Reform or Revolution

I keep reading more and more bad news about the proprietary education sector– where I work– and feeling worse and worse about what I do every day or, at least, my working conditions. So far my school has not been singled out, but much of the problems that arise come from the commercial pressures of our current capitalist (“greed is good”) epoch. Real estate, banks, education, medicine: the market’s made a mess of it all.

So I don’t think that any of the for profits are going to escape untouched. This week, it’s a piece describing the unscrupulous use of incentives to drive admissions. Ironically, this has the public universities a little worried too, because it could put limits on their athletic programs (“Government Scrutinizes Incentive Payments for College Recruiters“). I have to remind myself, once again, that the public sector is equally in need of reform.

That’s one of the points made by David Hiscoe (“An Academic Rip Van Winkle“), who recently returned to academia after 20 years of working for a corporation. The common thread is short term thinking. The interesting question is whether or not the culture wars will continue to stymie the democratic impulse to creating a more humane economy. How do you create a capitalist who thinks beyond the next quarter? That’s a reform bordering on revolution.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

I have some colleagues– all in the non-profit education business– who feel a little too smug about the for profit industry. It’s naive, of course, to think that the for-profit industry schools are, by and large, less ethical than the traditional universities, with their multimillion dollar athletic programs (essentially an advertising and recruitment expense as extravagant as any drug company) and two-tier employment system of a few tenured professors supported by the many non-tenured, par time teachers and graduate students. No sector can afford to throw stones in these glass houses.

The for profits, for example, are no more likely to put students into debt, according to Neal McCluskey (Politicians Are The Problem For Higher Ed). What’s unique about the for-profits is that they arose during the worse excesses of laissez-faire Regan style capitalism. If the traditional universities need reform and a tightening of regulations, particularly when it comes to labor policy, the for profits suggest an entirely new kind of consumer protection regulation. I think the for-profits, for example, should not be able to make extravagant claims for the employment prospects of graduates. Neither should the traditional universities.

McCluskey is correct about the high cost of tuition but I think he’s wrong to suggest that the problem is that education is oversold. Similarly, he sounds vague and unpersuasive when he blames “the politicians”– although I am certain our representatives have their share of the blame. The problem is that no one seems to be able to articulate a rationale for mass education in a post industrial economy. In fact, the more the middle class shrinks, and the poor, working class, and working poor expands, the harder it is to justify educational accessibility. Educational capital only has real revolutionary potential if it is widely available.

Real Reform

The pubic school system in the U.S. has long been the Afghanistan of the right wing: the place where all of their dreams of hegemony and empire are destroyed. In modern times, the right’s dislike, if not hatred of public education is certainly rooted in the Civil Rights movement, and in desegregation. But it has deeper roots as well.

How do you nurture an abiding hatred of the government when just about everyone has attended a government-run school? Even worse, the public schools have long been strongly unionized. So the right’s strategy has been to take (what they consider) their money elsewhere: to charter schools. It’s just white flight.

The Obama administration should have a clear cut education agenda: stop the attacks on teachers and strengthen the public schools through full funding. There’s no shortage of good ideas about how to improve the schools, either; my favorites are integrated environmental curricula, like the “Edible Schoolyard” project.

Instead, Obama keeps pushing Bush-era policies and not surprisingly teachers are getting nervous about the ongoing threat of massive layoffs (Teachers’ Union Shuns Obama Aides at Convention). Meanwhile Secretary of Education Duncan works the appeasement angle.

Duncan’s remarks are interesting. She sent the National Alliance of Charter Schools a speech, but didn’t appear in person, and she “challenges” them to do better, etc., implying what’s now become obvious: a charter is no magic panacea for anything; charters don’t do better, as a whole, than the public schools.

He political advice is telling. “I think building stronger relationships,” she says, “with CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, building better relationships with the leaders of the civil rights organizations…” In other words, your class and race roots are showing, and you’d better fix it.

Teeth for the C.A.W.

Over the last forty years, there has been a dramatic shift in the instructional staff at US colleges and universities. Increasingly, institutions of higher education have hired faculty members who are not on the tenure-track and, in large part, are hired in part-time positions (see app. for more detailed data on these trends). In 1970 faculty members in part-time positions represented only 22.0% of all faculty members teaching in US colleges and universities; in 2007 they represented 48.7%. Of faculty members who are full time, well over a third do not have access to tenure. When graduate teaching assistants are included in the calculations, barely one quarter of the instructional staff are full-time and have access to tenure. The shift toward a more contingent workforce is occurring at all types of institutions in both the public and private sectors.

Coalition on the Academic Workforce, “One Faculty Serving All Students.”

This is a nice summary of what is arguably the most important set of facts about U.S.education at the university level. It’s presence in a mainstream organization’s report, sponsored by the Modern Language Association and the National Council of Teachers of English, among others, isn’t exactly new, but it does represent the fruits of a decades long struggle led by graduate students, starting just as the internet began to take off in the early 1990s. It’s their voices hidden between these lines.

It’s also a remarkably soft take on the sorts of policies that have led to this mess. Noting that the recession is likely to accelerate these trends, the reports says that universities respond in one of two ways: “Some institutions increase their hiring of contingent faculty members to cover enrollment growth. Others reduce the number, resulting in increased class size and workload for full-time faculty members.” Surprisingly, what follows isn’t a critique or a list of better money saving alternatives.

Instead, the report writers launch into a defense of part-time teachers, as if the issue wasn’t the ongoing destruction of an independent academia, but the “‘dissing of the part timers.” Never mind academic freedom of speech, or tenure, or even the quality of instruction, the problem is respect! I suppose I shouldn’t be so cynical; this is certainly a step in the right direction. But its tentativeness is only going to feed the suspicion, hinted at recently in the MLA Newsletter, that not everyone wants change.

Respect is necessary and welcome, but it’s not even a starting point for the change that needs to happen. Here’s three things they could do immediately. The CAW needs to call for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and for the end of university policies, such as hiring union busting firms, designed to prevent teachers from organizing. The CAW needs to call for policies that would either freeze or cut the salaries of the highest paid people, not teachers, at universities under financial duress. That’s respect with teeth.