This week, I was pleased to hear that President Obama announced an important, but achievable, national educational goal: for the United State to have the highest percentage of citizens with a post-secondary education--apprenticeship or college--than any nation in the world by the year 2020. Obama was careful not to limit higher education to college, but he did make clear his concern that too many students are entering college, but not completing a degree.
Most of the mechanisms to achieve this goal are being put in place: a shift from private lending to direct lending for student loans by the government through the schools; a proposed increase in the need-based Pell Grant to a maximum of $5,500; regulatory reform, instead of termination, for the Perkins Low Interest Student Loan program; and tax credits for working families. Colleges are also responding to this goal; already this week we read of "no-frills" schools and three year degrees, as well as tuition stabilization plans at publicly supported schools.
However, one issue I see is not one of finances, but one of direction for students. While students fail to complete their degrees due to lack of funds, they also drop out of college because they do not know what they want to do with their degree. And today, the greater fear is that a graduate will have a degree, but also a debt greater than their starting salary for any entry level job. Too often, I have met people who said things like, "I love to read, or I love to write, but I can make more money doing something that does not require a degree."
Last summer, I applied for a fellowship. Had I been selected, I would have gone through an intense training experience to become the executive director of a charter school. In order to prepare my application, I visited a school, Democracy Prep, in Harlem. There, I learned that teachers and administrators use "Dream Dollars," a means to build up credit to use on college tours; they took sixth and seventh graders to visit college campuses in Boston and Washington.
Somehow, I doubt that "no frills" colleges would have been on that tour, and I doubt they will be in the future. The ambiance of the campus community was the main attraction. And that's how it should be. An attractive campus with an air of history, perfectly manicured lawns and students either frenzied or relaxed is the perception of college. Seeing and touching that perception is more likely to turn it into reality for some students. Of course, some will be intimidated too; there will always be parents who are price sensitive.
These tours, and the dream of college, are all well and good, but there is a greater need to expose students to professions that might be interest to them while they are still young, quite likely in the middle schools. Educational materials, whether they be software, lectures or textbooks, should be worded more like case problems that simulate real-world situations.
For instance, instead of drilling students in concepts in math, more attention should be given to showing how they are used at work, in business, computer science or engineering. I know that I got more interested in solving a math problem when it discussed the best ways to get more compression from a car's engine, than I did from simply copying problems off a lecture. I don't believe that America's public schools will get more students into college or advanced vocational programs if they stick to "drill and kill."
The federal government does not need to legislate classroom content or materials, but they do need to back away from the over-emphasis on high-stakes testing in the high schools. State governments can do as my home state of New Jersey is doing: mandate a more rigorous core curriculum that must be completed in order to receive a diploma. And state, federal and foundation monies could be jointly invested in career counseling and assessment to help students see where their interests lie. The best thing a public school system can do, whether it is charter schools or traditional schools, is provide the starting point on the road map to employment.
My experience has been that the people who knew what they wanted to get from college succeeded there. They came with some idea of the subjects that interested them, and some goal to achieve after they earned their degree. But these people are in the minority of college-bound students. If the majority had been given some early exposure to careers that might have become their life's work, then most of them could have graduated.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
A University Can't Afford Not to Have a Good Lobbyist
I just finished reading a very interesting book: So Much Damn Money, The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government. Written by Robert Kaiser, who has been a reporter with the Washington Post for forty six years, So Much Damn Money takes you into the offices of Cassidy and Associates, one of the nation's most powerful lobbying firms.
Cassidy and Associates began as Schlossberg-Cassidy and Associates, a partnership between two Democrats, Gerald S.J Cassidy and Kenneth Schlossberg, who met while working together as staffers to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Kaiser describes Ken Schlossberg as the more urbane of the two partners, while Cassidy was the hard-charging workhorse, not as likable, but more schooled in the ways of politics.
Schlossberg-Cassidy, then later Cassidy and Associates (after the original partners split up) built its business by working with universities to help them gain federal funding or to have them selected for research institutes.
Schlossberg-Cassidy's first university client, in 1976, was Tufts University. They helped the school secure funding to become a national center for nutrition research under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. At first, the USDA appropriated $2 million for a feasibility study at Tufts. In October, 1977, Congress appropriated $27 million for the center. The firm later secured $10 million in federal funds for Tufts to open a veterinary school, as well as funds for the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Their fee, paid by Tufts: $10,000 per month or $120,000 per year,later raised to $125,000. And this was more than thirty years ago.
Schlossberg-Cassidy springboarded from this success to pick up other university clients. They helped Georgetown secure funding for an inter-cultural centerwithin their School of Foreign Service (and Tuft's as well, in the same bill), for Catholic University and Columbia University to receive funds for advanced research in chemistry.
After Schlossberg and Cassidy dissolved their partnership in 1984, Cassidy brought on a former president of the University of Alabama as a partner. Institutions as small as Loyola College (MD) and large state university systems such as the University of Massachusetts and the West Virginia University engaged Cassidy and Associates to set them up with, borrowing a term from the book, academic earmarks.
As the Cassidy firm built its university clientele, the concept of academic earmarks was widely criticized by university associations that were set up to lobby on behalf of all of their members, versus the needs of individual schools.
The argument against earmarks during the Seventies and Eighties were that institutions should go through peer review: a team of academically qualified people would determine the best places to direct federal and foundation dollars to research. Individual institutions should not make direct requests to Congress; the association or federal agencies should make them instead.
The counter-argument was that the "haves," the most prestigious universities, would receive all of the funds, and the rest would be left with nothing--and therefore could not build up a reputation as a research university.
Moving into today, I still read stories in my local papers where reporters appear shocked at the fees that a state-supported institution pays its lobbyists; they are still well into six figures. However, the lobbyists are asked to perform many tasks that university development officers have no background: tracking developments in the Federal Register (more tedious than most would like to believe), initiating meetings with government agency heads and members of House or Senate committees, and drafting legislation.
Lobbying is an art as well as a craft, but if used properly it can bring a university millions of dollars that it cannot raise from private foundations, corporations or alumni. Lobbying and earmarks may sound like dirty words to some, but they are a fact of life in higher education. And the good lobbyists get retained because they earn many times their fees on behalf of their schools.
Cassidy and Associates began as Schlossberg-Cassidy and Associates, a partnership between two Democrats, Gerald S.J Cassidy and Kenneth Schlossberg, who met while working together as staffers to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Kaiser describes Ken Schlossberg as the more urbane of the two partners, while Cassidy was the hard-charging workhorse, not as likable, but more schooled in the ways of politics.
Schlossberg-Cassidy, then later Cassidy and Associates (after the original partners split up) built its business by working with universities to help them gain federal funding or to have them selected for research institutes.
Schlossberg-Cassidy's first university client, in 1976, was Tufts University. They helped the school secure funding to become a national center for nutrition research under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. At first, the USDA appropriated $2 million for a feasibility study at Tufts. In October, 1977, Congress appropriated $27 million for the center. The firm later secured $10 million in federal funds for Tufts to open a veterinary school, as well as funds for the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Their fee, paid by Tufts: $10,000 per month or $120,000 per year,later raised to $125,000. And this was more than thirty years ago.
Schlossberg-Cassidy springboarded from this success to pick up other university clients. They helped Georgetown secure funding for an inter-cultural centerwithin their School of Foreign Service (and Tuft's as well, in the same bill), for Catholic University and Columbia University to receive funds for advanced research in chemistry.
After Schlossberg and Cassidy dissolved their partnership in 1984, Cassidy brought on a former president of the University of Alabama as a partner. Institutions as small as Loyola College (MD) and large state university systems such as the University of Massachusetts and the West Virginia University engaged Cassidy and Associates to set them up with, borrowing a term from the book, academic earmarks.
As the Cassidy firm built its university clientele, the concept of academic earmarks was widely criticized by university associations that were set up to lobby on behalf of all of their members, versus the needs of individual schools.
The argument against earmarks during the Seventies and Eighties were that institutions should go through peer review: a team of academically qualified people would determine the best places to direct federal and foundation dollars to research. Individual institutions should not make direct requests to Congress; the association or federal agencies should make them instead.
The counter-argument was that the "haves," the most prestigious universities, would receive all of the funds, and the rest would be left with nothing--and therefore could not build up a reputation as a research university.
Moving into today, I still read stories in my local papers where reporters appear shocked at the fees that a state-supported institution pays its lobbyists; they are still well into six figures. However, the lobbyists are asked to perform many tasks that university development officers have no background: tracking developments in the Federal Register (more tedious than most would like to believe), initiating meetings with government agency heads and members of House or Senate committees, and drafting legislation.
Lobbying is an art as well as a craft, but if used properly it can bring a university millions of dollars that it cannot raise from private foundations, corporations or alumni. Lobbying and earmarks may sound like dirty words to some, but they are a fact of life in higher education. And the good lobbyists get retained because they earn many times their fees on behalf of their schools.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Forgot Your Lunch Money? Then Smile and Say "Cheese"
Today I read that the Albuquerque (NM) Public Schools initiated a "cheese policy." Seriously. Any student who forgets their lunch money or fails to pay an outstanding balance at the cafeteria is given a cold cheese sandwich and a beverage. The reasoning is that those who must pay for some portion of their school lunch should pay, but if they don't have the money they should be given something to eat.
There is a financial reason for the cheese policy: if the delinquent accounts are not paid then the school district has no place to go to get the money. And the total amount for the delinquent accounts was significant; it was on schedule to be $300,000.
With the cheese policy, the school district has collected just over $50,000 in delinquent monies from parents since the beginning of the year. It also identified 2,000 students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, and more children in the lunch program means more federal dollars for the district. So the policy ended up helping more kids to a better meal.
The cheese policy sounds silly on the surface, but there is a point. Parents who can pay for their child's meals, or provide them with lunch from home, should pay. Or they should be willing to work with the school system to help assure that every student gets a decent meal for no charge.
There is no reason for kids to be made to feel like second class citizens in their own cafeteria. I can't think of a better area to call for parent-educator cooperation in this day and age. They can all agree that kids need more nutritious meals.
There is a financial reason for the cheese policy: if the delinquent accounts are not paid then the school district has no place to go to get the money. And the total amount for the delinquent accounts was significant; it was on schedule to be $300,000.
With the cheese policy, the school district has collected just over $50,000 in delinquent monies from parents since the beginning of the year. It also identified 2,000 students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, and more children in the lunch program means more federal dollars for the district. So the policy ended up helping more kids to a better meal.
The cheese policy sounds silly on the surface, but there is a point. Parents who can pay for their child's meals, or provide them with lunch from home, should pay. Or they should be willing to work with the school system to help assure that every student gets a decent meal for no charge.
There is no reason for kids to be made to feel like second class citizens in their own cafeteria. I can't think of a better area to call for parent-educator cooperation in this day and age. They can all agree that kids need more nutritious meals.
NYU: The Aftermath
The Chronicle of Higher Education provided an excellent report about the aftermath of the student takeover of the third floor of the Kimmel Center, the student center at New York University.
Pay attention, not only to the article, but also the comments from different vantage points, including a former student activist from the Sixties as well a university public affairs officer. Read them in their entirety. For the most part, members of a greater university--beyond the students--agreed with the university's decision to remove the student (and apparently non-student) activists from the building.
I stand by my previous post on the takeover. I do not believe that the university administration wanted to use force. But, as in war or hostage situations, when you refuse to meet your adversary to begin negotiations or demand amnesty before you negotiate you get what you deserve.
Pay attention, not only to the article, but also the comments from different vantage points, including a former student activist from the Sixties as well a university public affairs officer. Read them in their entirety. For the most part, members of a greater university--beyond the students--agreed with the university's decision to remove the student (and apparently non-student) activists from the building.
I stand by my previous post on the takeover. I do not believe that the university administration wanted to use force. But, as in war or hostage situations, when you refuse to meet your adversary to begin negotiations or demand amnesty before you negotiate you get what you deserve.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Check Out Some Teachable Moments
Last summer I wrote two posts: Is Summer School Uncool? and I Feel Like I'm In Prison and the Principal Holds The Key.
Both of these posts cited material from noted teacher Brian Crosby's book: Smart Kids, Bad Schools, which offers thirty-eight ideas for improving the future of American education. Crosby is a National Board Certified teacher with twenty years experience in the Los Angeles area schools.
Yesterday Crosby contacted me by e-mail and sent me a link to a daily radio series he has begun this week called Teachable Moments. Teachable Moments will be a daily minute, every school day, towards delivering teacher to parent and teacher to student tips about school. Crosby goes into more detail about these tips in his book but Internet radio is often a better medium for parents on the go.
I learned a great deal about education reading Smart Kids, Bad Schools and his comments make good sense. I encourage you to take a daily moment, or five minutes a week, to listen to him.
Both of these posts cited material from noted teacher Brian Crosby's book: Smart Kids, Bad Schools, which offers thirty-eight ideas for improving the future of American education. Crosby is a National Board Certified teacher with twenty years experience in the Los Angeles area schools.
Yesterday Crosby contacted me by e-mail and sent me a link to a daily radio series he has begun this week called Teachable Moments. Teachable Moments will be a daily minute, every school day, towards delivering teacher to parent and teacher to student tips about school. Crosby goes into more detail about these tips in his book but Internet radio is often a better medium for parents on the go.
I learned a great deal about education reading Smart Kids, Bad Schools and his comments make good sense. I encourage you to take a daily moment, or five minutes a week, to listen to him.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Yentl At Yale: Review of On Borrowed Wings by Chandra Prasad
When I was in high school I was a member of a Jewish youth group. I was actually happy to join; it gave me a chance to meet girls who did not go to my school. Among the activities of this group was Kallah, retreats that emphasized religious education over social events. My mother was a Hebrew school teacher, so attending these was part of the deal.
On one of these Kallahs our group took a trip to Broadway in New York City to see Yentl, a story of a nineteenth century woman who wants to become a rabbi. She wants to become a rabbi so badly that she disguises herself as a man. The only study of Judaism at the time was Orthodox Judaism, and that was open only to men.
I recalled seeing the play when I purchased Chandra Prasad's On Borrowed Wings. On Borrowed Wings is the story of Adele Pietra, a young woman who takes her brother's place in the Yale Class of 1940. Her brother and father have been killed in a mining accident.
Adele conspires with her mother to help her look and dress like a Yale man, an Old Blue, and to hide her femininity as best she can, even through mandatory fitness and swimming tests. She also hides her crush on a classmate, though he agrees to hide her identity, too.
Adele Pietra is, therefore, the first woman to attend Yale, and she is also one of the few from a working class family. In order to help pay for school she is assigned to a work-study with a professor who believes in eugenics, the idea that hereditary of a race is improved through selective breeding.
The professor sends Adele nee' Charles into the New Haven community to conduct interviews with working class families in order to validate his academic views. In the end, Adele/Charles intervenes to refute them. The professor repudiates her, and her mother wants her to leave school, but Adele wants to live on as Charles.
On Borrowed Wings is an interesting example of historical fiction, one that brilliantly discusses college life during the tail end of the Depression, and she does it from the standpoint of someone who would normally be excluded from all she sees. And she turns out to be a good man as Charles.
