Foundations

In the UC system, lecturers represented by UC-AFT (University Council of the American Federation of Teachers) have a clear pathway to job security with relatively high pay and full benefits (including pensions). These teachers also at times have a strong role in departmental governance and curricular development and have their academic freedom protected. Although, there is still plenty of room for improvement, at one of the largest public university system in the country, activism and organization have led to a model that should and can be replicated throughout the United States.

An Existing Just Model for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty” Bob Samuels

Every once in a while, I like to remind myself that the it is possible to clean up the mess that’s been made of my profession. I think the old system– full-time employment and benefits– made a lot of sense and was by far the most effective model for learning and research. Keep it simple. I think the best solution is to go back to that system; if nothing else, no system worth pursuing is going to be any less expensive. That may be a lost dream.

In a sense, then, we are fighting against a perceived symbolic enemy, the tenured professor, who many (administrators, right-wing economists) believe is by definition complacent if not ineffective and who’s employment security makes it nearly impossible for schools to adjust to changing conditions. In effect, Samuels wants to make an end-run around the boogie-man through a new kind of job, with equivalent but different forms of pay and security.

We accept the final defeat of tenure, in other words, in exchange for getting back much of what we lost: relative employment security, fairly good pay, a pension, protections for academic freedom of speech. It’s an attractive idea, not only as a way forward, but also as a foundation on which to build an entirely new, non-exploitative system. It’s a model that works, after all, only if adjuncts have a union to fight for their interests.

Sound as Earthquakes and the Solar System

Here’s some good news, in the form of a definitive statement on climate change from the American Meteorological Association. It is good news and not old news, of course, because the disinformation campaign has been so extensive. Still, after weeks of horrible, violent weather, it’s good to be reminded of the ongoing dangers we face. There’s no chance of responding effectively to climate change without this sort of scientific push-back and students need to be educated early and often. The AMA’s review of the climate change science is here.

The Next-Generation Science Standards (NGSS) developed in collaboration with 26 states and several scientific organizations is a transformative set of guidelines for teaching science in the United States. For the first time, climate change is recommended as a core concept for U.S. science curricula, including an emphasis on anthropogenic or “human-caused” effects. As an association of scientists and science-based professionals, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) affirms the inclusion of climate change in the NGSS. Climate change science is firmly rooted in peer-reviewed scientific literature; as science, it is as sound as other NGSS subjects such as earthquakes and the solar system.

Climate Science is Core to Science Education” adopted by the AMS Executive Committee, 23 May 2013

The Men Behind the Curtain

As part of my doctoral research, I am conducting an institutional analysis of the growth of for-profit colleges. What about the mid 1990s made the environment so ripe for rapid expansion? Kevin Kinser gets at this neo-institutionally with a fine analysis of regulation and financialization.

Yet, there must something more than regulatory changes and market innovation to such a massive change in college-going in such a short period of time. Something created a million new people who suddenly wanted a college degree.

In my sample of currently enrolled for-profit students there is one motivation that subsumes all others: job insecurity.

How “Admissions” Works Differently At For-Profit Colleges: Sorting and Signaling,” tressiemc22

I found this blog via Education and Class and it seems worth following. In the next several years I expect a lot of curtains to be drawn, revealing that the wizards behind the for-profit sector are simply salesmen with a flair for theater. Their main trick was a sexy dual appeal: first, to our sense of injustice– that great mass of people who have no access to a college education– and second, to our technological and consumer fetishes.

When I say “we” I mean those of us who study these things and are doing well financially. In Higher Education, that means the tenured and tenure track faculty, now a small minority of higher education teachers. We loved our technology, we had enough money at least to be early adopters, and we thought that these new communication technologies would help us reach people who had never been reached, much less heard. A great dream.

We are slowly learning to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; I lost my bid for tenure. I am bothered by one thing, though. As people have said in many contexts, the recent story of higher education, or, rather, the historians, tend to ignore the teachers when they tell the story of the system and the students. This isn’t just a story about students and new institutions and class, it is also a story about creating the adjunct system.