in the face of such public discussions raises serious questions about their record and intentions. If the plan they offered was sound and virtuous, why not simply respond directly and publicly to questions raised?

     

    Unlike previous posters who suggest that the faculty was motivated by self-interest, I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Had any faculty members tried to facilitate the administration's aims, they might have been rewarded. Those who insisted on open and democratic debate will likely not be--as this ridiculous public scolding by the Provost demonstrates. The solidarity of the faculty in insisting on democratic principles despite the demeaning response of these administrators is a testament to their collective stewardship of the University of Toledo, and of public higher education generally.

     

  • Gotcha, V4
  • Posted by DFS on March 11, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Now I can re-read your posts and see your points as well. Nothing like context!

    My apologies.