The Recession Isn’t Over Yet

Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican, has proposed in his budget bill that boards of public colleges and universities be given the ability to unilaterally increase the workloads of faculty members.

The proposed change modifies the state code that governs the function of boards at public institutions. Should the budget pass, the code would state that boards “may choose to modify [colleges’] faculty workload policy” to require all full-time faculty members to teach one additional course in one of the next two academic years. The increased workload then becomes the new minimum for faculty members to maintain. Faculty members at most public colleges and universities are unionized, and have workload provisions in their contracts, but the proposal would permit the boards to ignore those provisions.

Hours in the Classroom,” Carl Straumsheim

Technically, of course, the recession ended a few years ago, as soon as the economy began to show positive growth in 2009. Politically, though, the recession won’t be over in higher education until administrators stop using their fiscal power to try to undermine what they see as faculty privileges. Why do we never hear of administrative work loads rising?

Never mind that these so-called privileges, such as a course load that allows research, (already much too rare) contributes to the university’s mission as an institution that produces knowledge (and status) as well as teaches. These guys will always try to kill the goose that laid their golden eggs; it’s second-nature to the contemporary U.S. oligarchy.

Good Parks and Schools

The United States confronts a moment of tremendous opportunity and urgency. For the first time in our nation’s history, we are confronted with the very real possibility that we will, through inaction or active disregard, fail to meet a global challenge head-on. For all of the progress our nation has made in expanding educational opportunity and achievement, there are countries far larger than ours that are advancing and improving at rates that surpass ours. If we hope to compete in, let alone win, in the global mind race, we cannot continue to leave so many Americans on the sidelines. American global competitiveness demands the full, active participation of every young person and his or her talents, regardless of location or circumstance of birth.

For Each and Every Child,” Equity and Excellence Commission

* * *

Mr. Paulson’s gift was only one of a number of large donations to the city’s parks: $20 million was given to the High Line in late 2011, an additional $10 million to Central Park this month, and $40 million was pledged to build a field house in Brooklyn Bridge Park, though the plan was abandoned. The gifts have put New York’s green spaces on a par with hospitals, universities and cultural institutions as objects of philanthropy.

The largess has delighted city officials, who say it will ensure that New York’s signature parks have the resources to remain pristine while accommodating millions of visitors a year. But the donations have also highlighted the disparity between parks in Manhattan’s high-rent districts and those, like Flushing Meadows-Corona or Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx, that are in less affluent communities. In those parks, conservancies and friends groups must struggle to raise any money at all.

New York Parks in Less Affluent Areas Lack Big Gifts,” Lisa W. Foderaro

I probably like juxtaposition too much, but when it comes to socioeconomic class, nothing works better. We tend to think about class in terms of individual income and wealth. Class, though, is also about neighborhoods and roads, parks and schools. The Reagan Era (which some might say is ending) tended to minimize this sort of wealth by demonizing government and celebrating the so-called competitive private markets.

We got lots of images of rich individuals over the last three or four decades but we have constantly grown poorer as a people as our roads, and neighborhoods, and parks and schools have been neglected. What’s interesting is that we may well be reading some sort of turning point where those rich individuals come to the (bleated) realization that their wealth is inseparable from our collective wealth. Keep your fingers crossed.

Topsy Turvy Teaching

New data from a long-term study by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College suggest that some of the students most often targeted in online learning’s access mission are less likely than their peers to benefit from — and may in fact be hurt by — digital as opposed to face-to-face instruction.

Who Benefits From Online Ed?” Doug Lederman

One of the first things I learned about college is that the academic pecking order is upside down. It’s especially dramatic in an English department, where the students who need the most work and help– the college freshman– tend to get the lowest paid teachers, that is, adjuncts and graduate students. The students who need the least help– junior and senior English majors– get the best paid, most experienced tenured professors.

Traditionally, English professors (each a literary specialist) taught freshman, if they did at all, only as a part of a kind of hazing ritual. Once you earned tenure you got the small classes with the (self-selected, experienced) best students. This has changed as Rhetoric and Composition nears a kind of numerical equality with Literary Studies. The more Rhetoric and Composition matures, however, the further it seems to go from those freshman.

Online education has tended to duplicate these patterns in curious ways, by focusing on those very students who seem least likely to do well in an online setting. Here, as elsewhere in academia, those students who most need the sorts of help you can only get in the traditional classroom– and in small classes– seem to be the main target audience for online education. And online education has even fewer full-time tenured professors.