Monday, March 28, 2011

Evaluation

Part of what attracted me to higher education in the first place and still attracts me is the shared governance environment.  Economics was the discipline that excited me, and higher education was the environment where I felt most comfortable and most productive. And from my experience shared governance works well in most places and in most cases.  My first experiences were in the area of curriculum, beginning with the department’s efforts to fine tune the economics major and subsequently extending to the committee that reviewed the undergraduate curriculum.  On the department level and on the university level, the process went well.  Faculty working with department chairs or deans scrutinized the curriculum, updated courses and reviewed requirements.

If you look at curriculum, if you look at standards, if you look at much of what happens in the academic area, we have a model for highly educated and highly intelligent individuals working together.  But the shared governance process isn’t perfect and there are areas where the process is significantly less effective.  Perhaps the area of greatest weakness is faculty evaluating other faculty.  More than a few faculty are uncomfortable making any negative comments – even when fully justified and reflective of the faculty member’s opinion—about other faculty.  In one of the first personnel cases that I had to deal with as dean, a department personnel committee chair said to me that he and his committee had only recommended positively on a personnel matter (and made only positive statements) because the committee knew that I would recommend against.  They wanted to be the “good” person and they were more than comfortable with the dean being the “bad” person.  And when the person I had just recommended against came in to see me, his first point was how could I have found fault with his record when all his colleagues in the department and in the same field had recommended positively. Not a comfortable moment.

More than a few times, faculty have come to see me to alert me that so and so is a “problem”  for  x reason and should not be (fill in the blank ) reappointed, tenured, promoted, selected as chair, etc.  But the individuals talking to me are also candid in saying that they do not want their opinion made public because they have to work closely with that person, or have the office next door, or that person will be reviewing them next year, etc.  I always indicate to the person talking to me that it is much much harder to follow up on a concern when the person raising the issue doesn’t want in any way to be identified. (In certain cases—such as allegations of sexual harassment—I also indicate that I need to report the allegation and cannot agree to not identifying the person who has brought the matter to my attention.)

In the vast majority of cases, the personnel process works well.  Where it doesn’t, everyone is done a disservice.  We are not providing the person being evaluated with the objective feedback necessary to resolve outstanding issues which can interfere with that person’s success.  We are not providing the university with the complete accurate picture that will allow uncompromised merit based decision making in areas where the consequences of bad decisions are often long term.  In this era of expanding outcomes assessment regarding curricular matters, we need to also undertake an outcomes assessment of shared governance and the evaluation process.  Overall, I am sure we will get high marks, but I am equally sure there is substantial room for improvement.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Spider-Man: Turn on the Academic Parallel

Today was the day but it actually started last August.  At that point in time, I purchased four tickets to Spider-Man so that my wife, my kids and I could attend. The tickets were full price and I was hoping this show would be a great family outing.  But this is a show we have all heard about almost non-stop.  There have been a number of accidents, equipment malfunctions, and delayed opening after delayed opening.  This is also a show that has cost to date $65 million, a huge investment which requires, according to the press reports, at least four years of sold out performances before the opening costs incurred are covered.  There have also been a number of critics who have provided reviews before opening night and it seems as if the majority of these preview /reviews have been far from positive.  The story line was criticized, the music was criticized, and even the staging has been questioned.

As the delays mounted together with less than stellar reviews, I became more and more ambivalent about going.  Why pay full Broadway prices for a production that was so wanting.  My ambivalence was heightened when it was reported that the show with the most previews up to this time was Nick and Nora which had 71 previews and only remained open for a week after opening night. I saw Nick and Nora at the very end of previews even though I expected that these tickets would be for well after opening night.  I am a long time fan of The Thin Man movies that this show was based on and for years the only dog I wanted was Asta.  The show was a huge disappointment.  I wasn’t surprised it closed almost immediately.

