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

Won’t Get Fooled Again

One of the strangest facts of U.S. academic culture is that it seems to have no sense of its own immediate or long-term history. As the cliché goes, those that are unaware of history are doomed to repeat it, first as tragedy, then as farce. Too much of the current debate over online education in general and MOOC’s in particular, seems to be skipping the tragedy and going right for the farce. The problem is the obsessive concern with markets.

Education, in the market view, is a commodity, students are consumers, the product has become too expensive (that is why there is so much debt) and we can use the internet to fix it. This model has never worked in higher education any more than in any other public service. Just the opposite; as in the economy at large, the market model is now being called on to fix the mess it created. The market model has a big problem: education cannot be fully measured.

The big problem is measurement and accountability: How do you prove that these far-flung students are actually learning anything of value? William G. Bowen, founder of a nonprofit that studies high tech in higher education, sounded a cautionary note when he told the New York Times earlier this year, ”There’s great promise here, great potential, but we need more careful research, and there has not been sufficient attention to that.”

The $7,000 Computer Science Degree — and the Future of Higher Education” Martha C. White

This isn’t really a problem created by online education; it has always been the dilemma of education in a capitalist economy. If you cannot measure success (quality, consumer experiences, etc.) you cannot price the product. Online education, though, seems to offer administrators a chance to start over from scratch and solve the problem once and for all. It sounds great– we’ll finally know the value of an education– but it’s a Trojan horse.

What do you have to do to achieve this goal of a cheap and measurable (commodity) education? Walmart has shown the way. The first thing you do is that you drive down labor costs. Or, rather, you drive down labor costs at the bottom of the hierarchy. At the top (Deans and Provosts and up) it turns out that you have to pay well or you won’t be competitive. The “education product” you deliver is then trimmed down to the “measurable.”

“Computer science problems have a right or wrong answer and lend themselves to objective, rather than subjective, assessment and evaluation,” the program’s FAQ section explains.” The result? “We believe this program can establish corporate acceptance of high-quality and 100 percent online degrees as being on par with degrees received in traditional on-campus setting.” It’s an education system that is far more corporate than democratic.