Well Protected

With the growth of on-line services has come a wealth of convenience.  I log into the Hofstra portal and my email around the globe. I rarely step inside of a bank.  I purchase more and more products on-line, I pay more and more bills on-line, and I even access much of the national, regional and higher education news on-line.  The rapidly increasing transition to more and more on-line products and services in the last decade has been a welcome change.  I know I am more productive and efficient as a result and I even believe I have slightly more discretionary time.

Along with all the enhanced usage, there is clearly an increased need for security.  My emails, what I buy, what I pay, and what I read is my business.  Therefore with more and more of my accounts, there is a password along with the log-in ID and this is also as it should be.  Initially, my approach was to use the same ID and the same password for almost all of my accounts.  In a very few cases, there were password parameters that required I make changes and I did so whenever the need arose…but not more than that.  As the accounts multiplied, it became clear to me that having so much reliance on one log-in and on one password diminished my security and increased my vulnerability; and so I began to vary both on a regular basis and to even change passwords on a regular basis. In all cases, I did stick to basic themes for both the ID and the password and so I ended up with many, many variations on a theme. I was clearly responding effectively to security concerns and to add further to the level of protection, I never wrote down any password and relied on my memory which served me well.

A few weeks ago, I needed to enter an important program on my hard drive that I had last accessed over a year ago.  I open the program and get ready to enter the password but can’t remember exactly what the password is.  And so I start to enter possible/likely passwords and nothing works.  I even wrote down passwords as I try them since as I mentioned above, my passwords are close variations.  Here too, nothing works.  Periodically I come back to this program and to date nothing has worked.  But I do feel confident that my data is secure.  I have also opened two new accounts during this time and in each case have written down the ID and password information.

Since the technology exists I am ready for the ID/login function to be replaced by a thumb print or an eye scan.  In the meantime I have started writing down this information for existing as well as new accounts on a secure site.  I’ve learned my lesson.  My memory is excellent but my many, many logins and passwords are more than a match.  Maintaining security is critical but without accessibility, it leaves something to be desired.  Having written this blog, I am feeling optimistic and heading right back to finding the right combination to access my data.

Administration 101

A middle level administrator I know was faced with a dilemma.  The person had agreed to make a program recommendation and immediately after sending the very strong recommendation began to have serious reservations about the program.  To some extent these reservations were the result of information that became available subsequent to the recommendation being sent.  And to some extent the reservations were the result of a more careful look by the administrator at the program being recommended.  The end result was a 180 degree change from recommend to really can’t recommend.

But what does the middle level administrator do at that point?  One possible response is to go back to the program developers and indicate that given this and that, the administrator can no longer support going forward.  Another related possibility is that the administrator withdraws the positive recommendation.  If one or both of these courses of action are your responses, you get Administration 101 advanced standing credit. However, what if this is not the response? What if instead the response is to contact the person the administrator reports to, and ask that person to turn down the recommendation?  In that way, the administrator could go back to the program developer and indicate with sincerity that it was a higher-up that deserves the blame since the administrator had made a positive recommendation.  With this scenario, what if the higher up refused to play this role?

Are there other alternatives?  The administrator could write a detailed memo to the higher up indicating the flaws in the original recommendation and once again indicate that the higher up should turn down the recommendation.  Why not at this point just rescind the original recommendation?  The explanation could be that the administrator is still not comfortable saying to the program developers that the original positive recommendation was flawed and should be withdrawn.  Once again, what if the higher up refused to play the role of nay sayer?  What if the higher up very clearly indicated to the administrator that if there are such serious doubts the recommender should contact the program developers, explain the reassessment, and withdraw the recommendation?

One resulting possibility is that the administrator emails the program developers directly, spelling out in detail the concerns about the program.  It should and could be a well thought out email. The conclusion, at this point, might go in one of two ways, with one punch line being that for the reasons noted above, the University had decided not to go forward.  The other alternative would be for the administrator to state that it is he or she that is withdrawing the recommendation.

There are clearly moments in time when a recommendation looks sound initially and subsequently turns out to be very flawed.  I think we are all aware of such situations. Absent extenuating circumstances, my Administration 101 advice is that the recommender should just go back to all involved and indicate that given all the information now available, that he or she can no longer make a positive recommendation.  Think about it. Asking someone else to do your work or suggesting that someone else has made your decision, serves no purpose and more than likely is counterproductive to long term administrative advancement.

Moving Forward

In my early days in administration, many years ago, I had the opportunity to serve on negotiating committees for various labor contracts and the position I held on these committees was the exalted chair-filler position. A chair filler has minimal involvement with the actual negotiations so expertise is not necessarily a prerequisite.  Instead a chair-filler is selected based on his or her ability to fill a chair and look both intelligent and engaged at the same time.  I did the best I could to meet these standards, and though I wondered initially why it was necessary to have such a position, I nevertheless found it to be a valuable experience.  The “why” in my opinion is simply because if one side has a large number of individuals on their team, the other side needs an almost equal number to show it is at least equally engaged.