On one of these Kallahs our group took a trip to Broadway in New York City to see Yentl, a story of a nineteenth century woman who wants to become a rabbi. She wants to become a rabbi so badly that she disguises herself as a man. The only study of Judaism at the time was Orthodox Judaism, and that was open only to men.
I recalled seeing the play when I purchased Chandra Prasad's On Borrowed Wings. On Borrowed Wings is the story of Adele Pietra, a young woman who takes her brother's place in the Yale Class of 1940. Her brother and father have been killed in a mining accident.
Adele conspires with her mother to help her look and dress like a Yale man, an Old Blue, and to hide her femininity as best she can, even through mandatory fitness and swimming tests. She also hides her crush on a classmate, though he agrees to hide her identity, too.
Adele Pietra is, therefore, the first woman to attend Yale, and she is also one of the few from a working class family. In order to help pay for school she is assigned to a work-study with a professor who believes in eugenics, the idea that hereditary of a race is improved through selective breeding.
The professor sends Adele nee' Charles into the New Haven community to conduct interviews with working class families in order to validate his academic views. In the end, Adele/Charles intervenes to refute them. The professor repudiates her, and her mother wants her to leave school, but Adele wants to live on as Charles.
On Borrowed Wings is an interesting example of historical fiction, one that brilliantly discusses college life during the tail end of the Depression, and she does it from the standpoint of someone who would normally be excluded from all she sees. And she turns out to be a good man as Charles.
Binghamton University: The Georgetown of Upstate New York?
This weekend, the New York Times sports section had a feature story on the Binghamton University men's basketball team. The Bearcats, who joined the Division I America East Conference, have a 19-8 record and could become conference champions with a victory over the University of Maryland-Baltimore County on Wednesday. Yet the Times story read: For Binghamton, Division I Move Brings Recognition and Regret.
I did a little homework about the basketball program beyond the Times story. The school reported the team's resume since beginning Division I play. Binghamton is considered to be a mid-major school; such schools often surprise during the March Madness of the NCAA tournament. Since joining America East, Binghamton has led the America East in attendance, averaging over 3,600 fans per game. That's not bad considering that there are less than 12,000 undergraduate students. The Bearcats played their most recent game, an overtime win over New Hampshire, to a sell-out crowd of over 5,200.
So, on those measures, attendance and the team's improvement, in terms of victories, the Binghamton Bearcats men's basketball program has been a success. There is a fan base that will come out to support a poor or average team, and especially a winning team. It is safe to believe that the atmosphere on campus will be euphoric if the Bearcats secure the top seed in the America East tournament as well as its guaranteed NCAA or NIT berth.
However, the Times story counters the Bearcats success on the court with problems off the court. The story places blame on the recruiting practices of current coach Kevin Broadus, a former Georgetown assistant, as well as relationships between the athletic department and the faculty, though these are shown through the eyes of only two teachers.
It was interesting to find that eight Bearcats , all juniors or seniors, are transfer students from community colleges or other four-year schools. The transfer students made up half of their roster.
I don't believe that the team would be made up this way unless Broadus, a second year coach, was under pressure to win as quickly as possible. A college administration that was more concerned about the academic qualifications of the players would have been more likely to be more patient. Those who are cynical about the degrees athletes pursue will be satisfied. They will see from viewing the roster, that human development is, by far, the most popular major among the players who have declared a major.
Coach Broadus told the Times reporters that he follows the philosophy of former Georgetown coach John Thompson: that an athlete willing to work and make up for past transgressions deserves a second chance.
Broadus cited former Georgetown star, now pro superstar Allen Iverson as an example of someone who benefited from Thompson's tutelage to become a model citizen. However, some might not see Iverson as an example of a quality recruit because he left Georgetown after two years to turn pro. He didn't need another year under Thompson to make big money in the National Basketball Association. He was the first player taken in the 1996 draft. The men of Binghamton can only wish that they will be so fortunate.
The question now, is not whether Binghamton can win basketball games with these men, but is their university community willing to embrace them as students to give them the second chance that Coach Broadus believes they deserve? Apparently Georgetown was willing to do that with Iverson and there are schools with coaches who have been more successful than Broadus who are also willing to take similar risks. The academic success of these players is probably more important for Binghamton than it would be for Georgetown because the athletes are less likely to be noticed by pro scouts.
If a school is willing to accept these athletes, warts and all, they must help them succeed as best they can. If they fail despite the faculty's best efforts then the school should ask them to leave, not keep them on the roster and throw their failure under the rug. This appears to be the concern of the Binghamton faculty quoted in the Times story.
If a school prefers to have athletes that the admissions and faculty members will love then they owe the coach a chance to succeed with those players,unless they can find a coach who can win more games under their rules. The dynamic between academics and athletics has to be a two-way street. And it rarely is.
I did a little homework about the basketball program beyond the Times story. The school reported the team's resume since beginning Division I play. Binghamton is considered to be a mid-major school; such schools often surprise during the March Madness of the NCAA tournament. Since joining America East, Binghamton has led the America East in attendance, averaging over 3,600 fans per game. That's not bad considering that there are less than 12,000 undergraduate students. The Bearcats played their most recent game, an overtime win over New Hampshire, to a sell-out crowd of over 5,200.
So, on those measures, attendance and the team's improvement, in terms of victories, the Binghamton Bearcats men's basketball program has been a success. There is a fan base that will come out to support a poor or average team, and especially a winning team. It is safe to believe that the atmosphere on campus will be euphoric if the Bearcats secure the top seed in the America East tournament as well as its guaranteed NCAA or NIT berth.
However, the Times story counters the Bearcats success on the court with problems off the court. The story places blame on the recruiting practices of current coach Kevin Broadus, a former Georgetown assistant, as well as relationships between the athletic department and the faculty, though these are shown through the eyes of only two teachers.
It was interesting to find that eight Bearcats , all juniors or seniors, are transfer students from community colleges or other four-year schools. The transfer students made up half of their roster.
I don't believe that the team would be made up this way unless Broadus, a second year coach, was under pressure to win as quickly as possible. A college administration that was more concerned about the academic qualifications of the players would have been more likely to be more patient. Those who are cynical about the degrees athletes pursue will be satisfied. They will see from viewing the roster, that human development is, by far, the most popular major among the players who have declared a major.
Coach Broadus told the Times reporters that he follows the philosophy of former Georgetown coach John Thompson: that an athlete willing to work and make up for past transgressions deserves a second chance.
Broadus cited former Georgetown star, now pro superstar Allen Iverson as an example of someone who benefited from Thompson's tutelage to become a model citizen. However, some might not see Iverson as an example of a quality recruit because he left Georgetown after two years to turn pro. He didn't need another year under Thompson to make big money in the National Basketball Association. He was the first player taken in the 1996 draft. The men of Binghamton can only wish that they will be so fortunate.
The question now, is not whether Binghamton can win basketball games with these men, but is their university community willing to embrace them as students to give them the second chance that Coach Broadus believes they deserve? Apparently Georgetown was willing to do that with Iverson and there are schools with coaches who have been more successful than Broadus who are also willing to take similar risks. The academic success of these players is probably more important for Binghamton than it would be for Georgetown because the athletes are less likely to be noticed by pro scouts.
If a school is willing to accept these athletes, warts and all, they must help them succeed as best they can. If they fail despite the faculty's best efforts then the school should ask them to leave, not keep them on the roster and throw their failure under the rug. This appears to be the concern of the Binghamton faculty quoted in the Times story.
If a school prefers to have athletes that the admissions and faculty members will love then they owe the coach a chance to succeed with those players,unless they can find a coach who can win more games under their rules. The dynamic between academics and athletics has to be a two-way street. And it rarely is.
Friday, February 20, 2009
An Innovative High School Football Offense is Not Offensive
I'm closing the week with a sports story. The National Federation of State High School Associations, a federation of athletic associations, not coaches, has rendered the A-11, an innovative high school football offense, an illegal formation.
Without going too much into football details, the A-11 is an offense where any player, even the center or quarterback, can be a pass receiver on any given play. Only six receivers are eligible, which means that defenses must be quite athletic and fast, and they are likely to become quite confused. If you want to know more, there is an official Web site called a11offense.com.
Two coaches at Piedmont High School (CA), head coach Kurt Bryan and offensive coordinator Steve Humphries are considered to be the founders of the A-11. Bryan and Humphries installed the offense to be more competitive with the larger schools in their conference. Piedmont High has won more games than they have lost with the A-11, but they have only gone 15-7 over the past two seasons. It is not like the new offense has made their team an offensive juggernaut in their conference.
This is a situation where coaching politics has dominated common sense. There is plenty of information available to football coaches about the A-11, and smart defensive coordinators who apparently know how to stop it. And a ban is especially silly in public school conferences where a coach has to take the best players enrolled at his school.
If Bryan, for instance, had strong, dominant, but slow linemen who could block, but not run, he would find a way to get them on the field. And he can't recruit athletes from other schools to fit his offense; he can only recruit athletes who play other sports at Piedmont High. I have to imagine that Coach Bryan and Coach Humphries watch a lot of basketball, track, wrestling and baseball in their off-seasons to find players who can fit their scheme.
The risks with innovations like the A-11 are that the skills required to succeed in the offense do not always translate to the college game, and the best players want to play on. For example, the A-11 requires receivers to develop blocking skills, not a common requirement for college football teams, even the schools like Florida or Oklahoma that use five receivers in several plays.
The A-11 also requires a quarterback with tremendous mobility, but not necessarily a strong arm. That quarterback might get to a major college program, but he will need to be re-programmed to run less often. Re-programming is a risk that college coaches prefer to avoid as much as possible.
If Piedmont High and the other schools that use the A-11 had dominated their competition with one lopsided win after another, then other public school coaches would have every right to complain. It is not like they are guaranteed to get players who can stop the A-11. If the innovator were a private school that had tremendous success recruiting players to fit this offense, and they were always winning by lopsided margins, then the competition would also have every right to complain. But neither scenario applies.
The best solution is to place the fate of the A-11 in the hands of the coaches. Either every team will develop some variation of this offense, or some very bright defensive coaches will figure out how to stop it. So, the fate of the A-11, like the conduct of the game, should be left on the field.
Without going too much into football details, the A-11 is an offense where any player, even the center or quarterback, can be a pass receiver on any given play. Only six receivers are eligible, which means that defenses must be quite athletic and fast, and they are likely to become quite confused. If you want to know more, there is an official Web site called a11offense.com.
Two coaches at Piedmont High School (CA), head coach Kurt Bryan and offensive coordinator Steve Humphries are considered to be the founders of the A-11. Bryan and Humphries installed the offense to be more competitive with the larger schools in their conference. Piedmont High has won more games than they have lost with the A-11, but they have only gone 15-7 over the past two seasons. It is not like the new offense has made their team an offensive juggernaut in their conference.
This is a situation where coaching politics has dominated common sense. There is plenty of information available to football coaches about the A-11, and smart defensive coordinators who apparently know how to stop it. And a ban is especially silly in public school conferences where a coach has to take the best players enrolled at his school.
If Bryan, for instance, had strong, dominant, but slow linemen who could block, but not run, he would find a way to get them on the field. And he can't recruit athletes from other schools to fit his offense; he can only recruit athletes who play other sports at Piedmont High. I have to imagine that Coach Bryan and Coach Humphries watch a lot of basketball, track, wrestling and baseball in their off-seasons to find players who can fit their scheme.
The risks with innovations like the A-11 are that the skills required to succeed in the offense do not always translate to the college game, and the best players want to play on. For example, the A-11 requires receivers to develop blocking skills, not a common requirement for college football teams, even the schools like Florida or Oklahoma that use five receivers in several plays.
The A-11 also requires a quarterback with tremendous mobility, but not necessarily a strong arm. That quarterback might get to a major college program, but he will need to be re-programmed to run less often. Re-programming is a risk that college coaches prefer to avoid as much as possible.
If Piedmont High and the other schools that use the A-11 had dominated their competition with one lopsided win after another, then other public school coaches would have every right to complain. It is not like they are guaranteed to get players who can stop the A-11. If the innovator were a private school that had tremendous success recruiting players to fit this offense, and they were always winning by lopsided margins, then the competition would also have every right to complain. But neither scenario applies.
The best solution is to place the fate of the A-11 in the hands of the coaches. Either every team will develop some variation of this offense, or some very bright defensive coaches will figure out how to stop it. So, the fate of the A-11, like the conduct of the game, should be left on the field.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
NYU: This is Not Your Parent's Takeover
From NYUlocal.com comes the story of the student takeover of the Kimmel Center, a building on the New York University campus in Manhattan. The takeover is now in its second day.
The students, members of a campus organization called Take Back NYU (TBNYU), declared that parts of the Kimmel Center will be occupied indefinitely until NYU complies with a series of demands to make our school more democratic, accountable and socially just.
As in the building takeovers of the past, students barricaded doors, denying entry to the building to outsiders, including fellow students, faculty, administrators and campus security. TBNYU has also made a varied series of demands on the university administration, including:
* Full annual disclosure of budget
* Full annual disclosure of endowment
* Full union rights for all employees, including grad students
* The creation of a socially responsible finance committee with the power to override the administration’s finance decision
* This committee must be run by students and all members must sit on board of trustees
* Annual scholarships for 13 Palestinian students
* A donation of excess supplies to rebuild the University of Gaza. This demand is being made in solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
* Tuition stabilization for all students
* General public access to Bobst library
* And, of course, full legal and disciplinary amnesty for all parties involved in the occupation.
I wrote an earlier post about the 40th anniversary of the student takeover of a building at Rutgers University-Newark, aka the liberation of Conklin Hall. In that story, I discussed the occupation by a campus-wide Black Organization of Students and how it led to changes in admissions,academics,college preparatory programs, and minority representation on the faculty over the 40 years that followed. I also concluded that the students succeeded because they kept the politics local and therefore, brought the campus provost and the university president to their side.
By contrast, TBNYU has a broader agenda. They have mixed positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict with their concerns about the university's tuition and financial reporting practices. This is a very ambitious set of demands for a campus group, and the university administration may be incapable of fulfilling all of them.
Mixed agendas have been common with activist groups these days. For example, Code Pink, was founded in opposition to the war in Iraq. They have also taken an activist stance against Israel's actions in Gaza, U.S. bank foreclosures on homes, the impeachment of former president Bush, and genocide in Darfur, among other issues. However, Code Pink is a national organization, not a group that is unique to a single college campus. Their agenda is driven by the scope and size of their membership.
I am not opposed to campus protest, and I do not believe the students should be removed from the Kimmel Center by force. However, they do not have the right to ask their university to become involved in support of one position on American foreign policy, especially when the Obama Administration has only recently appointed an envoy to resolve the conflict.
So, TBNYU has already made one serious mistake: they've put themselves in a position that can polarize their membership with the public at large. Especially in a city such as New York with a significantly large Jewish and pro-Israel population. If they stick to the Gaza-related demands, and remain inside the Kimmel Center, there will be pressure on the university administration to try to re-capture the building.
My impression is that neither the students nor the administration want New York City police involved in this conflict. The sight of police forcibly removing students from the Kimmel Center would be a national embarrassment to NYU. It would symbolize that a president, his trustees and direct reports were too weak to resolve the problem, or too stubborn to address the more realistic demands.
