Restoring the Covenant

At breakfast the other day, a British colleague reported that the UK is considering a new funding plan for higher education.  Under the plan, students would pay no fees to attend college; instead, they would pay after they graduate and, one supposes, are employed and making money.  I don’t know the details of this plan.  However, I can imagine consequences—unintended or not—that are worth discussion.

            First, I can imagine that it would further increase the utilitarian bent of most college curricula, since institutions would be rewarded when their students become gainfully employed.   Curricula that cost the student as much as other professional programs, but that do not result in good-paying jobs for most alums (journalism comes quickly to mind), might find a hard time getting internal support, even if there are students who want to study these areas. 

            Second, one might ask what the impact would be on the student’s perception of the general education curriculum?  This part of the curriculum (at least in institutions that take general education seriously) is designed less to prepare one for a career than to prepare one for life as a member of the broader society.  If costs are too closely aligned with the ability of a student to make money, will the student be willing to pay for this part of his/her education?

            It also led me to think more broadly about how about higher education is perceived these days.  Is higher education a “public good” or a “private good?”  When the general population—through tax dollars—invests in the education of individual citizens, are we doing it solely for economic development reasons (to build a professional leadership force that can make us competitive and create jobs for less-skilled workers), or do we provide public funding to higher education because we want our professional and business leaders to be able to function – to make informed judgments, for example – in ways that benefit society as a whole?  Or both? 

            Now I have a bias on this issue.  I believe that higher education and, indeed, all levels of education from pre-school onward, are essential to maintaining a free and democratic society.  This is not just for its relatively short-term economic impact, but because, in a globalized, information-based society, we cannot afford to have separate classes based on educational attainment.  Nor can we afford to have a society in which everyone is trained in a specialty, but with no common culture to hold us together and to make us want to have our work serve the community as a whole. 

Massey: Honoring the Trust

            This is not a new issue.  Writing in 2003, William F. Massey noted, “College may be the ticket to the good life, but its benefits for democracy and culture no longer command a top priority for the public purse.  Higher education increasingly is viewed as a private rather than a public good: very important for those who get it, but something most government officials can safely take for granted” (Honoring the Trust, p. 4).  He summarizes the problem as follows:

Participation rates have soared, but schools have not fully embraced the educational needs and competencies of their broadened constituencies.  Institutional behavior has become increasingly market driven, but the markets generally reward prestige—they don’t gauge the true quality of education, and therefore they produce a perverse set of incentives” (p. 5).  He argues that “Colleges and universities are not all they can be, that they can improve the quality of education without spending more, dismantling the research enterprise, or undermining essential academic values” (ibid.).

Massy posits seven “core quality principles” that can help an institution restore public trust:

·      Define educational quality in terms of student outcomes

·      Focus on the processes of teaching, learning, and student assessment

·      Strive for coherence in curricula, educational processes, and assessment

·      Work collaboratively to achieve mutual involvement and support

·      Base decisions on facts whenever possible

·      Identify and learn from best practice

·      Make continuous quality improvement a top priority

Kellogg:  Returning To Our Roots

            While Massey’s principles focus on basic operational principles, a more far-reaching response was articulated by the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities.  From 1996 to 2000, the Commission studied different aspects of the university’s role in a transforming society and called for a transformation in the relationship between the university and the community it serves.   Like Massey, the Commission noted “growing public frustration with what is seen to be our unresponsiveness” and “a perception that we are out of touch and out of date” (Returning to Our Roots: Executive Summaries of the Reports of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities, p. 14).   The Commission’s response was that state and land grant universities must go beyond traditional “outreach” and “service” missions and instead aim for “engagement:”

Engagement goes well beyond extension, conventional outreach, and even most conceptions of public service.  Inherited concepts emphasize a one-way process in which the university transfers its expertise to key constituents.  Embedded in the engagement ideal is a commitment to sharing and reciprocity.  By engagement, the Commission envisions partnerships, two-way streets defined by mutual respect among the partners for what each brings to the table (ibid.).

Spanier:  Restoring the Covenant

            Penn State President Graham Spanier, who chaired the Kellogg Commission, recently described five strategies that land grant universities should consider in response to the Commission’s charge to “restore the covenant.”  In remarks delivered at the National Outreach Scholarship Conference on October 4, 2010, President Spanier noted the following:

·      First, focus on activities that play to their particular strengths, pruning those that don’t have a measurable impact or are not aligned with academic strengths.

·      Second, increase access for non-traditional students, who are the most rapidly growing segment of the higher education population.

·      Third, leverage technology to expand the reach, foster new kinds of communities, and engage students.

