FIPSE Earmarks

If it quacks, flies, looks like a duck . . . I suppose could be said of earmarks. In 2005, congressional earmarks for higher education out of the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) eliminated the grant competition. Since then, congressional earmarks funded by FIPSE have disappeared, but that does not mean that the whole FIPSE budget will be in the open grant program for the next year. As the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, Secretary Spellings has set aside almost half of the money budgeted for this year for FIPSE.

It is completely within the Secretary's purview to do this, but it is unusual. The original intent of the program is to promote the improvement and innovation of higher education without particular limitations. However, the Secretary has made it clear in several instances that she wants to move forward on the recommendations from the Commission of the Future of Higher Education's report, "A Test of Leadership." The two areas receiving the most attention from the Department of Education have been accountability, and you should spell that a-c-c-r-e-d-i-t-a-t-i-o-n, and K-12 to college alignment. Expect to see programs addressing transparency in accountability and high school to college alignment privileged in this round of applications. Not exactly an earmark, but still quacks a bit.

Pell Increase?

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has announced that President Bush will request a signficant increase in the Pell grants for the FY08 budget, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education's special report. The 14% increase will raise the grant to $550. As the story mentions, no one is talking about where this money will come from, but the federal budget will be released February 8. We may even know before then as more details of the budget become available over the next week.

While it is all political at this point, with one party trying to trump the other, what is obvious is that the Commission on the Future of Higher Education's Report is having an effect. Both Congress and the President have moved on the affordability issue by asking for an increase in the Pell grant. The Department of Education has been pushing for change on accountability and accreditation that the accrediting groups are taking seriously.

Where does this lead? We will have to see. After all, this is the political year of posturing before the political year of campaigning.

Issue One--Accreditation

The Department of Education has already begun to move forward on the recommendations of the report, "A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U. S. Higher Education." Secretary Spellings' action plan listed three issues she would address; accessibility, affordability, and accountability. The first issue on her agenda is accountability, and the first item under that umbrella is accreditation. On November 29, 2006, the DOE held the "Accreditation Forum" to begin the discussion. Secretary Spellings emphasized when she charged the commission in the fall of 2005 that this would be the beginning of a dialogue, and that was reinforced both by the Forum's organizer, Vicky Schray, Senior Advisor, Office of the Undersecretary, DOE and Secretary Spellings at the Forum. Schray said that we are not here to lay blame or to come to consensus, but to spell out the issues that we should address. Spellings said that she was heartened by the response to the Forum and the work of the members, and that she wanted the higher education community to address the issues.

I must confess that I was initially ambivalent about this meeting, as I assumed accreditation would only include accreditors. But the roomful of invited participants, and Schray's opening comments, showed otherwise. She said that the Forum was convened to address the accreditation process with all the players, not just the accreditation agencies. In attendance were about 70 higher education professionals from around the country representing some of the major accrediting agencies, university/college system officers, institutional officers, policy/think-tank associations, and some of the higher education associations.

If you have not already read the Inside Higher Education and Chronicle of Higher Education stories on the Forum, they give a full picture of the meeting. I will comment on where our place is in this discussion.

Jane Wellman, a Senior Associate at The Institute for Higher Education Policy, in framing the day’s work, emphasized that the accreditation process is an evolved process, not a designed one. Peg Miller, the Director of the National Forum on College-Level Learning stated that one of the conclusions she has come to is that campus assessment cannot serve accountability. Peter Ewell said this in a different way when he said that there is a tension within the accreditation process between three roles: improvement-based peer review, quality assurance, and public information. He contended that current accreditation processes are pretty good at the first of these roles, but they diminish through the other two. Ewell’s concluding point was that maybe the assessment process is being asked to do too much, or if it is to fulfill all those roles it is woefully resource-poor to do it.

The working structure of the Forum was two sessions of discussion tables for the invited participants to address two issues: 1) student learning outcomes, and 2) institutional inputs (resources) and process standards. Not being an invited participant, I had to wait until the groups had worked through their questions and reported out. Kind of like watching student group work.