There is no reason that NYU cannot publish financial reports. They do not need to be public record. The need to be available only to the university community: students, parents, donors and employees. And there is no reason that the president and trustees cannot provide an orderly forum when the community questions, for example, an investment by the university endowment, a planned campus in a foreign country, or even a tuition increase. Public universities provide such forums today. Their boards get hammered in the press when they try to do business in secret.
It was also interesting that the protesters have asked for amnesty before the protest has ended and the demands have been resolved. They should have left that off the list. That demand gave the rest of the university community a chance to laugh at them. And that makes it more likely that the realistic demands will go ignored.
The students, members of a campus organization called Take Back NYU (TBNYU), declared that parts of the Kimmel Center will be occupied indefinitely until NYU complies with a series of demands to make our school more democratic, accountable and socially just.
As in the building takeovers of the past, students barricaded doors, denying entry to the building to outsiders, including fellow students, faculty, administrators and campus security. TBNYU has also made a varied series of demands on the university administration, including:
* Full annual disclosure of budget
* Full annual disclosure of endowment
* Full union rights for all employees, including grad students
* The creation of a socially responsible finance committee with the power to override the administration’s finance decision
* This committee must be run by students and all members must sit on board of trustees
* Annual scholarships for 13 Palestinian students
* A donation of excess supplies to rebuild the University of Gaza. This demand is being made in solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
* Tuition stabilization for all students
* General public access to Bobst library
* And, of course, full legal and disciplinary amnesty for all parties involved in the occupation.
I wrote an earlier post about the 40th anniversary of the student takeover of a building at Rutgers University-Newark, aka the liberation of Conklin Hall. In that story, I discussed the occupation by a campus-wide Black Organization of Students and how it led to changes in admissions,academics,college preparatory programs, and minority representation on the faculty over the 40 years that followed. I also concluded that the students succeeded because they kept the politics local and therefore, brought the campus provost and the university president to their side.
By contrast, TBNYU has a broader agenda. They have mixed positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict with their concerns about the university's tuition and financial reporting practices. This is a very ambitious set of demands for a campus group, and the university administration may be incapable of fulfilling all of them.
Mixed agendas have been common with activist groups these days. For example, Code Pink, was founded in opposition to the war in Iraq. They have also taken an activist stance against Israel's actions in Gaza, U.S. bank foreclosures on homes, the impeachment of former president Bush, and genocide in Darfur, among other issues. However, Code Pink is a national organization, not a group that is unique to a single college campus. Their agenda is driven by the scope and size of their membership.
I am not opposed to campus protest, and I do not believe the students should be removed from the Kimmel Center by force. However, they do not have the right to ask their university to become involved in support of one position on American foreign policy, especially when the Obama Administration has only recently appointed an envoy to resolve the conflict.
So, TBNYU has already made one serious mistake: they've put themselves in a position that can polarize their membership with the public at large. Especially in a city such as New York with a significantly large Jewish and pro-Israel population. If they stick to the Gaza-related demands, and remain inside the Kimmel Center, there will be pressure on the university administration to try to re-capture the building.
My impression is that neither the students nor the administration want New York City police involved in this conflict. The sight of police forcibly removing students from the Kimmel Center would be a national embarrassment to NYU. It would symbolize that a president, his trustees and direct reports were too weak to resolve the problem, or too stubborn to address the more realistic demands.
There is no reason that NYU cannot publish financial reports. They do not need to be public record. The need to be available only to the university community: students, parents, donors and employees. And there is no reason that the president and trustees cannot provide an orderly forum when the community questions, for example, an investment by the university endowment, a planned campus in a foreign country, or even a tuition increase. Public universities provide such forums today. Their boards get hammered in the press when they try to do business in secret.
It was also interesting that the protesters have asked for amnesty before the protest has ended and the demands have been resolved. They should have left that off the list. That demand gave the rest of the university community a chance to laugh at them. And that makes it more likely that the realistic demands will go ignored.
Book Review: NoVA by James Boice
I am working on a new novel, called Tip Offs, about the politics and dynamics of girl's high school basketball. Some of the thought behind Tip Offscomes from a novel, MVP, by a young writer named James Boice. NoVA is Boice's second novel, and I believe it is just as good as MVP.
The start of NoVA is the end, when Grayson Donald, a seventeen year old high school senior has just hanged himself from a basketball hoop in Centreville, Northern Virginia (NoVA). The story, which takes place in 1998, goes backwards in time to try to tell us why. In doing so, NoVA becomes a very dark tale of a very familiar place, the sprawling American suburb.
NoVA and MVPare very descriptive novels. There is precious little dialogue, only introspective observations of people,places and events. You get the same behind-the-scenes of suburban high school culture and family like as you might find in a family television series such as 90210, but with considerable cynicism and biting reality. The major difference is that parents and children are not particular close, as they are on the screen or the tube.
In NoVA, you'll see parents making lame attempts to create community and some degree of conformity, even by imposing silly sanctions on others. Right-wing and left-wing views quietly co-exist, but differences simmer beneath the surface. You also see high school students with considerable pressure upon them, but little direction as they prepare to go to college. They all have sexual curiosity, but little to no intellectual curiosity, even among the brightest in the class. Everyone is well-to-do, by modern American standards, but no one appears to be happy.
I have been to Northern Virginia a couple of times, though this story could have just as easily taken place outside another fast growing employment center such as Atlanta, Orlando or Phoenix. If you live in one of these places, and read NoVA, I bet that you will view your community quite differently than you had before.
The start of NoVA is the end, when Grayson Donald, a seventeen year old high school senior has just hanged himself from a basketball hoop in Centreville, Northern Virginia (NoVA). The story, which takes place in 1998, goes backwards in time to try to tell us why. In doing so, NoVA becomes a very dark tale of a very familiar place, the sprawling American suburb.
NoVA and MVPare very descriptive novels. There is precious little dialogue, only introspective observations of people,places and events. You get the same behind-the-scenes of suburban high school culture and family like as you might find in a family television series such as 90210, but with considerable cynicism and biting reality. The major difference is that parents and children are not particular close, as they are on the screen or the tube.
In NoVA, you'll see parents making lame attempts to create community and some degree of conformity, even by imposing silly sanctions on others. Right-wing and left-wing views quietly co-exist, but differences simmer beneath the surface. You also see high school students with considerable pressure upon them, but little direction as they prepare to go to college. They all have sexual curiosity, but little to no intellectual curiosity, even among the brightest in the class. Everyone is well-to-do, by modern American standards, but no one appears to be happy.
I have been to Northern Virginia a couple of times, though this story could have just as easily taken place outside another fast growing employment center such as Atlanta, Orlando or Phoenix. If you live in one of these places, and read NoVA, I bet that you will view your community quite differently than you had before.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Should Parents and Politicians Receive Quality Assurance Reports About Colleges?
This week's Chronicle of Higher Education has a featured Point of View by Kevin Carey, research and policy director for Education Sector, an independent think tank in Washington. Carey argues that the outcomes of a college education, the growth in learning between a student's first day on campus and the day he or she leaves, can be measured, and that those measures should be made public.
I subscribe to Education Sector online and I have read Carey's work. His pieces are quite insightful. In this one, he uses an important example, the State University of New York (SUNY) system, how it tried to collect measures of quality, and how it tried to hide, and eventually stop collecting this information. In short, the flow of information was blocked because of fear, potential misunderstandings and politics. There was also the belief that collecting such information, about the "value added" of a college education, meant little because institutions were different in their missions. The "value-added" of a large research university could not be compared with that of a regional college.
Carey, however, makes the point that all undergraduates at all schools should acquire certain common abilities: skills in communications, critical thinking and analytical reasoning. He also alludes to a core of shared knowledge, but I'll disagree there, since students do not use all of their introductory education after they have declared a major.
But if educators can develop a test that measures communications, critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills, and it can be done at minimal cost, then it could become a JD Power-type measure of educational effectiveness--provided that the schools do not have the chance to game the system. And this should be only one measure of quality with policy makers; the ability to meet their mission (for example community service, adult learning, research) and quality of life (student services and housing) should be among the others.
I suspect the problem with initiating a quality measure is not that the flagship schools will score poorly, but that a lesser known school will score very well. For example, in New Jersey, The College of New Jersey (TCNJ), formerly a teacher's college called Trenton State, now has higher published SAT scores as well as higher graduation and retention rates than the flagship campus of Rutgers, the state university.
I went to Rutgers and I live near TCNJ, so I hear the expressions of disappointment and embarrassment on one side, and the expressions of pride and satisfaction on the other. So, I doubt that the president of either school will want to be subject to a "value added" test. Rutgers would prefer to avoid further embarrassment--at their expense, since the school will need to collect the data--and the president of TCNJ would say that there's no need to invest the time and effort, because their numbers are higher than Rutgers numbers, and they are getting better still.
State schools are creatures of politics, so I am not surprised by Carey's observations about SUNY. But what if a group of independent private schools, for example, liberal arts schools that have much in common, were to take the lead and develop a "value added" measure on their own? Parents would have help in making a financially risky decision.
Private school presidents already speak with pride over the "value-added" they offer over state schools: smaller classes, more personalized services, more spending per student. I'm sure they can agree on a measure that will try to prove "value added" over a publicly subsidized school. If they succeed, they would drive the public schools kicking and screaming into proving their worth.
I subscribe to Education Sector online and I have read Carey's work. His pieces are quite insightful. In this one, he uses an important example, the State University of New York (SUNY) system, how it tried to collect measures of quality, and how it tried to hide, and eventually stop collecting this information. In short, the flow of information was blocked because of fear, potential misunderstandings and politics. There was also the belief that collecting such information, about the "value added" of a college education, meant little because institutions were different in their missions. The "value-added" of a large research university could not be compared with that of a regional college.
Carey, however, makes the point that all undergraduates at all schools should acquire certain common abilities: skills in communications, critical thinking and analytical reasoning. He also alludes to a core of shared knowledge, but I'll disagree there, since students do not use all of their introductory education after they have declared a major.
But if educators can develop a test that measures communications, critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills, and it can be done at minimal cost, then it could become a JD Power-type measure of educational effectiveness--provided that the schools do not have the chance to game the system. And this should be only one measure of quality with policy makers; the ability to meet their mission (for example community service, adult learning, research) and quality of life (student services and housing) should be among the others.
I suspect the problem with initiating a quality measure is not that the flagship schools will score poorly, but that a lesser known school will score very well. For example, in New Jersey, The College of New Jersey (TCNJ), formerly a teacher's college called Trenton State, now has higher published SAT scores as well as higher graduation and retention rates than the flagship campus of Rutgers, the state university.
I went to Rutgers and I live near TCNJ, so I hear the expressions of disappointment and embarrassment on one side, and the expressions of pride and satisfaction on the other. So, I doubt that the president of either school will want to be subject to a "value added" test. Rutgers would prefer to avoid further embarrassment--at their expense, since the school will need to collect the data--and the president of TCNJ would say that there's no need to invest the time and effort, because their numbers are higher than Rutgers numbers, and they are getting better still.
State schools are creatures of politics, so I am not surprised by Carey's observations about SUNY. But what if a group of independent private schools, for example, liberal arts schools that have much in common, were to take the lead and develop a "value added" measure on their own? Parents would have help in making a financially risky decision.
Private school presidents already speak with pride over the "value-added" they offer over state schools: smaller classes, more personalized services, more spending per student. I'm sure they can agree on a measure that will try to prove "value added" over a publicly subsidized school. If they succeed, they would drive the public schools kicking and screaming into proving their worth.
The Palin's Sex Ed Chronicles
Today, I'm reading several articles about the FOX interview with Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska governor and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The most comprehensive of these stories is Rebecca's Traister's piece on Salon.com.
I have to respect Bristol Palin. She made a life decision and was more mature about it than most eighteen year old mothers would be. She could have sounded more programmed, because of her mother's position, but that was far from the case.
I especially liked these comments: "I wish it would happen in like 10 years, so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared, and have my own house and stuff. But he brings so much joy. I don't regret it at all. I just wish it would have happened in 10 years rather than right now." Either side in the sex ed wars could use this quote to their advantage. Bristol also went on to say that expecting teenagers to abstain from sex was unrealistic. I had to guess that also meant ignoring her mother's opinion on the issue. Or maybe her mom stayed out of the picture. I don't know.
As much as I respect Bristol for her decision and her candid interview, I dislike her mother even more than I did when she was running for national office. If Sarah Palin, as she claims, has a large and supportive family, where were they when Bristol needed sex education? Who were her role models? One thing I have learned about the success and failure of abstinence-only sex education is that students will abstain if that is the message they continually receive at home, as well as in school. But I must guess that Mom was too busy, or she couldn't sell the message to her daughter.
So, as much as Bristol Palin's interview was a message to young women to be careful, it was also a message to parents to be open and frank with their children about sex. And I will never vote for a candidate who apparently missed that message.
I have to respect Bristol Palin. She made a life decision and was more mature about it than most eighteen year old mothers would be. She could have sounded more programmed, because of her mother's position, but that was far from the case.
I especially liked these comments: "I wish it would happen in like 10 years, so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared, and have my own house and stuff. But he brings so much joy. I don't regret it at all. I just wish it would have happened in 10 years rather than right now." Either side in the sex ed wars could use this quote to their advantage. Bristol also went on to say that expecting teenagers to abstain from sex was unrealistic. I had to guess that also meant ignoring her mother's opinion on the issue. Or maybe her mom stayed out of the picture. I don't know.
As much as I respect Bristol for her decision and her candid interview, I dislike her mother even more than I did when she was running for national office. If Sarah Palin, as she claims, has a large and supportive family, where were they when Bristol needed sex education? Who were her role models? One thing I have learned about the success and failure of abstinence-only sex education is that students will abstain if that is the message they continually receive at home, as well as in school. But I must guess that Mom was too busy, or she couldn't sell the message to her daughter.
So, as much as Bristol Palin's interview was a message to young women to be careful, it was also a message to parents to be open and frank with their children about sex. And I will never vote for a candidate who apparently missed that message.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Book Review: Levittown, Two Families, One Tycoon, and the Fight for Civil Rights in America's Legendary Suburb by David Kushner
When I was in the software business, I made numerous east-west trips on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, entering and exiting from U.S. 1 near Philadelphia. This branch of U.S. 1 between Trenton and Philadelphia takes you through Levittown, the second major suburban development of nationally renown home builder William Levitt Sr.
David Kushner's Levittown, Two Families, One Tycoon, and the Fight for Civil Rights in America's Legendary Suburb is the story about the struggles of the first black family to move into this community. The black family, the Myerses, were aided by a Jewish family, the Wechslers, who had been members of the Communist party.
This story takes place in 1957, three years after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education overturned prior rulings permitting "separate but equal" schools. At that time, Levitt homes were sold only to white buyers, usually military veterans, under restrictive covenants, meaning that their home could only be sold to a white buyer.
According to Kushner's story, Bill Levitt did not believe that he would be able to sell his homes quickly if he sold them to buyers regardless of race. Since white buyers were in the majority, he considered this a form of customer satisfaction. And, since Levitt communities were planned around convenient access to schools and shops, the developer would have aided in de-facto discrimination in the neighborhood public schools as well.
