Less Than Zero

In the year ahead, Texas plans to reduce its arts budget by 77 percent; Wisconsin by 67 percent. Kansas will eliminate arts funding altogether. Even New York, with an economy that is driven by culture, will cut funding by 12 percent. Since National Endowment for the Arts statutes don’t allow a state to receive a distribution without an arts budget, Kansas will receive no appropriation from the NEA either, leaving the arts without a penny of public support in that state (“As Appropriations Dry Up, Arts Infrastructure Is Dismantled“).

One of the main reasons economics in general, and the discussion of politics in particular, bugs me so much is that so little energy seems to be devoted to what we want to do as opposed to what we are supposed to do. Or, at least, what we are told we are supposed to do. It’s an obvious point, but it’s worth asking: do we want the wealthy to get wealthier or do we want the arts in our schools and in our communities?

What we are supposed to do, what we are told we have to do, what Europe is being asked to do, and what the U.S. will be asked to do soon, is to set aside our desires so that material privilege and profits can be protected. In the schools, administrators rarely cut their own salaries or trim their own budgets in times of crisis, and in the economy at large corporations rarely accept reduced profits in the name of the public good.

The Future of Teeth

“I certainly agree with those observers who believe that our current practices in accreditation are so abstract, so subjective, so procedural and so self-referential as to border on being substantively meaningless in assuring institutional quality or integrity,” Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, told a federal panel that advises Education Secretary Arne Duncan on accreditation issues. (“Accreditors Examine Their Flaws as Calls for Change Intensify“)

 

Academic reform can’t happen without the creation of a national union movement. That’s the first and necessary step in democratizing higher education. The democratization of the university also cannot happen, though, without  the democratization of accreditation. The university system and the accreditation industry are mirror images of the same sorts of corruption.

If universities–public or private–get government money– hopefully, in future, the current system of loans would change to direct grants– then they should conform to democratic norms, including systems of checks and balances to act as a counterweight to administrative power, as well as standards of equitable employment. Democracy ought to feed democracy.

The accreditation agencies, given real teeth in their power to control access to federal money, including research grants, should be similarly democratized, again, in the name of creating institutions that can counter administrative power as well as the power of capital as such. It’s our money, and it should be invested in our futures, not in lining the pockets of the administrator and already wealthy.

Golden Eggs and Geese

My school, and my superiors particularly, have got some bad press recently (“A Chain of For-Profit Art Institutes Comes Under Scrutiny“). I think, as I have said before, that we in the for-profit industry ought to welcome increased scrutiny and regulation.  We’ve grown quickly in the last 15 years because we filled a gap in the education system that the public institutions ignored. The next 15 years will be different.

I think that the age of Reagan– characterized by a freakish worship of markets and profits– is rapidly coming to a close.  Not all markets are going to be equally regulated and no doubt some insidious ideology of the Reagan kind will always be with us. But the free wheeling days are over. I also think online for-profit eduction is likely to be one of the poster kids for the new age of regulation. That’s one major change.

Another change is that the public institutions are, at least in some cases, returning to their historical mission of proving an affordable education to a wide audience. That too will happen only unevenly and inconsistently but  it will happen. In the next 15 years, then, for-profits won’t be able to recruit as aggressively and its claims about results will come under increasing scrutiny. Soon enough, too, we’ll have real public competition.

If we are going to survive in this new environment, and keep our geese alive, we need to be the poster child for long-term thinking in capitalism. A good analogy might be to the for-profit medical systems’ (admittedly uneven) embrace of preventive medicine.  We need to invest in teachers– that means full-time faculty with job security– and in developing the professional networks that will add substance to our claims.

 

 

 

Common Sense, 2, Private Property 1

Freely available open course material could save college students in Washington state $1.2 million this year: The Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges introduced one of the country’s largest open textbook programs Oct. 31, bringing low-cost class material to 81 college courses with the highest enrollments in the state (“Students, professors laud $30 textbooks“).

One of the most interesting things about our interesting times is that certain fully naturalized ideas, for example, about private property, are changing.  Even ten years ago the textbook system, which cost students millions each year and fuel some of the worse excess of the academic star system, seemed as inevitable as the ocean.  It’s happening far too slowly, but the recession seems to be facilitating change.

What’s so amazing is that this is such a long, slow process, even though it can transform textbook costs from a burden of thousands of dollars each year to a manageable  tens of dollars. The electronic, open-source textbooks are more easily updated and often more engaging to students. You’d think that cheap and more effective would be irresistible, but common sense struggles against the inertia of habitual profit and greed.