The report-out revealed that the discussions had been complex and generative. On the issue of student learning outcomes, the groups called for multiple measures, complex processes, establishment of clear outcomes, external audits, clarification between student achievement and student learning, need for common definitions and comparable data systems, clarification of expectations of learning for various degree levels, and the question of whether institutions or student learning should be the center of accountability. Like most good group work, the process prompted strong discussions.

The input or resource issue discussion, coming at the end of the day, still elicited good responses. First off, most of the groups argued with the question, saying that inputs cannot be established until outcomes are clarified. In that light, almost all of the groups said that outcomes trumps inputs. One group said that if the institution can document good outcomes, who cares what the inputs are. Another group said that institutions should be able to make the case for varying from input standards if they can achieve good outcomes. The argument, and we have heard it before, was that by establishing very strong input standards, you stifle creativity and innovation to achieve outcomes. One group did remind us that it is a balance between inputs and outcomes. You cannot have good outcomes if you do not have good inputs. The tension between inputs and outcomes is, of course, problematic. Too often we have agreed to focus on results, and the result has been an incomplete outcome clarification that shortchanges us. On the other hand, too strict an adherence to input standards increases the bureaucratic stasis too often found in our work.

Coming out of this discussion was a stronger and stronger argument for establishing outcomes, particularly in the core expectations for a degree. Writing, reading, and numeracy were specifically cited. Interestingly, no one from any of the discussion groups said we need to talk to disciplinary folks. When I said at the beginning of this report that it was a mixture of higher education professionals and stakeholders, two major groups were not at the table--faculty representing disciplines, and students.

The Forum did succeed in placing good stuff on the table. DOE will sift through all the notes, do a report, and then, in the words of Ms. Schray, "see what comes next."

So, where are we? There was a strong call for more meetings on this issue, and DOE heard that, loud and clear. The discussion raised come good issues, but a full explication of the issues and a clear articulation of progress will require that more stakeholders are at the table. If standards or outcomes are going to be articulated for reading and writing, we need to be part of that discussion.

Dispatch from DC

Welcome back to the new term. Or, as Emerson says in “The American Scholar,” “I greet you on the re-commencement of our literary year.” There is a peaceful, albeit warm and muggy, lassitude about DC in August. All the major players are on vacation or back in their home territories, and the streets, sights, and restaurants are relaxingly taking care of those of us who remain with the tourists to enjoy the city.

Labor Day changes all that. Once again, ties and coats replace open shirts. Business skirts and jackets replace slacks and blouses or summer dresses. Dark blue and black becomes the color of the day. We walk between meetings with serious intensity, no longer wandering over to the pond to watch the ducks. Business calls, and we answer.

With the return to work come the updates and notices to get us started—kind of like a close look at the syllabus. I have always understood a syllabus in the hands of a good teacher, like a recipe in the hands of a good cook, as a suggested journey, and it may include some interesting digressions and variances along the way; but it will inevitably lead to a dish that delights, surprises, and educates both cook and partakers. The mixing of metaphors was deliberate, and may show that I am not the cook I imagine. Therefore, the updates and an attempt at a syllabus—remember to season to taste:

National Humanities Alliance

Every month the National Humanities Alliance (NHA), of which we are a member, issues an update. Here is September’s: https://mail2.cni.org/lists/nha-announce/Message/20189.html. For the yearly syllabus, there is a change in the date of the NHA annual membership meeting. Previously, the annual meeting has been held in conjunction with the ACLS annual meeting in May, but this year the NHA will hold its annual membership meeting in conjunction with Humanities Advocacy Day, March 19-20, 2007. While many of you will probably be in New York the preceding week for the CCCC Annual Convention, if you are in the area, the NHA meeting and Humanities Advocacy Day are great opportunities to address concerns for academic humanities and to advocate for humanities support from Congress. One of the advantages of having a DC-based office is that I can become more involved in NHA work, and I am on the planning committee for the NHA meeting next spring. Feel free to contact me if you have ideas for speakers. Because of the close alliance between NHA and ACLS, there will be a session or two of NHA sponsored events at the ACLS meeting as well.