But Levitt became so desperate to keep his community out of controversy and lily white, that he offered to purchase the Myerses home for more than its market value. Levitt was not the only person opposed to black families in his communities. Other white home buyers organized a "betterment association" to harass the Myerses into leaving, even to the extent of damaging their property. But the Myerses prevailed over their members in court.
In the end, the Myerses got to keep their home, but moved away four years later due to better employment opportunities--and a better quality of life--in central Pennsylvania. A developer's reputation was seriously tarnished, though future Levitt home owners would not be bound by restrictive covenants. Eight years after giving up his legal fight to keep his communities lily white, Bill Levitt sold his company to IT@T.
Levittowncaught my interest because I grew up in a Levitt home in Central New Jersey, and I used to be an urban planner. However, I also found the story interesting in the context of today's housing finance practices.
Back in the days when Levitt et al, were refusing to sell to black home buyers, federal laws permitted discrimination in lending to military veterans. Neighborhoods known to be "black" were circled in red, "red-lined," marked to loan officers.
But over the past decade, many of these buyers were viewed quite differently. Their lenders viewed them as profit centers to be exploited.
David Kushner's Levittown, Two Families, One Tycoon, and the Fight for Civil Rights in America's Legendary Suburb is the story about the struggles of the first black family to move into this community. The black family, the Myerses, were aided by a Jewish family, the Wechslers, who had been members of the Communist party.
This story takes place in 1957, three years after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education overturned prior rulings permitting "separate but equal" schools. At that time, Levitt homes were sold only to white buyers, usually military veterans, under restrictive covenants, meaning that their home could only be sold to a white buyer.
According to Kushner's story, Bill Levitt did not believe that he would be able to sell his homes quickly if he sold them to buyers regardless of race. Since white buyers were in the majority, he considered this a form of customer satisfaction. And, since Levitt communities were planned around convenient access to schools and shops, the developer would have aided in de-facto discrimination in the neighborhood public schools as well.
But Levitt became so desperate to keep his community out of controversy and lily white, that he offered to purchase the Myerses home for more than its market value. Levitt was not the only person opposed to black families in his communities. Other white home buyers organized a "betterment association" to harass the Myerses into leaving, even to the extent of damaging their property. But the Myerses prevailed over their members in court.
In the end, the Myerses got to keep their home, but moved away four years later due to better employment opportunities--and a better quality of life--in central Pennsylvania. A developer's reputation was seriously tarnished, though future Levitt home owners would not be bound by restrictive covenants. Eight years after giving up his legal fight to keep his communities lily white, Bill Levitt sold his company to IT@T.
Levittowncaught my interest because I grew up in a Levitt home in Central New Jersey, and I used to be an urban planner. However, I also found the story interesting in the context of today's housing finance practices.
Back in the days when Levitt et al, were refusing to sell to black home buyers, federal laws permitted discrimination in lending to military veterans. Neighborhoods known to be "black" were circled in red, "red-lined," marked to loan officers.
But over the past decade, many of these buyers were viewed quite differently. Their lenders viewed them as profit centers to be exploited.
Sex Ed 2.0
Boston Globe and Boston.com reporter Alison Lobran has written an excellent and very comprehensive article about new directions in the teaching of sex education.
Lobran, a former high school teacher, has hit the nail on the head: sex education does not need to be taught in the context of fear, that "sex is bad," and it should not be taught in a half-hearted manner. Those were two of the issues that I tried to bring out in my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles.
Lobran has written a very long story, but one well worth reading. She begins by discussing a year-long sexuality education program called Our Whole Lives (OWL) that is directed not by public schools, but by the church.
OWL is a joint effort by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, and it goes into more detail about sex than public school programs. It also emphasizes frankness and parental consultation and involvement. OWL was designed to do more than provide instruction about the consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, which could be the limit of a public school sex education class in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth State does not mandate any form of sex education in the classroom, though parents must be informed in advance of any sex education instruction so that they can arrange for their children to be excused from class.
Another interesting point in this story is that while there is an abundant information about sex and sex education on the Internet, students and parents are still quite reluctant to discuss these subjects at home. Lobron reported that, in Massachusetts, sixty four percent of teens have had intercourse by the time they had graduated high school, but only half had talked about sex with their parents. Yet Lobran also reported that educators were reluctant to discuss the sex-ed curricula in their public schools for fear of embarrassment or harassment. Not to mention these programs are among the first to go when there are budget cuts.
This is the first story that has probed into the need for a more thorough and thoughtful approach to teaching sex education, and how difficult it is to implement such an approach in public schools, more out of fear than anything else. Too often an "either or" approach is favored, either to pressure students to abstain from sex until marriage or to be strictly concerned about the risks.
Neither approach has much merit in the face of peer pressure and stereotypes. As I have said repeatedly in promoting my book, sex ed is very much like driver's ed. Teach it right and you give your students lessons they can use for the rest of their lives. Teach it wrong and someday one or more of your students will crash.
Lobran, a former high school teacher, has hit the nail on the head: sex education does not need to be taught in the context of fear, that "sex is bad," and it should not be taught in a half-hearted manner. Those were two of the issues that I tried to bring out in my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles.
Lobran has written a very long story, but one well worth reading. She begins by discussing a year-long sexuality education program called Our Whole Lives (OWL) that is directed not by public schools, but by the church.
OWL is a joint effort by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, and it goes into more detail about sex than public school programs. It also emphasizes frankness and parental consultation and involvement. OWL was designed to do more than provide instruction about the consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, which could be the limit of a public school sex education class in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth State does not mandate any form of sex education in the classroom, though parents must be informed in advance of any sex education instruction so that they can arrange for their children to be excused from class.
Another interesting point in this story is that while there is an abundant information about sex and sex education on the Internet, students and parents are still quite reluctant to discuss these subjects at home. Lobron reported that, in Massachusetts, sixty four percent of teens have had intercourse by the time they had graduated high school, but only half had talked about sex with their parents. Yet Lobran also reported that educators were reluctant to discuss the sex-ed curricula in their public schools for fear of embarrassment or harassment. Not to mention these programs are among the first to go when there are budget cuts.
This is the first story that has probed into the need for a more thorough and thoughtful approach to teaching sex education, and how difficult it is to implement such an approach in public schools, more out of fear than anything else. Too often an "either or" approach is favored, either to pressure students to abstain from sex until marriage or to be strictly concerned about the risks.
Neither approach has much merit in the face of peer pressure and stereotypes. As I have said repeatedly in promoting my book, sex ed is very much like driver's ed. Teach it right and you give your students lessons they can use for the rest of their lives. Teach it wrong and someday one or more of your students will crash.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Georgia State Senator Proposes to Merge Historically Black Schools with White Majority Schools
This week I read that a Georgia state senator has proposed that two Historically Black Colleges be merged with public institutions that are located in the same city.
State Senator Seth Harp, a Republican, and chair of the the legislative body's higher education committee is making his case partly based on economics--the state must close a $2.2 billion budget shortfall and cut higher education spending by eight percent--and because he believes that segregationist history has run its course for the two historically black schools in his proposal, Albany State University and Savannah State University.
Harp has proposed that Albany State be merged with Darton College, a two-year school and that Savannah State, be merged with Armstrong Atlantic University, a four-year school. Georgia has ten historically black schools, but only three are publicly supported, the two that are the subject of Harp's proposal and Fort Valley State, which is not.
It was also interesting to note that Albany State and Savannah State, according to the Regents of the University System of Georgia,have had enrollments on the upswing over the past ten years. Enrollment at Savannah State has increased 60 percent, while enrollment at Armstrong Atlantic has risen by 25 percent. So, while these schools might have financial issues, they still attract students.
Putting aside issues of race and history, which will spark their own heated debates, the primary considerations of a consolidation would be administration and athletics. Consolidating one school into another would mean that fewer senior and second-level administrators would be needed, although those with academic credentials could conceivably return to the faculty, so the savings could be less.
Consolidation also means that the combined school would not need two sets of athletic teams; there would be fewer athletic scholarships as well as coaching slots. Both of these schools play scholarship sports, so pain would be felt among the athletes. However, athletic departments pay the university for their scholarships; tax dollars do not subsidize athletes. So, the consolidated school have these choices: do without these students, find other students who do not need the aid, or make up the aid through other sources, including their own coffers.
Beyond the top level administration and sports, students would still have the same needs: courses, counseling, housing, security and so on. If the consolidated school is to remain attractive to prospective students, it will not become more attractive by providing fewer services, or by having a more crowded campus.
Harp's proposal for Albany State takes a different tack by proposing a merger with a two-year school. But not all two-year schools are run like four-year schools. And two-year school could either be a community college or the freshman-sophomore division of a university system. Their missions are not the same. And their missions, in a consolidated regional university would change too, though no one can predict how change will happen, or how much it might cost.
But Seth Harp does not have the final say over the future of these schools. That decision rests with the regents. They have a strategic plan to, among other things, provide for the enrollment of 100,000 additional students by the year 2020. That would mean, according to the regents, that there would need to be a 40 percent increase in the capacity of all of the system schools.
Somehow, I doubt that merging two schools, historically black or otherwise, would help increase capacity in the system. Further, one assumption that has been made is that enrollment growth will be greater among the students who would attend the less selective schools,including the three HBCUs.
This proposal appears to be political suicide. Georgia's electorate is 30 percent black, second only to Mississippi and 43 percent of the Peachtree State's voters are college-educated, according to NBC News analysts Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser. Atlanta was the epicenter of the leadership of the civil rights movement in the last century, and the city is a leading center of black enterprise today. Savannah is also a black majority city, so local impact would be felt as well.
It is safe to assume that opposition to this proposal would be quite vocal,vocal enough to make or break a few political careers in the process. The smartest action that the Georgia legislature could take is to take Harp's proposal off the table.
State Senator Seth Harp, a Republican, and chair of the the legislative body's higher education committee is making his case partly based on economics--the state must close a $2.2 billion budget shortfall and cut higher education spending by eight percent--and because he believes that segregationist history has run its course for the two historically black schools in his proposal, Albany State University and Savannah State University.
Harp has proposed that Albany State be merged with Darton College, a two-year school and that Savannah State, be merged with Armstrong Atlantic University, a four-year school. Georgia has ten historically black schools, but only three are publicly supported, the two that are the subject of Harp's proposal and Fort Valley State, which is not.
It was also interesting to note that Albany State and Savannah State, according to the Regents of the University System of Georgia,have had enrollments on the upswing over the past ten years. Enrollment at Savannah State has increased 60 percent, while enrollment at Armstrong Atlantic has risen by 25 percent. So, while these schools might have financial issues, they still attract students.
Putting aside issues of race and history, which will spark their own heated debates, the primary considerations of a consolidation would be administration and athletics. Consolidating one school into another would mean that fewer senior and second-level administrators would be needed, although those with academic credentials could conceivably return to the faculty, so the savings could be less.
Consolidation also means that the combined school would not need two sets of athletic teams; there would be fewer athletic scholarships as well as coaching slots. Both of these schools play scholarship sports, so pain would be felt among the athletes. However, athletic departments pay the university for their scholarships; tax dollars do not subsidize athletes. So, the consolidated school have these choices: do without these students, find other students who do not need the aid, or make up the aid through other sources, including their own coffers.
Beyond the top level administration and sports, students would still have the same needs: courses, counseling, housing, security and so on. If the consolidated school is to remain attractive to prospective students, it will not become more attractive by providing fewer services, or by having a more crowded campus.
Harp's proposal for Albany State takes a different tack by proposing a merger with a two-year school. But not all two-year schools are run like four-year schools. And two-year school could either be a community college or the freshman-sophomore division of a university system. Their missions are not the same. And their missions, in a consolidated regional university would change too, though no one can predict how change will happen, or how much it might cost.
But Seth Harp does not have the final say over the future of these schools. That decision rests with the regents. They have a strategic plan to, among other things, provide for the enrollment of 100,000 additional students by the year 2020. That would mean, according to the regents, that there would need to be a 40 percent increase in the capacity of all of the system schools.
Somehow, I doubt that merging two schools, historically black or otherwise, would help increase capacity in the system. Further, one assumption that has been made is that enrollment growth will be greater among the students who would attend the less selective schools,including the three HBCUs.
This proposal appears to be political suicide. Georgia's electorate is 30 percent black, second only to Mississippi and 43 percent of the Peachtree State's voters are college-educated, according to NBC News analysts Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser. Atlanta was the epicenter of the leadership of the civil rights movement in the last century, and the city is a leading center of black enterprise today. Savannah is also a black majority city, so local impact would be felt as well.
It is safe to assume that opposition to this proposal would be quite vocal,vocal enough to make or break a few political careers in the process. The smartest action that the Georgia legislature could take is to take Harp's proposal off the table.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Rutgers Celebrates 40th Anniversary of the Student Takeover of a Campus Building
Two days ago I stumbled upon a story about the fortieth anniversary of the takeover of Conklin Hall, an administration building on the Rutgers University-Newark campus. I found it unusual for a university community to celebrate such an event-and Newark is a convenient train ride from my home--so I decided to attend the second of a series of five events commemorating the takeover.
The takeover, or as reported by participants, the liberation of Conklin Hall, began on February 24, 1969. Members of the campus-wide Black Organization of Students, with the help of classmates and black students at other New Jersey schools, occupied the campus communications center. They protested the scarcity of black students (black enrollment was only five percent at the time), black faculty, and minority oriented academic and student services programs on campus. The participants occupied the building for 72 hours.
As I listened to each portion of the program: a three-act performance by a student Unity Theatre, a DVD of the history of the takeover, and a short lecture on women in the Sixties protest movement by a visiting Lehman College (NY) professor, I tried to set the context of the takeover, and the reasons for commemoration in the context of times in the nation, and at Rutgers. I knew nothing of the takeover prior to coming to the event, but I had studied contrasts between the antiwar movements of the Sixties and Seventies in completing Defending College Heights, my upcoming novel.
In February of 1969, Richard Nixon had been president for little more than one month. The military draft was still in effect, though there were college student deferments. Anti-war demonstrations at Columbia University had happened ten months prior to the takeover, and the shootings at Kent State were yet to happen for another 14 months. Martin Luther King had been assassinated 10 months prior to the Conklin liberation.
Rutgers-Newark was a largely white institution within a predominantly black city with its last white mayor and a confrontational white police director. Two years earlier, with the mayor's consent, the Governor of New Jersey had called in the National Guard to stop public looting in the streets. Rutgers-Newark was no more diverse than the flagship New Brunswick campus, though it was a co-educational institution. In February 1969, Rutgers in New Brunswick consisted of an all-male Rutgers College and an all-Female Douglass College.
In contrasting the takeover of Conklin Hall against the backdrop of other campus protests, there are some remarkable differences, besides the educational agenda.
First, the takeover was locally organized; there was no chapter of a national organization such as the Students for a Democratic Society or the Student Non Violent Coordinating Council. National activists did not arrive to obscure the campus agenda.
Second, the university administration did not try to "re-capture" the building by force; in fact, they did not want the city police involved and negotiated directly with the students. Compare that resolution with Kent State, where the governor had called in the National Guard.