And so I entered the theater, as perhaps many others in the audience did, with ambivalence at best and perhaps even a feeling that an earlier closing could have saved me considerable money. And here is the bottom line—I loved the show.  I though the staging was brilliant as were the costumes and sets, the story especially in the first act was fun as well as engrossing, the music was fine (not necessarily memorable but it certainly was enjoyable and worked well with the story line), and the cast first rate.  I had thought that Julie Taymor’s work in Lion King was extraordinary.  I first saw it in 1998 and I have been back two more times.  I think her work here is even more extraordinary. And I have this very positive overall feeling even though, just as good has prevailed and the story was ending, there was a mechanical malfunction that left Spider-Man temporarily stuck in the air at the back of the theater.

Anyone reading this blog would be within their rights to say that I am not a professional theater critic and therefore really shouldn’t provide a review.  It is true that I am an economist and an educator and not a New York Times theater critic.  But I do have a considerable theater knowledge base.  If you look at the shows playing on Broadway now, I have seen or have tickets for 22 of the musicals presently playing.  That covers virtually all Broadway musicals.  And last year, I also attended almost every Broadway musical. And I have been doing this for many years.  I also take my kids to almost all the shows at the New Victory Theater and attend a number of off-Broadway and on-campus shows as well.  Theater is my relaxation.

The producers and directors of Spider-Man have indicated that given the complexity of the show, there were no available theaters out of town that would provide a more secluded venue for previews, and I agree with them completely.   The same requirements made it impossible for the show to start as an off- Broadway production that ultimately moves to Broadway and becomes a major success story.  In the Heights is a perfect example of such a show.  I loved it off -Broadway and felt that the Broadway touches made it even more effective.

At a faculty discussion earlier this week, the point was made that excellent writing and the works of our most memorable authors often required many drafts and many rewrites before the final product emerged.  And when we read the final product, we can rightfully base our judgment on that product.  We know that the effective teaching of good writing needs to be based on this evolutionary process. Some excellent writing requires more drafts, others require much less revision.  We should accord the same rights to Spider-Man.  This production is already excellent entertainment; it has the potential to even be much more.  Let the evolution continue.  It is certainly worth the wait.  And, PS, I can already recommend without hesitation that you see it.

Monday, March 14, 2011

The Next Stage of Assessment

For all of us as educators, the Lumina Foundation draft report on “The Degree Qualifications Profile” needs to be must reading.  The Foundation in the first paragraph of the report states that the Profile is
 “a tool that can help transform U.S. higher education.” Specifically, it “proposes specific learning outcomes that benchmark the associate, bachelor’s and master’s degrees…regardless of a student’s field of specialization.”  And for those of you who are not yet familiar with what the Foundation is proposing, the Degree Qualification Profile will validate “ five basic areas of learning: Broad, Integrative Knowledge; Specialized Knowledge; Intellectual Skills; Applied Learning; and Civic Learning.”

Clearly we are looking at outcomes assessment but not the outcomes assessment that we have been concentrating on in recent years.  Our outcomes assessment looks at our learning goals and sees how successful we have been in meeting those goals, and also, as we make changes, whether we become more successful.  The Lumina Foundation clearly takes issue with our present focus on outcomes by stating: Even as colleges and universities have defined their own expected student learning outcomes —typically to meet accreditation requirements — their discussions have been largely invisible to policy leaders, the public and many students. The Foundation continues by saying: Similarly, while higher education institutions have been under increasing pressure to be accountable for the quality of their degrees, institutions have frequently responded by testing samples of students in ways that say too little about learning and even less about what all students should attain as they progress through college. Without disagreeing with the need for a “Profile,” I’m not sure that the Foundation’s criticism of outcomes assessment and accountability is valid.  As many outcomes or quality measures as we have had for many years, a formalized structure for outcomes assessment has not been easy for higher education to implement.  It really requires assessment to be in place from the micro (individual courses) to the macro (the overall curriculum) plus a mechanism to take that assessment and translate it into cycles, once again at all levels, of continuous improvement.  This is a process of continuous improvement that will take time to put fully in place.  And rarely is this process as “invisible” as the Lumina Foundation states—we deal with 20 accrediting agencies plus our internal shared governance structure.  We may not prepare press releases every time we assess an outcome or demonstrate accountability but higher education has made huge progress in recent years in validating and strengthening what we do.