American Council of Learned Societies

Speaking of the ACLS, their annual meeting next May will be in Montreal, May 10-12. For those of you (like me) who do not do much international travel, remember that you will need a passport to enter Canada, so if you are planning on the ACLS, you might want to start that process. But the big news for ACLS, as Patti Stock, our ACLS delegate, and I have mentioned before, is the expansion of their fellowship program. They have expanded some existing fellowships, and added new ones, particularly in technology. You can also see a report on last spring’s convention on their site.

The Spellings’ Commission

The full title is “A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.” The Commission has published the final working draft of the report, and will deliver the final copy to the Secretary of Education on September 25, 2006. Already there are various rumblings about the report, with responses I have already referred to in previous blogs (see below). An interesting new development, however, is the response to the announcement that DOE will use its rule-making meetings to implement some of the report’s findings. That brought a response from members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions saying that most of the recommendations would require legislative action. This might be one of those interesting digressions in the syllabus.

AAUP Statement on Adjuncts

The American Association of University Professors is preparing to vote on adding recommendations for part-time faculty appointments as an addition to “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.” As reported in Inside Higher Education, this places the issue on the agenda for the year. The AAUP invites comments on its draft that will be voted on at its annual meeting next spring. The AAUP is also sponsoring a “Dialogue on Contingent Faculty” with other Washington, DC based higher education groups on November 17, 2006. More on this when I know more.

The “not quite” Syllabus

What we have before us is more of a reading list than a syllabus. We may have been able to get by with that in the 20th century, but we will need to get used to our syllabi containing clearly stated outcomes in the 21st century. Here is a start:

Outcome 1: By the end of the literary year, we will have clearly articulated the humanities values in English and language arts studies at all levels of education.
Outcome 2: By the end of the literary year, we will have a clear plan to articulate our proposals for the future of higher education in English studies.
Outcome 3: By the end of the literary year, we will have helped shape the beginnings of a national policy for all faculty appointments in the academic workforce.

While I am being somewhat facetious in stating outcomes, I am serious on the issues. We need to reassert the fundamental human values of the work we do at all levels. We need to clarify how we can improve learning results at all levels, and higher education’s role in that. And we need to address the state of the faculty who teach all of our courses.

Looks like good work before us.

Response to the Commish

When Chicken Little comes running into the room exclaiming, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling,” as academics, our response should be, “and is that necessarily a bad thing?” What do we mean by the sky is falling? Is it the sky or the ceiling? On whom is it falling? In its fall, what is revealed behind the “apparent” sky that is “apparently” falling? The questions can go on, but our response to a statement of alarm should be a reasoned reflection leading to a broader understanding of the reported phenomenon.

Which brings us to the report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Are there problems in higher education? Obviously, yes. Are the problems the Commission identifies the real problems? Well, yes and no. In my first blog on the Commission (see below), published September 21, I questioned whether the questions Secretary Spellings asked were the right questions. I postulated that we would find out more about finances, enrollments, and global competitiveness, but I questioned whether the report would address the real issues that impact finances, enrollments, and global competitiveness. While I still see much potential in a Commission on the Future of Higher Education, I think this study was too quick, too pre-conceived, and too superficial to address the real needs. Chicken Little has cried, and we must now do the analysis of his cry to support and promote the real changes needed in higher education.

So . . . let’s see what the Commish wants.

1. Every student should have the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education. That means students need to have the appropriate preparation to enter college, understandable directions on how to get into college, and the financial opportunities to afford college.
2. The financial aid system should be restructured to privilege needs over merit and to be simple enough that the average student can apply. Furthermore, institutions should be rewarded for finding innovative ways to control costs.
3. We need to create a robust culture of accountability and transparency throughout higher education. That means knowing how well we actually educate our students.
4. We must change our academic programs to serve the needs of a knowledge economy by embracing a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement through new pedagogies, curricula, and technologies.
5. Our citizens must have access to high quality and affordable education throughout their lives through promotion of life-long learning opportunities.
6. The United States must ensure capacity to achieve global leadership in science, engineering, medicine, and other knowledge-intensive programs.