Third, the university administration addressed all of the demands; they also invited the students to meet at the president's mansion near the Rutgers flagship campus in New Brunswick. They hired minority faculty, initiated a pre-college preparation program and increased the number of black students--the number doubled at first. Coursework in African-American history was also added to the academic offerings on campus. These events did not happen immediately after the demonstrators left Conklin Hall, but they happened because the university president and the campus provost were effective brokers between the students, faculty and state government.
The accomplishments were significant, considering the times. Other campus protests folded campus activism and anti-war activism together. For example, students at Columbia not only protested against the war in Vietnam, they also railed against the university's academic relationships with the military and a decision to acquire black-owned properties adjacent to the campus to construct a gym. The Rutgers-Newark agenda was more focused and more achievable.
Online there are several documentsabout the Conklin Hall takeover. One, a report from the Chancellor of Higher Education to the Legislaturementions that while black enrollment at Rutgers-Newark had actually doubled from the 1967-68 to the 1968-69 school years (from 72 to 148 students, or from less than three percent of the student body to slightly less than five percent), the chancellor was concerned that a very substantial percentage of graduates from urban high schools were inadequately prepared to gain admission to the university. He also believed this problem would get worse before it got better.
That appeared to be a very profound statement for a New Jersey higher education official to make in 1969, as the urban high schools had a larger share of white students than they do today. But that chancellor's statement might have been prophetic; while more colleges offer diversity-focused admissions programs than ever before in this era of No Child Left Behind, the quality of public school education in the cities remains in question.
It took the entire event for me to realize that the Conklin Hall takeover was a turning point in Rutgers history, as well as the history of higher education in the U.S. Since 1969, Rutgers-Newark has almost doubled the size of its undergraduate student body from approximately 3,400 students to nearly 6,700 today, according to the latest U.S. News college guide.
Rutgers-Newark has become a research university that admits less than half of its applicants, while becoming more diverse. Undergraduate enrollment at Rutgers-Newark is 55 percent female and 39 percent black and Hispanic. Eighty seven percent of entering freshman continue into their sophomore year and 56 percent earn their degree within six years. The retention rate is close to the performance of the flagship campus in New Brunswick (89 percent versus 87).
From attending yesterday's event I could understand that Rutgers-Newark has become a stronger institution for the takeover. And I must believe that the participants who were there--students and administrators--would agree. And I saw why they want the memories promoted and protected. All of these people are in their late fifties, or older. They will have fewer opportunities to come together in the future. They want the later generations to remember what they knew.
The takeover, or as reported by participants, the liberation of Conklin Hall, began on February 24, 1969. Members of the campus-wide Black Organization of Students, with the help of classmates and black students at other New Jersey schools, occupied the campus communications center. They protested the scarcity of black students (black enrollment was only five percent at the time), black faculty, and minority oriented academic and student services programs on campus. The participants occupied the building for 72 hours.
As I listened to each portion of the program: a three-act performance by a student Unity Theatre, a DVD of the history of the takeover, and a short lecture on women in the Sixties protest movement by a visiting Lehman College (NY) professor, I tried to set the context of the takeover, and the reasons for commemoration in the context of times in the nation, and at Rutgers. I knew nothing of the takeover prior to coming to the event, but I had studied contrasts between the antiwar movements of the Sixties and Seventies in completing Defending College Heights, my upcoming novel.
In February of 1969, Richard Nixon had been president for little more than one month. The military draft was still in effect, though there were college student deferments. Anti-war demonstrations at Columbia University had happened ten months prior to the takeover, and the shootings at Kent State were yet to happen for another 14 months. Martin Luther King had been assassinated 10 months prior to the Conklin liberation.
Rutgers-Newark was a largely white institution within a predominantly black city with its last white mayor and a confrontational white police director. Two years earlier, with the mayor's consent, the Governor of New Jersey had called in the National Guard to stop public looting in the streets. Rutgers-Newark was no more diverse than the flagship New Brunswick campus, though it was a co-educational institution. In February 1969, Rutgers in New Brunswick consisted of an all-male Rutgers College and an all-Female Douglass College.
In contrasting the takeover of Conklin Hall against the backdrop of other campus protests, there are some remarkable differences, besides the educational agenda.
First, the takeover was locally organized; there was no chapter of a national organization such as the Students for a Democratic Society or the Student Non Violent Coordinating Council. National activists did not arrive to obscure the campus agenda.
Second, the university administration did not try to "re-capture" the building by force; in fact, they did not want the city police involved and negotiated directly with the students. Compare that resolution with Kent State, where the governor had called in the National Guard.
Third, the university administration addressed all of the demands; they also invited the students to meet at the president's mansion near the Rutgers flagship campus in New Brunswick. They hired minority faculty, initiated a pre-college preparation program and increased the number of black students--the number doubled at first. Coursework in African-American history was also added to the academic offerings on campus. These events did not happen immediately after the demonstrators left Conklin Hall, but they happened because the university president and the campus provost were effective brokers between the students, faculty and state government.
The accomplishments were significant, considering the times. Other campus protests folded campus activism and anti-war activism together. For example, students at Columbia not only protested against the war in Vietnam, they also railed against the university's academic relationships with the military and a decision to acquire black-owned properties adjacent to the campus to construct a gym. The Rutgers-Newark agenda was more focused and more achievable.
Online there are several documentsabout the Conklin Hall takeover. One, a report from the Chancellor of Higher Education to the Legislaturementions that while black enrollment at Rutgers-Newark had actually doubled from the 1967-68 to the 1968-69 school years (from 72 to 148 students, or from less than three percent of the student body to slightly less than five percent), the chancellor was concerned that a very substantial percentage of graduates from urban high schools were inadequately prepared to gain admission to the university. He also believed this problem would get worse before it got better.
That appeared to be a very profound statement for a New Jersey higher education official to make in 1969, as the urban high schools had a larger share of white students than they do today. But that chancellor's statement might have been prophetic; while more colleges offer diversity-focused admissions programs than ever before in this era of No Child Left Behind, the quality of public school education in the cities remains in question.
It took the entire event for me to realize that the Conklin Hall takeover was a turning point in Rutgers history, as well as the history of higher education in the U.S. Since 1969, Rutgers-Newark has almost doubled the size of its undergraduate student body from approximately 3,400 students to nearly 6,700 today, according to the latest U.S. News college guide.
Rutgers-Newark has become a research university that admits less than half of its applicants, while becoming more diverse. Undergraduate enrollment at Rutgers-Newark is 55 percent female and 39 percent black and Hispanic. Eighty seven percent of entering freshman continue into their sophomore year and 56 percent earn their degree within six years. The retention rate is close to the performance of the flagship campus in New Brunswick (89 percent versus 87).
From attending yesterday's event I could understand that Rutgers-Newark has become a stronger institution for the takeover. And I must believe that the participants who were there--students and administrators--would agree. And I saw why they want the memories promoted and protected. All of these people are in their late fifties, or older. They will have fewer opportunities to come together in the future. They want the later generations to remember what they knew.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Academic Freedom Gone Too Far
Last night, I drove down to Rutgers to watch a basketball game and, as I usually do before tip-off, I stopped at the campus center for a bite to eat and picked up a copy of the Daily Targum, the campus paper. Yesterday's Targumhad an editorial on academic freedom.
The editorial was interesting, so I folded it up and took it with me. The writer talked about academic freedom from the perspective of a University of Ottawa physics professor, Denis Rancourt, who has been fired, despite having tenure, and banned from the university campus. He was escorted from campus by police after his termination on route to a film society meeting, and charged with trespassing.
I was curious to find out what could drive a university to forcibly remove a former professor from campus. The Targumeditorial talked about Rancourt's unique approach to grading: in a fourth year course he proposed to give all of his students grades of A-plus.
I have to assume that Dr. Rancourt expected his students to do something for the grade. They would all be physics majors who could rely on prior coursework to earn the grade, especially of Rancourt was offering to sponsor independent study projects--and therefore no mandatory class attendance--with each and every student. For all I know, and the Targum story didn't clear this up for me, this could have been a highly demanding course where non-majors would be likely to stay away.
From this perspective, Rancourt's termination seems unjustified, if Canadian universities hold to the same principles of academic freedom as American universities do; this is something neither I nor the Targum editor know.
However, if this had been Physics 101, and Rancourt had taken this approach, he would have looked like an idiot. He would have abdicated the responsibility to introduce physics to students through an introductory course. If I were the head of Rancourt's department under those circumstances, I would have given him the boot, tenure or no tenure. He didn't do the job.
I did a Google on Denis Rancourt. His faculty profile on the University of Ottawa web site says that Rancourt: is a physics professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, and an activist, anarchist, and critical pedagogue.
The profile also provides short bullets about his activism, including instruction of a highly popular Science in Society course that was shut down by the university administration despite a petition within the university community. That class was a first year class; given the title, it was presumably for non-science majors. If he was imparting personal political views at the expense of science, then the administration made the right decision.
It is not unusual for popular professors to come under fire for unorthodox political views or teaching approaches. In fact, having completed a bachelor's and two master's degrees, I can add that there is no such thing as an orthodox teaching approach. And when it comes to signing up for advanced courses, you have to expect professors to bring their academic and political views into their teaching. That's why you want to take their classes, unless you're looking for easy As and Bs.
The Targum editor said that academic freedom should mean having the freedom to teach and learn in any way you choose. In some ways, I disagree. On the faculty side, academic freedom is anything a professor can get away with doing, as long as no one complains. There are god-like and god-awful professors at every school, who either care immensely about their students and the material they put in front of them or, try to get by with as little effort as possible.
But unlike Denis Rancourt the academics who stick around under tenure usually stay under the wire. And they try to avoid teaching the intro courses.
The editorial was interesting, so I folded it up and took it with me. The writer talked about academic freedom from the perspective of a University of Ottawa physics professor, Denis Rancourt, who has been fired, despite having tenure, and banned from the university campus. He was escorted from campus by police after his termination on route to a film society meeting, and charged with trespassing.
I was curious to find out what could drive a university to forcibly remove a former professor from campus. The Targumeditorial talked about Rancourt's unique approach to grading: in a fourth year course he proposed to give all of his students grades of A-plus.
I have to assume that Dr. Rancourt expected his students to do something for the grade. They would all be physics majors who could rely on prior coursework to earn the grade, especially of Rancourt was offering to sponsor independent study projects--and therefore no mandatory class attendance--with each and every student. For all I know, and the Targum story didn't clear this up for me, this could have been a highly demanding course where non-majors would be likely to stay away.
From this perspective, Rancourt's termination seems unjustified, if Canadian universities hold to the same principles of academic freedom as American universities do; this is something neither I nor the Targum editor know.
However, if this had been Physics 101, and Rancourt had taken this approach, he would have looked like an idiot. He would have abdicated the responsibility to introduce physics to students through an introductory course. If I were the head of Rancourt's department under those circumstances, I would have given him the boot, tenure or no tenure. He didn't do the job.
I did a Google on Denis Rancourt. His faculty profile on the University of Ottawa web site says that Rancourt: is a physics professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, and an activist, anarchist, and critical pedagogue.
The profile also provides short bullets about his activism, including instruction of a highly popular Science in Society course that was shut down by the university administration despite a petition within the university community. That class was a first year class; given the title, it was presumably for non-science majors. If he was imparting personal political views at the expense of science, then the administration made the right decision.
It is not unusual for popular professors to come under fire for unorthodox political views or teaching approaches. In fact, having completed a bachelor's and two master's degrees, I can add that there is no such thing as an orthodox teaching approach. And when it comes to signing up for advanced courses, you have to expect professors to bring their academic and political views into their teaching. That's why you want to take their classes, unless you're looking for easy As and Bs.
The Targum editor said that academic freedom should mean having the freedom to teach and learn in any way you choose. In some ways, I disagree. On the faculty side, academic freedom is anything a professor can get away with doing, as long as no one complains. There are god-like and god-awful professors at every school, who either care immensely about their students and the material they put in front of them or, try to get by with as little effort as possible.
But unlike Denis Rancourt the academics who stick around under tenure usually stay under the wire. And they try to avoid teaching the intro courses.
A Lesson in Outsourcing Sex Education from Cody, Wyoming
When I did research for my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, one of the issues brought up in New Jersey public hearings in 1980 was that sex education, then known as Family Life Education, should be taught by qualified teachers. Health and physical education teachers, as well as school nurses, were clear choices. During the hearings, teachers of home economics and social studies teachers asked to be similarly qualified. A non-profit center based at Rutgers, called the Family Life Education Network, was established to provide sex education instruction to these teachers.
During that time, representatives of New Jersey Planned Parenthood testified in support of sex education. However, they did not advocate that the organization provide the instruction in the schools. Their executive director's reasoning was that the organization would not be capable of meeting the demand for instructional programs if they were to be offered in all public schools. Given the success of the Family Life Education Network, and the pro-choice stance of Planned Parenthood, that has turned out to be a wise decision.
Now, nearly thirty years later, I read a story about sex education classes in Cody, Wyoming. Unlike New Jersey schools, instruction has been directed by a regional family planning organization. The Cody school board has voted 4-3 to discontinue the organization's involvement. The board also moved that classes be taught by a certified nurse or health instructor and that there be separate classes for male and female students. The school board made this decision despite a petition signed by 490 parents and opposition by seventy teachers.
But aside from the concern over mixed-gender classes, there were few reported comments about the actual content of the sex education courses offered to children. Nothing stated that the regional family planning organization had political leanings--it was not an affiliate of a national organization such as Planned Parenthood. The current classes had an eight percent opt-out rate, higher than I'd expect to see in New Jersey, but I believe the Cody parents had more reason to offer that choice.
As someone who has been following the politics of sex education, I would agree with the decision of the school board to hire their own qualified teachers and keep the sex education curriculum in-house. Parents of varied views will also have the opportunity to be involved, because a new curriculum, per state laws, will be required.
But the school board jumped to conclusions too quickly by voting for gender-separated classes. For one thing, they took that decision out of the hands of the teacher, who would be more expert on the subject. And for another thing, they could have consulted educators for evidence that separated classes would prove to work as effectively, or less effectively, than mixed classes.
I am not making that judgment here, because this a local matter, and I do not live in Cody, Wyoming. But I believe the school board should have done what New Jersey's board of education did nearly three decades ago: ask the experts what they think, instead of allowing the most vocal parents to make the decision for them.
During that time, representatives of New Jersey Planned Parenthood testified in support of sex education. However, they did not advocate that the organization provide the instruction in the schools. Their executive director's reasoning was that the organization would not be capable of meeting the demand for instructional programs if they were to be offered in all public schools. Given the success of the Family Life Education Network, and the pro-choice stance of Planned Parenthood, that has turned out to be a wise decision.
Now, nearly thirty years later, I read a story about sex education classes in Cody, Wyoming. Unlike New Jersey schools, instruction has been directed by a regional family planning organization. The Cody school board has voted 4-3 to discontinue the organization's involvement. The board also moved that classes be taught by a certified nurse or health instructor and that there be separate classes for male and female students. The school board made this decision despite a petition signed by 490 parents and opposition by seventy teachers.
But aside from the concern over mixed-gender classes, there were few reported comments about the actual content of the sex education courses offered to children. Nothing stated that the regional family planning organization had political leanings--it was not an affiliate of a national organization such as Planned Parenthood. The current classes had an eight percent opt-out rate, higher than I'd expect to see in New Jersey, but I believe the Cody parents had more reason to offer that choice.