·      Fourth, push for the inclusion of engaged scholarship in the promotion and tenure process.

·      Fifth, find new ways to engage the public to fund engagement work and become more entrepreneurial in seeking out other sources of support.

            These strategies are especially important today, as public universities struggle to maintain quality and services while living with less public financial support in light of the continuing recession.   While some would see this as a time to pull back from the commitment to public engagement, I believe this is a good time to consider how the university can more effectively reach out, to not only restore the trust and covenant with the public, but to re-invent it for new social and economic times:  to make the land grant university as relevant to today’s globalized knowledge society as it was to the industrial society that gave it birth.  

Getting Started

            Where do we start to implement changes that will not only restore the covenant but refresh it for a new era?  

New University-School Collaborations   Certainly one opportunity is to build new linkages between the land grant university and the K-12 sector.   There is a general agreement that the Knowledge Society will require that a higher percentage of workers have some higher education experience than was the case in the Industrial Age.  With that in mind, the Obama Administration has set a goal of increasing the percentage of high school graduates who earn a college degree from the current 39% to a target of 60% by the year 2020.    This will require not only that we improve the success rate of high school graduates who currently go on to college, but that our high schools produce more graduates who are prepared to enter college.  Engagement between universities and high schools seems like an obvious strategy.

            This strategy might take several forms—none of which are mutually exclusive:

·      We are already beginning to see dual enrollment initiatives in which students earn high school and college credit simultaneously in courses taught by university faculty members. 

·      Universities can create virtual high school programs, directly teaching high school students the skills they will need to successfully enter a university program.   This could be another path toward dual enrollment.

·      These kinds of initiatives not only increase the number of high school graduates who are ready to enter college, they offer an opportunity—especially when combined with service learning and internships—students to complete a degree sooner, contributing to accelerated degree programs that allow students to more quick enter the workforce.

Discipline-based Engagement Strategies   Graham Spanier noted that each institution should build on its strengths in the process of building new engagement strategies.  One way to ensure this would be to ask each academic college (and, in some cases, individual departments) to establish an Engagement Vision that would drive the engagement strategy.   This would help overcome a perception that, within academic units, faculty members tend to define success in terms of academic research rather than societal engagement.  A college/department level engagement vision will provide a means by which to evaluate strategies and to measure progress over time.

Community Engagement Strategies  A key to establishing public trust and creating a true covenant would be for public universities to directly engage their communities (for land-grant universities, this would mean a statewide effort) to identify needs and to collaborate on strategies by which the university can directly engage with the community, using public media—television, radio, the Internet—to address the broad public and partnering with community organizations to help address needs.  

An Extension Service for the Knowledge Society  In the Industrial Era, land grant universities created the Cooperative Extension system to improve agricultural production—a vital issue in a time when we needed a solid agricultural base to support our rapidly urbanizing, immigration-focused industrial economy.   A key element of Cooperative Extension is that faculty members were expected to spend time in the field, directly helping agriculturalists to improve their products.  This concept needs to be re-envisioned for the Knowledge Society.

The Need for an Institution-wide Strategy

            Typically, when ideas like this are raised, the response is:  “We’re already doing this.”  What that usually means is that some individual faculty members or individual units are doing something in one or more of these arenas.   This is wonderful.  These faculty members and individual units should be recognized and rewarded for their commitment to engagement.  However, the real need is for these activities to be part of a visible institution-wide strategy and commitment.   This is the long-term leadership challenge for our public universities.

IACE Hall of Fame: Helping Across Generations

I am just completing my term as Chair of the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame.  This fall, we held our annual induction ceremony at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara.  Below is an article about that event that I wrote for the Hall of Fame Newsletter:

After this year’s Hall of Fame induction ceremony in Guadalajara, I was invited to participate in a panel discussion on the Role of Continuing and Distance Education in the Knowledge Society at the Mexican Association for Continuing and Distance Education. Jose Morales Gonzales (HOF 2002) offered an opening statement that addressed the many ways in which technology and globalization are affecting society and, in turn, education. He then asked each panelist to respond briefly to a question targeted at their special role in the field.

I was asked about how continuing and distance education respond to the needs of the Information Revolution and what role can the Hall of Fame and its members can play in this new era.

I noted that we are already a generation into the Information Revolution. There are many ways to define the beginning of this new era. However, my personal milestone is the publication, in 1970, of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, the book that first planted in the popular mind the idea that things had changed and would continue to change dramatically. The careers of many Hall of Famers span this period. They are the first generation of adult and continuing education scholars and practitioners whose total careers were spent helping our institutions, our students, and our policy agencies adapt to the new reality that was emerging in the first generation of the Knowledge Society. That experience can provide an invaluable roadmap for today’s emerging leaders, who will spend their careers shaping the second generation of the Knowledge Society.