Well, on the surface that doesn’t seem so bad. In fact, I could get behind most of them. Except that the report goes on in each area to spell out what they mean. And the problem is that they are applying action-oriented, quick-fix responses to complex issues that, I agree, need fixing, but cannot be done overnight.

The truth of the matter is, higher education is already addressing most of those concerns. Most of the knowledge about them is relatively public for the higher education community, being noted in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education to name the two most obvious sources. In addition, a report issued by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education titled “American Higher Education: How Does It Measure Up for the 21st Century?” highlights most of the same issues.

So, why the fuss and overzealous tone and frustration about the Commission’s report? Well, it might be that, yes, we know about these issues, but, no, we haven’t really placed them at the top of our agendas. Instead, we have been very busy denying that Chicken Little is seeing anything. And maybe we have been too busy debating whether it really is the sky that is falling. So, our job as academics needs to follow the next step, what Emerson called the scholar as actor. We must act on our knowledge.

At the AAC&U annual convention in Washington, DC last January, one of the deans of a large research university talked about how he initiates change in undergraduate general education. When questioned how to do it on his type of campus, he said it was “little by little and piece by piece.” He is right. All change must start where it can get a foothold. And meaningful change cannot be mandated from a policy board, it must come from the people most involved in making the change happen. But it is time to get beyond “little by little and piece by piece.”

We know we need to improve the success rate for all our students. We need to accelerate the adoption of the scholarship of teaching and learning on all our campuses. We need to ensure that the students who come to our classes are met with faculty who are prepared to engage them in an interactive dialogue that makes their learning real. We need to look closely at what succeeds and what does not, and not be satisfied that it is “the student’s fault” when she or he has trouble in our class. The students don’t come through the door reluctantly, but their reluctance to persevere has a whole lot to do with the nature of what they find when they come through the door.

Improving higher education is a complicated business. David Ward’s interview in the Chonicle of Higher Education about his refusal to sign the report articulates some of that complexity. The change won’t come in mandated quick fixes that the report advocates, but in the serious, hard work of the higher education community and its partners. We know what to do, let’s do it.

News and Notes

Once again, the updates from the National Humanities Alliance can be found on their website. Here is the August report.

The Commission on the Future of Higher Education met on August 10 to ratify their report that will be edited and prepared for delivery to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in September. The DOE has already announced that they will hold a series of meetings to discuss how the federal rule making process can be used to implement parts of the report. With the release of the near final draft, several organizations have weighed in with comments. The Association of American Colleges and Universities has been working for most of this century on improving undergraduate education with their Greater Expectations initiative. Their response to the Commission is quite pointed about what was missed. Also, the Association of American Universities issued a report earlier that was critical of draft two of the report.

And finally, for those of you who have enjoyed Cliff Adelman’s reports from the Department of Education, he is moving to the Institute for Higher Education Policy, as reported in Inside Higher Education.

The Future of Higher Education

That was the headline for the lead story in Inside Education yesterday. Many of us have been nervously waiting for the intensity of attention focused on K-12 to turn to higher ed. The other shoe has fallen. The story, carried in both the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Education is about the new commission that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has just announced.

Ms. Spellings made the announcement at a speech at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte on Monday. Calling the commission “A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education,” the purpose is to ”develop a comprehensive national strategy for postsecondary education.” The commission will specifically focus on rising enrollments, declining affordability, and colleges’ role in America’s global competitiveness.

The Commission will hold its first meeting in Washington, DC in October followed by four others around the country.

So, is this good news or bad news? It is good news in that we will get some information about the relationship between rising costs and rising enrollments. We might also find out something more about our global competitiveness. But a question that niggles at me is whether or not we will get substantive information about the shifting infrastructure of higher education. Will we really tackle such issues as the changing financial structure, the shifting roles for faculty, the revitalization of undergraduate learning—all issues that we have talked about as serious problems for higher education? Or will the commission only superficially look at higher education? Dodge the bullet, so to speak. And, perhaps more important, which is better?