As someone who has been following the politics of sex education, I would agree with the decision of the school board to hire their own qualified teachers and keep the sex education curriculum in-house. Parents of varied views will also have the opportunity to be involved, because a new curriculum, per state laws, will be required.
But the school board jumped to conclusions too quickly by voting for gender-separated classes. For one thing, they took that decision out of the hands of the teacher, who would be more expert on the subject. And for another thing, they could have consulted educators for evidence that separated classes would prove to work as effectively, or less effectively, than mixed classes.
I am not making that judgment here, because this a local matter, and I do not live in Cody, Wyoming. But I believe the school board should have done what New Jersey's board of education did nearly three decades ago: ask the experts what they think, instead of allowing the most vocal parents to make the decision for them.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Poor Timing for a Language Immersion Program in Hoboken
Today, from my home state of New Jersey comes a story from Hoboken, where the school board, by a vote of 5-4, has rejected the introduction of a Spanish-English dual language program in their elementary schools. Had the program been approved, four Spanish-English kindergarten and first grade classes would have begun to accept students in the fall.
The arguments against the program that were mentioned in today's news had nothing to do with the need for a language immersion program, and everything to do with cost and the district's poor performance on the State Report Cards. So, I decided to trace the story back a few months.
What I learned was interesting: the program, called Hola, had started out as something far more ambitious than four elementary school classes: it was meant to be a K-8 program to be implemented over several years. In addition, the first year expenditures, previously approved by the school board in a 5-3 vote, were estimated to be $200,000. There was discussion of housing up to 450 students, over time, in a public school. Also important, the qualifications of the persons who drafted the proposal and intended to run the program were questioned. And the two co-authors of the Hola proposal originally asked to be paid $150,000--two salaries, each the average of a teacher in the city--to run the program.
I wrote a previous post about the Christo Rey schools, founded in Chicago, which targeted their admissions towards Spanish-speaking high school students. Their early approach was to recruit a freshman class and teach all subjects, excluding English, in Spanish. It was a sound approach that placed the first Christo Rey school apart from other public, private and parochial schools in Chicago. The founders of that school did not ask the City of Chicago, nor the church, for funds. They asked Jesuits in the corporate community to employ students in internships; the internship salaries would be paid to the school as tuition.
Okay, Christo Rey is a parochial school, and it is in a large city. But there are lessons. First, start small. The co-developers of the Hola program started with a good idea: educate kindergarteners and first graders primarily in Spanish, with the exception of English language skills. This would have helped the Hoboken school system when those children reached the third and fourth grade. They would have been put in a better position to be proficient on state language arts examinations. And No Child Left Behind still demands 100 percent language arts proficiency within the next five years; governors, members of the House and Senate, and even President Obama, have said practically nothing about backing off that goal, at least for now.
But instead of proposing a small program, at a lower cost, Hola gave itself a future: the next thought was to continue to conduct the majority of education in Spanish--down to fifty percent by the fourth grade. But that would mean the Hoboken school system would need to fund the program for five years just to track the progress of the original students--assuming those students still lived in the district five years from now. I would have to believe that language immersion would need to be more complete by the third grade, since students would be tested then.
Hola might be a better fit as a charter school, but like Christo Rey, the best specialized programs start small and develop mechanisms to raise money. Charter schools in New Jersey do not receive the same dollars per-pupil as other public schools in the communities they do business. This has been a bone of contention inside and outside the charter school moments. Charter school teachers work longer hours, however teachers unions are concerned that charter schools take monies away from traditional public schools.
But the co-developers of Hola decided not to go through the charter school approval process, which is directed by the state department of education. They asked the people of Hoboken for money. They offered no ideas as to how to run their program on their own over the long term; they expected the school system to keep paying. They even offered to work for no salary the first year, but that was too little too late.
The lessons I learned from Christo Rey and Hoboken tell me one thing: there's plenty of room for good ideas in education, but don't expect local governments to pay for experiments over the long run. Educational visionaries must convey their passion by starting small, and be prepared to raise the big money on their own when they think big.
The arguments against the program that were mentioned in today's news had nothing to do with the need for a language immersion program, and everything to do with cost and the district's poor performance on the State Report Cards. So, I decided to trace the story back a few months.
What I learned was interesting: the program, called Hola, had started out as something far more ambitious than four elementary school classes: it was meant to be a K-8 program to be implemented over several years. In addition, the first year expenditures, previously approved by the school board in a 5-3 vote, were estimated to be $200,000. There was discussion of housing up to 450 students, over time, in a public school. Also important, the qualifications of the persons who drafted the proposal and intended to run the program were questioned. And the two co-authors of the Hola proposal originally asked to be paid $150,000--two salaries, each the average of a teacher in the city--to run the program.
I wrote a previous post about the Christo Rey schools, founded in Chicago, which targeted their admissions towards Spanish-speaking high school students. Their early approach was to recruit a freshman class and teach all subjects, excluding English, in Spanish. It was a sound approach that placed the first Christo Rey school apart from other public, private and parochial schools in Chicago. The founders of that school did not ask the City of Chicago, nor the church, for funds. They asked Jesuits in the corporate community to employ students in internships; the internship salaries would be paid to the school as tuition.
Okay, Christo Rey is a parochial school, and it is in a large city. But there are lessons. First, start small. The co-developers of the Hola program started with a good idea: educate kindergarteners and first graders primarily in Spanish, with the exception of English language skills. This would have helped the Hoboken school system when those children reached the third and fourth grade. They would have been put in a better position to be proficient on state language arts examinations. And No Child Left Behind still demands 100 percent language arts proficiency within the next five years; governors, members of the House and Senate, and even President Obama, have said practically nothing about backing off that goal, at least for now.
But instead of proposing a small program, at a lower cost, Hola gave itself a future: the next thought was to continue to conduct the majority of education in Spanish--down to fifty percent by the fourth grade. But that would mean the Hoboken school system would need to fund the program for five years just to track the progress of the original students--assuming those students still lived in the district five years from now. I would have to believe that language immersion would need to be more complete by the third grade, since students would be tested then.
Hola might be a better fit as a charter school, but like Christo Rey, the best specialized programs start small and develop mechanisms to raise money. Charter schools in New Jersey do not receive the same dollars per-pupil as other public schools in the communities they do business. This has been a bone of contention inside and outside the charter school moments. Charter school teachers work longer hours, however teachers unions are concerned that charter schools take monies away from traditional public schools.
But the co-developers of Hola decided not to go through the charter school approval process, which is directed by the state department of education. They asked the people of Hoboken for money. They offered no ideas as to how to run their program on their own over the long term; they expected the school system to keep paying. They even offered to work for no salary the first year, but that was too little too late.
The lessons I learned from Christo Rey and Hoboken tell me one thing: there's plenty of room for good ideas in education, but don't expect local governments to pay for experiments over the long run. Educational visionaries must convey their passion by starting small, and be prepared to raise the big money on their own when they think big.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Book Review: Street Gang:The Complete Story of Sesame Street
I was born too early to be the target audience for Sesame Street but I did remember earlier shows such as Kukla, Fran and Ollie, Captain Kangeroo and Romper Room as I read Mike Davis' Street Gang: The Complete Story of Sesame Street. Now forty years old, Sesame Street is the longest running children's television show in history.
During the mid-late 1960's, continuing through the 1970's Sesame Street was as much a social experiment as it was an educational program. As a public television program, it carried no commercials for toys and food. Instead there were spots teaching children how to count.
The intention was to provide an educational experience through television, a medium that had not yet reached its zenith in popularity. And as Sesame Street became more popular, its parent company, the Children's Television Workshop (now known as the Sesame Workshop) was able to wean itself off total dependency government and foundation money through licensing and corporate partnerships.
Sesame Street's producers went in a different direction than past children's programming. They chose an urban setting where diverse human characters interacted with Muppets instead of a the suburban family settings in Fifties and Sixties programs or the shows where children were ushered onto a set to chat and play with stage characters.
There were also some programming risks, for example, explaining breast feeding and marriage to children. The more prominent risk was explaining death when actor Will Lee, who played Mr. Hooper the storekeeper, passed away. Street Gang re-prints some of that dialogue, and I cried as I read it. But I agree with Davis, and the actors and producers he interviewed: the issue was handled very well and with tremendous sensitivity. But politics sometimes got in the way. For example, Mississippi television stations refused to air the show because African Americans were featured in important roles.
I do not know if a show such as Sesame Street could be started today in an era of No Child Left Behind and more prominent conservative calls for personal responsibility. I would not dare imagine a conservative Congress supporting government proposing to spend in the millions for children's public television today, at a time when public broadcasting stations have been purchased by religious programming networks.
But the essential ingredient for remarkable success is remarkable and committed people. And you'll read about a few of them in Street Gang.
During the mid-late 1960's, continuing through the 1970's Sesame Street was as much a social experiment as it was an educational program. As a public television program, it carried no commercials for toys and food. Instead there were spots teaching children how to count.
The intention was to provide an educational experience through television, a medium that had not yet reached its zenith in popularity. And as Sesame Street became more popular, its parent company, the Children's Television Workshop (now known as the Sesame Workshop) was able to wean itself off total dependency government and foundation money through licensing and corporate partnerships.
Sesame Street's producers went in a different direction than past children's programming. They chose an urban setting where diverse human characters interacted with Muppets instead of a the suburban family settings in Fifties and Sixties programs or the shows where children were ushered onto a set to chat and play with stage characters.
There were also some programming risks, for example, explaining breast feeding and marriage to children. The more prominent risk was explaining death when actor Will Lee, who played Mr. Hooper the storekeeper, passed away. Street Gang re-prints some of that dialogue, and I cried as I read it. But I agree with Davis, and the actors and producers he interviewed: the issue was handled very well and with tremendous sensitivity. But politics sometimes got in the way. For example, Mississippi television stations refused to air the show because African Americans were featured in important roles.
I do not know if a show such as Sesame Street could be started today in an era of No Child Left Behind and more prominent conservative calls for personal responsibility. I would not dare imagine a conservative Congress supporting government proposing to spend in the millions for children's public television today, at a time when public broadcasting stations have been purchased by religious programming networks.
But the essential ingredient for remarkable success is remarkable and committed people. And you'll read about a few of them in Street Gang.
Obama Should Settle for Victory over Bi-Partisanship on Stimulus Package
Last night, I listened to President Obama talk about his administration's progress with the economic stimulus package. For the first time, I could swear I actually thought he looked tired, and not as unflappable as the man who once campaigned for the office.
Obama spoke on how he tried to bring warring factions of Democrats and Republicans together, hoping to come out of those discussions with a bill that would have bi-partisan support. Instead, the House passed a stimulus bill without Republican support and the Senate has passed a bill with three Republican votes.
A bill will make it out of Congress. It will not be perfect, as Obama has said. It is not all of the money everyone wants for their pet causes, and when it comes time to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills, there will be losers. That would happen under any president, Democrat or Republican, no matter how powerful his oratory.
I'm looking at an expenditure spreadsheet for the Nelson-Collins "moderate" version of the Senate bill, as well as differences between other House and Senate mark-ups. You can see this spreadsheet yourself. If you followed the Obama campaign, and you listened to his priorities, you can make your own determine where the president is winning or losing as he tries to pass his first significant piece of legislation.
These are some items where the administration had to bite a bullet to get three Republican votes and there are also defense, homeland security and law enforcement appropriations that were not in the partisan House bill.
Democrats came up even on energy,education and transportation programs, all of which Obama touched in his speech. And while the House bill had the funding for the National Mall, mocked by Republicans in the media, the Senate version includes monies for land management, historic preservation and national parks that were not requested in the House.
In a normal economy, Congress would not try to pack large-scale appropriations and tax cuts into a single bill. But this is not a normal economy and Obama has sounded a forceful call to action.
The only thing normal this time is the legislative process; it's politics U.S. Congress style. President Obama might as well enjoy the Democratic majorities he has in both houses and hope for economic success in time for the 2010 mid-term elections. Three Senate Republican votes cost him a bundle. But he came out with his priorities-education, energy and jobs-intact.
Obama spoke on how he tried to bring warring factions of Democrats and Republicans together, hoping to come out of those discussions with a bill that would have bi-partisan support. Instead, the House passed a stimulus bill without Republican support and the Senate has passed a bill with three Republican votes.
A bill will make it out of Congress. It will not be perfect, as Obama has said. It is not all of the money everyone wants for their pet causes, and when it comes time to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills, there will be losers. That would happen under any president, Democrat or Republican, no matter how powerful his oratory.
I'm looking at an expenditure spreadsheet for the Nelson-Collins "moderate" version of the Senate bill, as well as differences between other House and Senate mark-ups. You can see this spreadsheet yourself. If you followed the Obama campaign, and you listened to his priorities, you can make your own determine where the president is winning or losing as he tries to pass his first significant piece of legislation.
These are some items where the administration had to bite a bullet to get three Republican votes and there are also defense, homeland security and law enforcement appropriations that were not in the partisan House bill.
Democrats came up even on energy,education and transportation programs, all of which Obama touched in his speech. And while the House bill had the funding for the National Mall, mocked by Republicans in the media, the Senate version includes monies for land management, historic preservation and national parks that were not requested in the House.
In a normal economy, Congress would not try to pack large-scale appropriations and tax cuts into a single bill. But this is not a normal economy and Obama has sounded a forceful call to action.
The only thing normal this time is the legislative process; it's politics U.S. Congress style. President Obama might as well enjoy the Democratic majorities he has in both houses and hope for economic success in time for the 2010 mid-term elections. Three Senate Republican votes cost him a bundle. But he came out with his priorities-education, energy and jobs-intact.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Should Urban Mayors Control School Boards?
This past weekend the New York Times reported that New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein opposed changes in state laws that would weaken mayoral control of schools. The story is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/education/07klein.html?ref=nyregion.
New York is not the only city where mayors have tried to change school boards from publicly elected officials to mayoral appointees, but it is one of the cities where the mayor has been successful and remains a popular public official, so popular that his city council has voted to allow him to run for a third term as an independent candidate.
Which goes to the main ingredient for successful mayoral control: the mayor must be overwhelmingly popular with the voters. More likely, he will have already faced one successful re-election campaign, so he'll believe, and rightfully so, that he has the public trust. He'll also believe that he is ready to take on new risks, including the possibility that he can be blamed for the failures of the schools.
There are some advantages to mayoral control, the two most important being that the mayor has control over the schools budget and, that he is more likely to have connections with key contacts in the state legislature and Washington D.C. than his superintendent of schools. He can also consolidate non-educational services, such as transportation, building maintenance and security into the budgets of other city agencies. Not to mention, a mayor negotiates many labor contracts.And if the voters are dissatisfied with the schools, they have a more visible target to blame. They can vote the mayor out of office or demand a recall, if election laws permit it.
There are disadvantages, of course. First, mayors are usually term-limited. Michael Bloomburg will get another shot in New York, but other cities will limit a mayor to two terms. A popular mayor can be succeeded by someone who wants to undo his agenda--and that certainly includes schools. A new mayor not only means a new school board, but also a new superintendent, whether the voters wanted it or not. School board appointees from the previous administration are likely to be dismissed for purely political reasons, even if they are popular with the public.