Several of the societal needs created by the Knowledge Society strike to the core competencies of adult and continuing educators. Most will agree that the Knowledge Society will require more individuals to have some level of postsecondary education. This will require that our colleges and universities dramatically increase access to both recent high school graduates and to current workers. This necessity will move continuing and distance education closer to the mainstream of higher education. It will also stimulate new collaborations between institutions—an area where many Hall of Fame members have been innovators.

In short, adult and continuing education has much to offer in the Knowledge Society, and members of the International Adult and Continuing Education can play an important role in helping emerging Second Generation leaders transform the mainstream of higher education in our countries around the world.

Continuing and Distance Education in the Knowledge Society

In October 2010, I had the honor of chairing the 15th annual induction ceremony of the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame. The ceremony was held in at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara in conjunction with the Mexican Association for Continuing and Distance Education conference. It was a delightful event, in which nine leaders from six nations on four continents were brought into the Hall of Fame’s increasingly global community. My thanks to Jose Morales Gonzales (HOF 2002) for hosting the event.

After the ceremony, I was invited to participate in an AMECYD conference panel discussion on the Role of Continuing and Distance Education in the Knowledge Society at the Mexican Association for Continuing and Distance Education. Jose Morales offered an opening statement that addressed the many ways in which technology and globalization are affecting society and, in turn, education. He then asked each panelist to respond briefly to a question targeted at their special role in the field.

I was asked about how continuing and distance education respond to the needs of the Information Revolution and what role can the Hall of Fame and its members can play in this new era. I noted that we are already a generation into the Information Revolution. There are many ways to define the beginning of this new era. However, my personal milestone is the publication, in 1970, of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, the book that first planted in the popular mind the idea that things had changed and would continue to change dramatically. The careers of many Hall of Famers span this period. They are the first generation of adult and continuing education scholars and practitioners whose total careers were spent helping our institutions, our students, and our policy agencies adapt to the new reality that was emerging in the first generation of the Knowledge Society. That experience can provide an invaluable roadmap for today’s emerging leaders, who will spend their careers shaping the second generation of the Knowledge Society.

Several of the societal needs created by the Knowledge Society strike to the core competencies of adult and continuing educators. Most will agree that the Knowledge Society will require more individuals to have some level of postsecondary education. The Obama Administration, for example, has set a goal of increasing the percentage of high school graduates who go on to earn a college degree from the current 39 percent to 60 percent by 2020. This will require that our colleges and universities dramatically increase access to both recent high school graduates and to current workers. It will also require that a higher percentage produce high school students graduate with the skills needed to move onto higher education. Around the country, continuing and distance education units have been at the forefront of innovation in this arena. They have dramatically increased the number and diversity of college degrees available to working adults through online learning, evening programs, and blended programs. They have also pioneered the use of “dual enrollment” courses that allow students to simultaneously earn high school and college credit. The importance of these innovations to the national education and economic development strategy will move continuing and distance education closer to the mainstream of higher education.

The Knowledge Society will also stimulate new collaborations between institutions,as technology eliminates geography as a defining factor in the relationship between the institution and its students and between institutions and faculty in a discipline. Increasingly, online learning allows location-bound students are able to choose to study anywhere in the world. Institutions no longer are restricted to programs that can be taught by local, in-residence faculty members, but can collaborate with other institutions to offer the degrees most relevant to their students, wherever they are located. Examples of this kind of collaboration date back to content sharing consortia of the 1980s, such as the University of Mid-America and the International University Consortium. Today, the online environment has stimulated many new collaborations, such as the American Distance Education Consortium, the Great Plains Inter-Institutional Distance Education Association (IDEA), and smaller collaborations focused on specific professional communities, from nursing to nuclear power.

Many of these collaborations were stimulated and managed within an institution’s continuing education unit. In many institutions, the continuing/distance education unit is one of the few central administrative units that is positioned to work across all academic units to meet the needs of non-traditional constituencies. As such, it historically has been a seedbed for innovation—especially if that innovation requires self-sufficiency. This makes it a potentially powerful force for strategic growth in times of social and institutional transformation.