But for Lumina this isn’t sufficient and perhaps they are right.  For them, outcomes assessment should be in the context of standardized, by level of degree, outcomes that they feel every educated individual should attain regardless of his/her major; not just credits earned and grades achieved by macro competencies demonstrated and clear for all to see, and they have spelled out those macro competencies.  As noted in the report, the “Profile” provides “reference points for accountability that are far stronger than test scores or tallies of graduates, research dollars, student satisfaction ratings, job placements or patents.”  The report continues by stating that “more to the point, because the Degree Profile defines competencies in ways that emphasize both the cumulative integration of learning from many sources and the application of learning in a variety of settings, it can offer benchmarks for improving the quality of learning.”

Lumina is clear that they are not looking for standardized degrees.  However, the inevitable conclusion of implementing required competencies and outcomes will be more standardization.  It will also require a vastly more robust and sophisticated assessment procedure.  Regional accrediting agencies are already gravitating toward the Lumina Profile.  As educators, we need to participate in this unfolding debate.  We need to help shape the competencies so that they demonstrate desired results without overly constraining or standardizing our higher education structure.  Not an easy goal to accomplish.  Meanwhile, for those individuals looking to see what accrediting agencies will be looking for in the next decade, just read the Lumina report.  The handwriting is on the wall.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Target Practice

I think we would all agree that our country is confronting a series of challenges in key areas such as the economy, health care, education, the environment, and national security.  How we handle these challenges will determine whether the United States continues its global leadership role or whether we are eclipsed by other great powers on this globe.  Regardless of your priorities, as we look to secure our future, education has to be a key part of any solution.  But at this moment in time, education and especially schools of education are under attack.

The basis for the attack is that often in K-12 education, our students are not performing up to their potential and no one would argue with that assessment.  The blame for this lack of performance or lack of progress is placed on the shoulders of our teachers and further blamed on the education they have received.  The solutions suggest that a stint with Teach for America or an experience with a museum could provide the same or a greater level of expertise than pursuing a graduate degree in education. The threat is clear— if schools of education don’t change, students will be encouraged to go elsewhere to pursue their graduate education. 

I happen to think that Teach for America is a terrific program and I love visiting museums and always find them to be a valuable learning experience.  There is no question that such programs can enhance teaching techniques and content knowledge.  But what about pedagogy?  What about the learning process? What about a more in depth understanding of the students we are educating? What about the need for a strong liberal arts and sciences background?  No one argues about the need for significant hands on experience for teachers but hands on cannot substitute for the proper educational foundation. Where is there any concrete evidence that teacher education has caused a lack of student performance? 

Clearly student performance is impacted by teaching quality and I’m not sure that that the prevalent K-12 structure sufficiently recognizes merit and the quality of teaching.  Yearly increases, step increases, and lane changes are almost totally tied to quantity of teaching and quantity of credits taken rather than the impact of the teacher. We have an obligation on the K-12 level and in higher education to give merit a more prominent place in the educational equation.  But we also all have an obligation, and that includes our public officials, to recognize that school funding, the student’s family,  the economic status of that family, the educational attainment of the family members, and discrimination all have significantly impacted student learning.  And does anyone think that alternative paths to certification will remedy these issues?

I wholeheartedly support outcomes assessment and efforts to measure the learning that has taken place.  I wholeheartedly support a continuous review of teacher education programs to also assess their effectiveness.  We can do a better job in providing K-12 education and in providing teacher education.  Change is necessary but so is an understanding of all the issues.  Looking for a target, looking for a simple solution to complex issues, won’t solve our problems.  You need to see the issues clearly and completely before significant progress can be made.  As educators we have an obligation to help make that happen.