Another issue is academics: mayors are usually not educators. They might be aware of desires for academic standards, including testing, and might even be ardent supporters. But they are putting their careers at risk when they choose an aggressive superintendent. A secure mayor like Bloomburg does not have this problem, but an insecure one may lean towards a superintendent who might be a fine educator, but is more likely to be a weak public figure or a "yes man."
The last concern is accountability for the individual child. In a suburban community, parents can go to the school board when they have an issue involving their children that cannot be resolved at the school level.
For example, it is not uncommon for parents to ask school boards to pay for special education at a private school when they, in consultation with an expert, believe that the public schools offer an inadequate learning environment. School board members who are subject to the whims of the voters could go on the side of fiscal stability--it will break the budget if we send every unhappy parent's child to a private school--or sympathy.
A school board member who is a political appointee is more likely to be swayed by neither, but he will be less empowered. Unless the smart mayor realizes the importance of customer service in his school system.
New York is not the only city where mayors have tried to change school boards from publicly elected officials to mayoral appointees, but it is one of the cities where the mayor has been successful and remains a popular public official, so popular that his city council has voted to allow him to run for a third term as an independent candidate.
Which goes to the main ingredient for successful mayoral control: the mayor must be overwhelmingly popular with the voters. More likely, he will have already faced one successful re-election campaign, so he'll believe, and rightfully so, that he has the public trust. He'll also believe that he is ready to take on new risks, including the possibility that he can be blamed for the failures of the schools.
There are some advantages to mayoral control, the two most important being that the mayor has control over the schools budget and, that he is more likely to have connections with key contacts in the state legislature and Washington D.C. than his superintendent of schools. He can also consolidate non-educational services, such as transportation, building maintenance and security into the budgets of other city agencies. Not to mention, a mayor negotiates many labor contracts.And if the voters are dissatisfied with the schools, they have a more visible target to blame. They can vote the mayor out of office or demand a recall, if election laws permit it.
There are disadvantages, of course. First, mayors are usually term-limited. Michael Bloomburg will get another shot in New York, but other cities will limit a mayor to two terms. A popular mayor can be succeeded by someone who wants to undo his agenda--and that certainly includes schools. A new mayor not only means a new school board, but also a new superintendent, whether the voters wanted it or not. School board appointees from the previous administration are likely to be dismissed for purely political reasons, even if they are popular with the public.
Another issue is academics: mayors are usually not educators. They might be aware of desires for academic standards, including testing, and might even be ardent supporters. But they are putting their careers at risk when they choose an aggressive superintendent. A secure mayor like Bloomburg does not have this problem, but an insecure one may lean towards a superintendent who might be a fine educator, but is more likely to be a weak public figure or a "yes man."
The last concern is accountability for the individual child. In a suburban community, parents can go to the school board when they have an issue involving their children that cannot be resolved at the school level.
For example, it is not uncommon for parents to ask school boards to pay for special education at a private school when they, in consultation with an expert, believe that the public schools offer an inadequate learning environment. School board members who are subject to the whims of the voters could go on the side of fiscal stability--it will break the budget if we send every unhappy parent's child to a private school--or sympathy.
A school board member who is a political appointee is more likely to be swayed by neither, but he will be less empowered. Unless the smart mayor realizes the importance of customer service in his school system.
Friday, February 6, 2009
University of Wisconsin Terminates Vendor Relationships Based on Anti-Sweatshop Policies
This week I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that the University of Wisconsin-Madison has terminated a licensing agreement with Russell Athletic in response to their parent company's decision to close a factory in Honduras. Worker-rights groups had alleged that the closure was in response to union-organizing activity there. See the story at http://chronicle.com/news/article/5931/u-of-wisconsin-flagship-ends-ties-with-apparel-maker?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.
This was not the first time the university had decided to terminate a licensing agreement. Slightly more than a year ago, Wisconsin canceled an agreement with the New Era Cap company because they had prevented a university-hired labor monitoring group from entering their factory in Mobile, Alabama. That story is at http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=3829.
In both of these cases, the vendors entered into contracts that allowed the university to inspect working conditions at the plants where their licensed products were made. These contracts include a code of conduct requiring apparel manufacturers to allow their workers to unionize and also allow monitoring by a worker rights consortium.
Okay, a contract is a contract and both companies knew the rules. They were expected to abide by the code of conduct and they didn't. In fact, New Era's actions were little different from Saddam Hussein's attempts to keep U.N. inspectors from looking for weapons of mass destruction. If I got the same greeting at the New Era plant I'd cancel my contract too.
But I also have to ask: why do university administrators engage their schools in such contracts? I cannot imagine, for example, that an automobile company would allow the executives from the various car rental firms to inspect its assembly lines. Yes, the car companies want customer satisfaction, but they do not want the customer to set corporate and employment policy.
Aside from the universities, the only other business I can think of that might check out product on the assembly line is the Defense Department. But then there are national security issues at stake. The armed forces would definitely visit the weapons or heavy equipment manufacturer; the assembly line is set-up to their needs. But I doubt that generals or their aides tour the uniform manufacturers and ask about the labor force.
Contracts such as Wisconsin's vendor agreement are also political statements; they are taking a position in opposition to sweatshop labor around the world. If the contracts have the backing of the governor, legislature, trustees and the university community, then fine, they have every right to take their position. That power is reserved to states, as far I know. If a state university administration operates contrary to state politics, that is a different story. If a private school, especially a religiously affiliated one, has a moral issue with doing business with a particular vendor, then of course they should go with their heart.
But maybe someone should ask how much more their school stores and their students are willing to pay to get sweatshirts and caps from vendors that are more to their liking.
This was not the first time the university had decided to terminate a licensing agreement. Slightly more than a year ago, Wisconsin canceled an agreement with the New Era Cap company because they had prevented a university-hired labor monitoring group from entering their factory in Mobile, Alabama. That story is at http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=3829.
In both of these cases, the vendors entered into contracts that allowed the university to inspect working conditions at the plants where their licensed products were made. These contracts include a code of conduct requiring apparel manufacturers to allow their workers to unionize and also allow monitoring by a worker rights consortium.
Okay, a contract is a contract and both companies knew the rules. They were expected to abide by the code of conduct and they didn't. In fact, New Era's actions were little different from Saddam Hussein's attempts to keep U.N. inspectors from looking for weapons of mass destruction. If I got the same greeting at the New Era plant I'd cancel my contract too.
But I also have to ask: why do university administrators engage their schools in such contracts? I cannot imagine, for example, that an automobile company would allow the executives from the various car rental firms to inspect its assembly lines. Yes, the car companies want customer satisfaction, but they do not want the customer to set corporate and employment policy.
Aside from the universities, the only other business I can think of that might check out product on the assembly line is the Defense Department. But then there are national security issues at stake. The armed forces would definitely visit the weapons or heavy equipment manufacturer; the assembly line is set-up to their needs. But I doubt that generals or their aides tour the uniform manufacturers and ask about the labor force.
Contracts such as Wisconsin's vendor agreement are also political statements; they are taking a position in opposition to sweatshop labor around the world. If the contracts have the backing of the governor, legislature, trustees and the university community, then fine, they have every right to take their position. That power is reserved to states, as far I know. If a state university administration operates contrary to state politics, that is a different story. If a private school, especially a religiously affiliated one, has a moral issue with doing business with a particular vendor, then of course they should go with their heart.
But maybe someone should ask how much more their school stores and their students are willing to pay to get sweatshirts and caps from vendors that are more to their liking.
Brandeis U President Apologizes, Proposes Education-Driven Solution for Art Museum
As follow-up to a prior post, today I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that Brandeis University has reconsidered its decision to close the Rose Museum of Art and to re-position the museum as a teaching center, including a greater showcase of student and faculty work. Instead of closing the museum and selling ts $350 million art collection, the university will sell only a minute number of pieces. See the Chronicle story at http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=5933&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en.
University president Jehudah Reinharz issued a formal written apology for the original decision to close the museum. (See the letter at http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2009/02/brandeis_presid.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed)
I don't know whether to give the university and its president credit or blame for their handling of this situation. The complaints from faculty and contributors to the university may have cost Dr. Reinharz credibility in his position, and now he has a cynical and unhappy museum director to deal with.
My hope is that President Reinharz considers my suggestion from my prior post: use the money from the sale of small number of pieces as seed capital for a new business plan, one that can ultimately generate enough income to cover the museum's operating budget within a short period of time, estimated three to five years.
I also recommend that Reinharz approach his trustees about initiating a search for a new director. This is not a faculty position; the museum director is an administrator. And he should not have whined to the media about his president's actions after the president had admitted his mistakes. That would be cause for termination outside the education sector. And it should be cause at a university with strong leadership at the helm.
University president Jehudah Reinharz issued a formal written apology for the original decision to close the museum. (See the letter at http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2009/02/brandeis_presid.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed)
I don't know whether to give the university and its president credit or blame for their handling of this situation. The complaints from faculty and contributors to the university may have cost Dr. Reinharz credibility in his position, and now he has a cynical and unhappy museum director to deal with.
My hope is that President Reinharz considers my suggestion from my prior post: use the money from the sale of small number of pieces as seed capital for a new business plan, one that can ultimately generate enough income to cover the museum's operating budget within a short period of time, estimated three to five years.
I also recommend that Reinharz approach his trustees about initiating a search for a new director. This is not a faculty position; the museum director is an administrator. And he should not have whined to the media about his president's actions after the president had admitted his mistakes. That would be cause for termination outside the education sector. And it should be cause at a university with strong leadership at the helm.
U of Cincinnati "Sexploration" Criticized by Archbishop
This week, from Cincinnati, Ohio come several stories about a "Sexploration" class conducted at the University of Cincinnati's wellness center. Sexploration was a week-long sex education program at the wellness center that was co-sponsored with Pure Pleasure, a manufacturer of lotions and sex toys. Sexploration featured talks by sex researchers, condom giveaways and a "Pizza and Porn" night. Attendance was not mandatory. This link will send you to a story with a video of student comments: http://www.wlwt.com/health/18645087/detail.html
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of the Catholic Church criticized the program, calling it "profoundly disturbing" and that it showed "gross disregard of the moral sensibilities of many in the university community." An Archbishop is a leading member of the Cincinnati business community, and he certainly had every right to express his opinion.
However, none of the news coverage that I read about this event showed that the Archbishop, or anyone else for that matter, took a poll or asked anyone within the university community if they felt bothered by the event, so I don't believe that he knows the number of morally sensible people who work there. If it were a vast majority, especially senior administrators and the offices for the various religious organizations on campus, then the Archbishop would have had a strong and valid point. Not to mention he would have allies on campus. Then there would be no future Sexploration events. But instead, the president of the university, the president's direct reports and campus clergy were quiet, at least in the online press.
In addition, the U of Cincinnati is a public state-related university. Citizens who would prefer that the school not offer a program like Sexploration would say that they don't want their tax money to fund it. But if the Wellness Center is not a state-subsidized facility (and I have my own questions about that since student fees are not likely to cover 100 percent of the operating costs of any facility on a college campus), and participants were happy, then the complaints are moot. If there is any concern about taxpayer money being used for this purpose, then there is a solution: let the sex toy company pay the full cost of sponsorship, including a rent for the space. It's a good investment if sales are to be made.
Ok, the idea of calling one of the programs "Pizza and Porn" was a bit much, but my bet is that it worked; it drew students to come to an event with more serious content when a serious name would not have worked. This was also the first time I had heard of a sex toys vendor sponsoring a college event. But I'd bet that was a draw too. Owe this up to the power of effective marketing to students.
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of the Catholic Church criticized the program, calling it "profoundly disturbing" and that it showed "gross disregard of the moral sensibilities of many in the university community." An Archbishop is a leading member of the Cincinnati business community, and he certainly had every right to express his opinion.
However, none of the news coverage that I read about this event showed that the Archbishop, or anyone else for that matter, took a poll or asked anyone within the university community if they felt bothered by the event, so I don't believe that he knows the number of morally sensible people who work there. If it were a vast majority, especially senior administrators and the offices for the various religious organizations on campus, then the Archbishop would have had a strong and valid point. Not to mention he would have allies on campus. Then there would be no future Sexploration events. But instead, the president of the university, the president's direct reports and campus clergy were quiet, at least in the online press.
In addition, the U of Cincinnati is a public state-related university. Citizens who would prefer that the school not offer a program like Sexploration would say that they don't want their tax money to fund it. But if the Wellness Center is not a state-subsidized facility (and I have my own questions about that since student fees are not likely to cover 100 percent of the operating costs of any facility on a college campus), and participants were happy, then the complaints are moot. If there is any concern about taxpayer money being used for this purpose, then there is a solution: let the sex toy company pay the full cost of sponsorship, including a rent for the space. It's a good investment if sales are to be made.
Ok, the idea of calling one of the programs "Pizza and Porn" was a bit much, but my bet is that it worked; it drew students to come to an event with more serious content when a serious name would not have worked. This was also the first time I had heard of a sex toys vendor sponsoring a college event. But I'd bet that was a draw too. Owe this up to the power of effective marketing to students.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Good Riddence to Juicy Campus
About a year ago, I wrote a post about a college-oriented Web site called JuicyCampus that was causing quite a stir among students and college administrators. See my old post here: http://educatedquest.wordpress.com/?s=juicy.
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Educationreported that the site has closed down. Entering www.juicycampus.com, now takes you to the Google home page. The Chronicle story is at http://chronicle.com/free/2009/02/10973n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.
I claim no credit in the outcome of this site, though I was right in my post: the harsh content made it likely that advertisers would pull out. While all businesses cut back on advertising during a weak economy, they still run ads in places where they can reach the most customers. Juicy Campus's former owner blamed the economy for the decision to shutter the site because of a lack of revenue, and not because of the social controversies the site has started on college campuses across the U.S.
In writing the past post, I mentioned that New Jersey's attorney general had investigated the site. Yesterday, she told the Chronicle that despite some recent improvements on the site, "JuicyCampus.com retained many of its most problematic features," including "the failure to assure those who reported abuse that their complaints would be responded to and acted upon." The owner's decision to discontinue the site has eliminated the need for a law suit.
JuicyCampus was villified by students and college administrators alike; it is unusual for them to share common cause, but in this case it was quite justified. The site had allowed students to post inappropriate comments about their classmates and put them in public view. One school, Tennessee State University, a historically black institution had blocked campus access to the site. Juicy Campus founder, Matt Ivester, had planned to sue the school for blocking access to student free speech. He might have won if he had good legal counsel, or gained undeserved fame win or lose. He had already boasted that he had content from 500 schools, up from 61 at the time I had written my earlier post.
It sickens me to see that a recent college graduate had tried to profit off the nasty tidbits that students would normally say about other students in private. But thankfully, economic justice prevailed and proved him to be a failure.
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Educationreported that the site has closed down. Entering www.juicycampus.com, now takes you to the Google home page. The Chronicle story is at http://chronicle.com/free/2009/02/10973n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.