Unfortunately, much of the work of continuing and distance education units has been done on the periphery of their institutions. Because they have had to be self-sufficient, they are often seen more as cash cows than as strategic resources. As the work of continuing and distance education focuses more on degree programs and on meeting strategic societal needs, it is inevitable that it will move more into the mainstream of our institutions. Some institutions have seen this as an opportunity to decentralize the central C&DE administrative unit, in an attempt to reduce overhead and to integrate C&DE functions within academic departments. This is a shortsighted move, however. Just as campus-based education requires that academic units be supported by a strong administrative infrastructure, off-campus education requires similar support for academic units. A more strategic move would be to develop the professional skills of C&DE leadership so that they can function effectively in a more integrated environment in which they serve as members of strategy-focused teams in the mainstream rather than as individual entrepreneurs on the periphery.

Continuing and distance education units have helped higher education innovate throughout the first generation of the Information Revolution. Now, it is time to move this capacity for innovation into the mainstream.

Sunset

Tomorrow is supposed to be a rainy day. The remnants of Tropical Storm Nicole are moving up the coast, promising heavy rain all day. Tonight, however, the approaching fringe of the storm gave us a spectacular sunset. It came on suddenly, as the gray clouds thinned and the sun reflected off them in bright deep pink. As we watched, the sky--not just the western fringe, but most of the sky, gradually turned from pink to gold and then to a deep orange-red as the sun sat. In the east, it gave us an arc of rainbow. It was wonderfully beautiful, and we could do nothing but stand and immerse ourselves in it.

It is good to be reminded that, with all the trouble in the world today, the world itself can still be breathtakingly beautiful.

Rifkin and Levine: Two Views of the Transformation of Education

NOTE: I also posted this on my Sloan Consortium blog in July 2010.

Today, there are increasingly powerful signs that education is on the verge of being transformed as the Knowledge Society matures and as a generation of digital natives shapes a new social dynamic. This came into sharp focus recently in articles by two veteran public thinkers about education and society—Jeremy Rifkin, the author of The End of Work and founder of the Foundation on Economic Trends, and Arthur Levine, president emeritus of Teachers College at Columbia University and currently president of the Woodrow Wilson National Foundation.

In a May 10, 2010, Chronicle of Higher Education commentary Jeremy Rifkin wrote about “Empathic Education: The Transformation of Learning in an Interconnected World.” Given the changes happening worldwide, he writes, “Maybe it’s time to ask the question of whether simply becoming economically productive ought to be the primary mission of American education.” He proposes that, instead, educators put more emphasis on “developing students’ innate empathic drives, so that we can prepare the next generation to think and act as part of a global family in a shared biosphere.”

Today, he notes, “New teaching models designed to transform education from a competitive contest to a collaborative and empathic learning experience are emerging as schools and colleges try to reach a generation that has grown up on the Internet and is used to interacting in open social networks where information is shared rather than hoarded.” This is accompanied by a new view of teaching, a shift from the top-down expert-based system to “a distributed and collaborative educational experience designed to instill a sense of the shared nature of knowledge.”

Arthur Levine articulated his own view of transformation in a June 14, 2010, Inside Higher Education article entitled “Digital Students, Industrial-Era Universities.” Levine observes that, while our institutions were designed to meet the needs of the industrial revolution, our students are now “digital natives” – children of the Information Revolution. While institutions are focused on the process of instruction—defined by semesters—“digital natives are more concerned with the outcomes of education—learning and the mastery of content, achieves in the manner of games” where the issues is not how long one has played but what level one has mastered.

Interestingly, Levine and Rifkin have similar ideas about where this transformation (the over-used notion of a paradigm shift seems perfectly appropriate here) will take higher education. “What must change, “ says Levine, “ . . . is the means by which we educate the digital natives who are and will be sitting in our classrooms—employing calendars, locations, pedagogies, and learning materials consistent with ways our students learn most effectively. It means that the curriculum must meet our students where they are, not where we hope they might be or where we are.” He adds, “. . . higher education must in the years ahead move away from its emphasis on teaching to learning, from its focus on common processes to common outcomes.” Similarly, in Rifkin’s model of distributed and collaborative learning environments, “Learning becomes less about pounding facts into individual students’ brains and more about how to think collaboratively and critically.”

Where will online learning fit into the transformed university? While increasing access will continue to be critical need, it is important that we also emphasize how online learning can help higher education institutions create a new pedagogy for both on-campus and distant students. As Levine notes, “In an information economy, there is no more important social institution than the university in its capacity to fuel our economy, our society and our minds.”

Science, Technology, and Society: General Education for the Information Age

This has been a year of loss for me. Earlier this spring, we lost Marlowe Froke, who founded educational/public television at Penn State and did much to move media into the educational mainstream. Then, John Buck—one of the true teachers at Penn State, who taught English literature to me, my wife, and, most important, my son—died after a long struggle with diabetes. Most recently, Rustum Roy, founder of Penn State’s Materials Research Center and one of the University's great interdisciplinary thinkers, died.