I claim no credit in the outcome of this site, though I was right in my post: the harsh content made it likely that advertisers would pull out. While all businesses cut back on advertising during a weak economy, they still run ads in places where they can reach the most customers. Juicy Campus's former owner blamed the economy for the decision to shutter the site because of a lack of revenue, and not because of the social controversies the site has started on college campuses across the U.S.
In writing the past post, I mentioned that New Jersey's attorney general had investigated the site. Yesterday, she told the Chronicle that despite some recent improvements on the site, "JuicyCampus.com retained many of its most problematic features," including "the failure to assure those who reported abuse that their complaints would be responded to and acted upon." The owner's decision to discontinue the site has eliminated the need for a law suit.
JuicyCampus was villified by students and college administrators alike; it is unusual for them to share common cause, but in this case it was quite justified. The site had allowed students to post inappropriate comments about their classmates and put them in public view. One school, Tennessee State University, a historically black institution had blocked campus access to the site. Juicy Campus founder, Matt Ivester, had planned to sue the school for blocking access to student free speech. He might have won if he had good legal counsel, or gained undeserved fame win or lose. He had already boasted that he had content from 500 schools, up from 61 at the time I had written my earlier post.
It sickens me to see that a recent college graduate had tried to profit off the nasty tidbits that students would normally say about other students in private. But thankfully, economic justice prevailed and proved him to be a failure.
College Football's Post-Season Holiday
Last night I attended the Rutgers Touchdown Club celebration for National Signing Day; it was held in a Hyatt luxury hotel for the first time in my memory. There, Rutgers head football coach Greg Schiano announced the names of his 23 signees and told us a little bit about each one of them, telling the audience how much he looked forward to coaching them when they arrived on campus.
Schiano has been a great coach for Rutgers, building a once-moribund program into a regular post-season bowl participant. The non-student fans appreciate Schiano very much; the Touchdown Club now boasts close to 1,600 members, and I would guess that 400 to 500 of them were in the hall last night.
Over the past five seasons, Schiano's Scarlet Knights have won 38 games, more than Miami, Nebraska or Notre Dame. Two of his past players, Gary Brackett and Darnell Stapleton, have earned Super Bowl rings since their graduations. This season, seven of the 12 NFL playoff teams had a son of Rutgers on their roster.
This year, Schiano's recruiting class ranked in ESPNU's top twenty, although the coach made some interesting points about rankings last night. For one, he said that the rating services are not always accurate, in fact pro teams spend millions to scout players who do not succeed, and the rating services do far less research. How, he said, could one school's class honestly be more comparable to others when the raters don't do the serious homework?
Schiano also speaks regularly about the State of Rutgers. When he was hired, he told the fans that he was putting up a wall around the state. Arch-rivals like Penn State were not going to take Jersey boys out of Jersey any longer. Today, almost 70 percent of his roster is made up of players who attend high schools within 200 miles of campus.
He added, related to rankings, that when you stick close to home, you will not get the top players who are far from home. But there are plenty of great players within that 200 mile radius that includes Philadelphia, Connecticut, New York, Washington D.C., and of course, New Jersey. And, as Schiano has demonstrated over the past four years, a coach can win with these players. As long as he gets them to play.
While he didn't say this in his words, a fan could take that to mean that the top players from football crazy states like California, Ohio and Texas would be more interested in options closer to their homes. If you look at any college football site, that usually proves true, especially with players from the south, southwest and California.
Schiano also discussed commitment. He is most excited about the player who says from the get-go that he wants to come to Rutgers. He has even asked the more committed to call classmates who are less sure of their decision. But he has also told players who have made a verbal, but want to look at other schools, to go ahead and look around. If you look around, come back to us, and honor your commitment, you'll be welcome. But don't expect us to spend more time trying to recruit you. We'll assume that you're serious about playing elsewhere. It's sound reasoning; it makes no sense to beg a player to make a decision that might go against his gut. It also means that Schiano is serious about building a guiding philosophy that makes a team a program. Either the player buys in, or he doesn't and looks elsewhere.
Greg Schiano is not perfect, as college football coaches go. His teams play less consistently than those you regularly see in the top five in season polls. He is not charismatic as coaches go, not as folksy as, for example, Bobby Bowden. But his recent success, and his prior experiences at Penn State and Miami, as well as his time with the Chicago Bears, remind me of a comment once made about legendary coach Don Shula, by slightly less successful, but more folksy, Bum Phillips. "He can take his and beat your'n and he can take your'n and beat his'n."
I have to imagine that Signing Day events at Alabama, Notre Dame or Southern Cal are more festive than they are at Rutgers. The expectations for their coached and teams are so high, it can appear that the most boisterous fans have more influence on a program than they should.
But Rutgers fans are different. They want the team to succeed, but they also want the players to work for their degree. If Greg Schiano's roster had a poor graduation rate, he would be gone. Instead, his Scarlet Knights have the third highest Academic Performance Rating in major college football, behind only Stanford and Navy. That was the only number Greg Schiano boasted about last night, and the point got the loudest applause.
Schiano has been a great coach for Rutgers, building a once-moribund program into a regular post-season bowl participant. The non-student fans appreciate Schiano very much; the Touchdown Club now boasts close to 1,600 members, and I would guess that 400 to 500 of them were in the hall last night.
Over the past five seasons, Schiano's Scarlet Knights have won 38 games, more than Miami, Nebraska or Notre Dame. Two of his past players, Gary Brackett and Darnell Stapleton, have earned Super Bowl rings since their graduations. This season, seven of the 12 NFL playoff teams had a son of Rutgers on their roster.
This year, Schiano's recruiting class ranked in ESPNU's top twenty, although the coach made some interesting points about rankings last night. For one, he said that the rating services are not always accurate, in fact pro teams spend millions to scout players who do not succeed, and the rating services do far less research. How, he said, could one school's class honestly be more comparable to others when the raters don't do the serious homework?
Schiano also speaks regularly about the State of Rutgers. When he was hired, he told the fans that he was putting up a wall around the state. Arch-rivals like Penn State were not going to take Jersey boys out of Jersey any longer. Today, almost 70 percent of his roster is made up of players who attend high schools within 200 miles of campus.
He added, related to rankings, that when you stick close to home, you will not get the top players who are far from home. But there are plenty of great players within that 200 mile radius that includes Philadelphia, Connecticut, New York, Washington D.C., and of course, New Jersey. And, as Schiano has demonstrated over the past four years, a coach can win with these players. As long as he gets them to play.
While he didn't say this in his words, a fan could take that to mean that the top players from football crazy states like California, Ohio and Texas would be more interested in options closer to their homes. If you look at any college football site, that usually proves true, especially with players from the south, southwest and California.
Schiano also discussed commitment. He is most excited about the player who says from the get-go that he wants to come to Rutgers. He has even asked the more committed to call classmates who are less sure of their decision. But he has also told players who have made a verbal, but want to look at other schools, to go ahead and look around. If you look around, come back to us, and honor your commitment, you'll be welcome. But don't expect us to spend more time trying to recruit you. We'll assume that you're serious about playing elsewhere. It's sound reasoning; it makes no sense to beg a player to make a decision that might go against his gut. It also means that Schiano is serious about building a guiding philosophy that makes a team a program. Either the player buys in, or he doesn't and looks elsewhere.
Greg Schiano is not perfect, as college football coaches go. His teams play less consistently than those you regularly see in the top five in season polls. He is not charismatic as coaches go, not as folksy as, for example, Bobby Bowden. But his recent success, and his prior experiences at Penn State and Miami, as well as his time with the Chicago Bears, remind me of a comment once made about legendary coach Don Shula, by slightly less successful, but more folksy, Bum Phillips. "He can take his and beat your'n and he can take your'n and beat his'n."
I have to imagine that Signing Day events at Alabama, Notre Dame or Southern Cal are more festive than they are at Rutgers. The expectations for their coached and teams are so high, it can appear that the most boisterous fans have more influence on a program than they should.
But Rutgers fans are different. They want the team to succeed, but they also want the players to work for their degree. If Greg Schiano's roster had a poor graduation rate, he would be gone. Instead, his Scarlet Knights have the third highest Academic Performance Rating in major college football, behind only Stanford and Navy. That was the only number Greg Schiano boasted about last night, and the point got the loudest applause.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
North Carolina Citizens Start Local PAC to Back School Board Slate
In my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, I write about a fictional Political Action Committee (PAC) that raises money to elect New Jersey school board candidates who have adopted a conservative platform including opposition to sex education, among other issues.
Now today, from Wake County, North Carolina comes the story of a citizen-initiated political action community to elect a slate of school board candidates in upcoming elections. The Raleigh News-Observer story can be found at http://www.newsobserver.com/2863/story/1392924.html
Dana Cope, the leader of the recently organized Children's Political Action Committee, is experienced in politics and elections. He is presently executive director of the State Employees Association of North Carolina. It is interesting that an executive who represents organized workers is taking a leadership role to elect people who, among their responsibilities, negotiate with a public employee union.
Cope wants to take this leadership role after the incumbent school board elected to reassign students from an adequately performing elementary school (the presumption is under state standards or No Child Left Behind) to a poor-performing school that primarily serves low income students. The thought is that the school board is making the reassignments to improve the test scores of the poor-performing school--without the input of parents in the community. Cope told the Observer that he attended two school board meetings, and believed that the incumbent board is not responsive to the needs of families.
Cope's experience gives the children's PAC a chance for success, but they will need to maintain consistent visibility in the local media to get citizens to turn out to vote. This would include personal appearances to give well-researched remarks before the incumbent board during the public portion of the meetings as well as post-meeting press conferences. Oddly enough, the incumbent board will need to be polite and welcoming to Cope et al. Shutting out a well-organized group of parents, even a small minority, from public comment is a sure recipe for defeat.
Citizen advocates in the education sector will likely be watching Cope's progress. It is quite likely that similar organizations could succeed in other metro areas, provided they are willing to do the work to be as informed as school board members and school administrators in order to be effective voices for change.
Now today, from Wake County, North Carolina comes the story of a citizen-initiated political action community to elect a slate of school board candidates in upcoming elections. The Raleigh News-Observer story can be found at http://www.newsobserver.com/2863/story/1392924.html
Dana Cope, the leader of the recently organized Children's Political Action Committee, is experienced in politics and elections. He is presently executive director of the State Employees Association of North Carolina. It is interesting that an executive who represents organized workers is taking a leadership role to elect people who, among their responsibilities, negotiate with a public employee union.
Cope wants to take this leadership role after the incumbent school board elected to reassign students from an adequately performing elementary school (the presumption is under state standards or No Child Left Behind) to a poor-performing school that primarily serves low income students. The thought is that the school board is making the reassignments to improve the test scores of the poor-performing school--without the input of parents in the community. Cope told the Observer that he attended two school board meetings, and believed that the incumbent board is not responsive to the needs of families.
Cope's experience gives the children's PAC a chance for success, but they will need to maintain consistent visibility in the local media to get citizens to turn out to vote. This would include personal appearances to give well-researched remarks before the incumbent board during the public portion of the meetings as well as post-meeting press conferences. Oddly enough, the incumbent board will need to be polite and welcoming to Cope et al. Shutting out a well-organized group of parents, even a small minority, from public comment is a sure recipe for defeat.
Citizen advocates in the education sector will likely be watching Cope's progress. It is quite likely that similar organizations could succeed in other metro areas, provided they are willing to do the work to be as informed as school board members and school administrators in order to be effective voices for change.
North Carolina Peace Activists Counter Military Recruiters with Powerful Counter-Recruitment Materials
Today, I read a story on WFAE.com, a news radio site based in the Charlotte, North Carolina metro area on army recruiting and counter-recruiting in the local high schools. The reporter took the unique step of sharing the counter-recruitment materials with the public audience. See the story and the recruitment materials at http://www.wfae.org/wfae/1_87_316.cfm?action=display&id=4725.
This story started with Sally Ferrell, a mother of a high school student who was aggressively sought after by military recruiters on campus. Bothered by the recruiter's tactics (though it is not reported whether her son did or did not choose the enlist), Ferrell contacted the superintendent of the school district as a member of a North Carolina peace organization to share her views about the military.
The superintendent did not allow Ferrell to speak, then later relented when she brought a representative from AmeriCorps, a federally supported national services organization to speak. The problem, according to the superintendent, was that the talk became less of a discussion about national service than about opposition to the military. He did not allow subsequent assemblies to take place.
Now, North Carolina Peace Action has produced three materials to distribute to students. The first two are fairly tame, if they are to be considered "anti-war." One is a set of questions to ask the recruiter, the other is a brochure that informs students of their legal rights and tells prospects to take their time before deciding to enlist. The third, called Sergeant Abe, the Honest Recruiter, is a copy of the enlistment agreement, with "call-outs" that explain the military's rights under that agreement as well as the disadvantages of serving in the military.
The Sergeant Abe piece can be considered controversial, because it does make some biased statements (one example is that the brochure makes a blanket statement that most military training is not useful in civilian jobs).
If the peace group distributed it outside supermarkets, few would care, as military recruiters can take advantage of that opportunity too. But North Carolina Peace Action has asked the American Civil Liberties Union for the opportunity to bring these materials into the schools. The problem is that activists are being cited as pushing personal opinions over facts as they hand out the literature. On that note, school administrators would have a valid point. It is unfair for school administrators to be caught in the middle between parents and recruiters.
Stories such as these validate two points from prior posts: the military recruiters should not be allowed to call students until after they have completed high school, and they should be given access to students on-campus through job fairs, career days and one or two optional meetings or assemblies. But no more. It's not like high school students have no prior knowledge of what soldiers do.
This story started with Sally Ferrell, a mother of a high school student who was aggressively sought after by military recruiters on campus. Bothered by the recruiter's tactics (though it is not reported whether her son did or did not choose the enlist), Ferrell contacted the superintendent of the school district as a member of a North Carolina peace organization to share her views about the military.
The superintendent did not allow Ferrell to speak, then later relented when she brought a representative from AmeriCorps, a federally supported national services organization to speak. The problem, according to the superintendent, was that the talk became less of a discussion about national service than about opposition to the military. He did not allow subsequent assemblies to take place.
Now, North Carolina Peace Action has produced three materials to distribute to students. The first two are fairly tame, if they are to be considered "anti-war." One is a set of questions to ask the recruiter, the other is a brochure that informs students of their legal rights and tells prospects to take their time before deciding to enlist. The third, called Sergeant Abe, the Honest Recruiter, is a copy of the enlistment agreement, with "call-outs" that explain the military's rights under that agreement as well as the disadvantages of serving in the military.
The Sergeant Abe piece can be considered controversial, because it does make some biased statements (one example is that the brochure makes a blanket statement that most military training is not useful in civilian jobs).
If the peace group distributed it outside supermarkets, few would care, as military recruiters can take advantage of that opportunity too. But North Carolina Peace Action has asked the American Civil Liberties Union for the opportunity to bring these materials into the schools. The problem is that activists are being cited as pushing personal opinions over facts as they hand out the literature. On that note, school administrators would have a valid point. It is unfair for school administrators to be caught in the middle between parents and recruiters.
Stories such as these validate two points from prior posts: the military recruiters should not be allowed to call students until after they have completed high school, and they should be given access to students on-campus through job fairs, career days and one or two optional meetings or assemblies. But no more. It's not like high school students have no prior knowledge of what soldiers do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)