Marlowe, Rustum, and I came together around one of Rustum’s innovations: the inter-disciplinary Science, Technology, and Society Program at Penn State. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we were already well into the Information Revolution. Rustum and other visionary faculty realized that higher education needed not only to help people understand the importance of science and technology, but to prepare them as citizens and professionals to deal with the impact of science and technology on society. This required a curriculum—the STS Program—that would bring together scientists, social scientists, and humanists explore the issues. Marlowe and Rustum collaborated to build a partnership among Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh, and Temple University (Pennsylvania’s three state-related public universities) to expand the impact of STS through distance education.

We created several distance education STS courses, each of which included a series of television documentaries, as well as a study guide and text. The first course, “The Behavioral Revolution,” looked at how behavior modification was being used by marketers and social planners to change consumer behavior. Examples in the television series included the use of random free rides to encourage people to use mass transit and, in the new planned community of Columbia, Maryland, the use of bicycle paths and clustered mailboxes to build a sense of village life in the midst of a sprawling suburb.

Another course, “The Finite Earth,” examined the limits to resources—a big issue in the early eighties—and the ethical implications of social policy decisions related to the environment and natural resources. The course introduced the idea of an “ethical community”—the group of people who are affected by a decision and who, as a result, should be at the table when the decision is made.

The STS Program is still very active at Penn State. The fall 2010 semester, for instance, includes 20 STS courses on topics such as “Technology and Human Values,” “Medical and Health Care Ethics,” “Ethics in Science and Engineering,” “Science, Technology, and Human Values,” “Energy and Modern Society,” and “Global Food Strategies: Problems and Prospects for Reducing World Hunger.” Several courses meet general education requirements; these have titles like “Modern Science, Technology, and Human Values” and “The Politics of the Ecological Crisis.” More on the STS Program at Penn State can be found at: http://www.sts.psu.edu/

The original vision for STS at some institutions was that it would become fully integrated into the institution’s general education curriculum, not unlike the “Contemporary Civilizations” curriculum at Columbia University in the 1920s or the Great Books program at the University of Chicago in the 1930s. Today, a full generation into the Information Revolution, it is essential that STS be fully mainstreamed. An ideal STS program—Penn State’s curriculum has elements of this—is to include STS courses in the lower division general education curriculum, but also to have capstone STS experiences in key majors.

Just as educational media—in the form of public television—helped to extend access to STS courses in the 1970s and 1980s, the online environment provides an excellent medium not only to extend access but to foster inter-institutional collaborations that will globalize discussions of STS issues.

There is much that we can do to build on the pioneering work of Rustum Roy, Marlowe Froke, and their colleagues at research universities around the nation who were—and continue to be—concerned about Science, Technology, and Society.

Folk Music

All of a sudden, it seems, I have rediscovered 60s folk music. This is not a complaint: I am loving music again. I’ve created an iPod playlist of 101 folk songs (including some that are closer to jazz, but sound enough like sixties folk to be on the list). I’m addicted to Jason Mraz’s “I’m Yours” and Iz Kamakawiwo’ole’s always odd version of “Over the Rainbow.” But I am also captivated by newer Joan Baez stuff and (tonight, for instance) occasionally just get swept away by Judy Collins’ “Who Knows Where the Time Goes?”

I am not sure why it happened, but I think I know how. It has been a meandering process. I moved a lot of my albums to iTunes, which gave me a chance to listen freshly to Paul Siebel and others. Then, I saw a documentary about Joan Baez, after which I understood her “Diamonds and Rust” for the first time as a song about Bob Dylan, who I continue to think writes music that tells the story of our generation (Lyrics like “Not dark yet but it’s getting there” and “I used to care, but times have changed” resonate with us aging boomers in ways only we can understand.) I started listening to Joan again. “Joe Hill” struck me as particularly fresh in this age of greedy capitalism. I downloaded “The Day After Tomorrow” and heard a fresh, more reflective sensibility in her music. It was great to see her still digging deeper. Along the way, I saw first Taj Majal and then Judy Collins at the State Theater here in State College. Then, somewhere along the line, I installed Pandora on my iPod, created a Rita Coolidge channel, and discovered new singers—Mraz, Iz, and Jack Johnson, especially. Before I knew it, these small steps had led me back to looking for guitar tabs for folk (and folk rock) songs.

Like I said, I am not complaining. The wonderful thing about this reflective, serious but often playful music is that it reminded me that I live, every minute of this life, in a world where things—good and bad—are happening and that feeling the reality of these things can make us, at minimum, more aware of the joy of being alive. That’s a good thing.