The reason I found these early career experiences to be invaluable is that almost at the beginning of  the process I was able to gauge with a high level of accuracy exactly what the settlement would be.  In an environment where everyone realizes that bargaining is a mutual benefit equation, it is not that hard to predict the conclusion.  I believe the likely conclusion is known by the individuals heading the negotiations and those associated with the negotiations well in advance of the deadline date and perhaps even well in advance of the start of formal negotiation. However, the widely held belief is, if you settle too early, you are really not doing all you can to have your positions prevail.

In the recent budget/national debt debate in Washington, even though we came close to defaulting, I think our national leaders (as well as the accompanying chair fillers) knew based on clearly stated positions, exactly what the likely outcome would be. The fact that it took so long was designed to convince the public of how each side worked to have their position prevail.  I think this strategy was a mistake.  With an economy that is struggling, with a faltering economy, it is a serious mis-step to undermine confidence in that economy and not surprisingly in the Washington leadership in both parties.  And yet we have done that.  Would a settlement two weeks or a month sooner have made a difference? I believe it would have and that we would have been better off as a result of that earlier conclusion. 

More and more we seem to be headed for confrontations and for blunt economic solutions.  No changes in taxes, tax caps, and across the board spending cuts are blunt instruments.  There are no doubt tax loopholes that should be closed or tax rates that should be adjusted.  There are no doubt tax caps that will prevent real needs and priorities from being addressed. And across the board federal budget cuts, if it comes to that, will almost inevitably result in changes that undermine the national interest.

As I have said before we do need to contain spending, we do need to get a handle on the national debt and we do need to reduce the tax burden.  But unless we move away from brinkmanship, and also substitute well thought out policy initiatives for blunt economics, these goals will not be achieved or if they are achieved, the costs could rival the gains.  The economy is faltering and the clock is ticking. We need to do better and now is the time.

High on Imagination

One of my favorite birthday gifts given to me this year was a membership to the High Line, and so a few days ago my kids and I went to visit there.  What is the High Line?  Before I answer that question, let me answer the question that should come first—what was the High Line?  It was an elevated freight train structure including of course the tracks, and freight trains ran on this structure until the 1980s.  And as a kid, riding in a car down or up the west side drive, I still remember the trains running.  The High Line, and before that time, surface level tracks, were prominent parts of the west side of Manhattan corridor during the time that railroads were an indispensible mainstay of our transportation infrastructure.  Those days are long gone, and even the rail facilities that continue to exist aren’t treated with the respect that this still important form of transportation should be accorded.

So what happens to the structure and the tracks when the need disappears?  More than likely, in the name of progress, the raised tracks and the necessary elevated structure also disappear.  And that was starting to happen here. But thanks to a group of individuals who had the imagination and the wherewithal to push for a park, the High Line now flourishes.  We entered the High Line on 14^th Street.  My kids were not really sure what to expect, and the thought of an elevated park seemed strange to them.  I also had wondered whether this was really a park or was it a gimmick. From the second we got on, and from the walk to Gansevoort Street and then from Gansevoort to 30^th Street, we were enthralled.  We walked, we sat, we looked at the sights including the buildings, the plantings, the art display, and the Hudson River; and we were all enthralled.  The kids have already decided that we need to go back soon and take some of their friends along for the experience.

New York was fortunate that much of this structure was not torn down and that this park exists. But the greatest good fortune lies in the imagination of those individuals who pictured the High Line as what it could be rather than what it was.

The emphasis in much of education today is on testing.  Test results carry great weight in evaluating a school district; test results carry great weight in determining where you will be able to go for higher education as well as graduate education. We are all familiar with school districts whose claim to fame is their test results and whose students help populate many of the best colleges and universities. But where does imagination play a role in this equation.  We know it can make all the difference; we know that meaningful change often requires imagination and the ability to see things differently.  I’m an economist.  I think that economics is invaluable but I know that fostering imagination is enormously helped by a meaningful exposure to the arts.  Music and art bring out the creativity and allow the mind to expand.  In this era of constraints, when choices in education may become more limited, we have an obligation to support the arts and to encourage students at all levels to take arts courses.  Test results do matter but test results without imagination lead to the same things being done in the same way.  The arts are one meaningful way of expanding the possible. And for so many of the problems we face today, expanding the possible is the best hope we have for a better quality life for ourselves and the other inhabitants of our world.

The Return of/to Spider-Man

An earlier blog focused on my family trip to see Spider-Man, Turn Off The Dark.  My wife, two kids, and I thoroughly enjoyed the production. Much of the staging was spectacular, and the story – though it faltered somewhat in the second act—easily held our attention.  This original version closed for three weeks for some rewriting and reopened with much more favorable reviews.  My kids very much wanted to see the revised version (and actually would also have been pleased to see the original version again) so this past weekend we made our second Spiderman trip.  There is much good news and there is some less than good news.

The second act was a vast improvement over the original version.  The story line was much crisper and clearer, and there was also no superfluous filler (such as a song about Arachne, the spider’s show wardrobe).  There was also more of Dr Osborn aka the Green Goblin, a villain played with real gusto and talent by Peter Page.  The music by Bono and The Edge was also enhanced and seemed to be much more effective in this revised version.  The downside, to some extent the other side of the crisper story line coin, was that the story lost the nuance of the more complete Arachne story.  My younger daughter missed the added focus on Arachne and felt its removal was a loss.  For the rest of us, though we missed seeing more of Arachne, the gain much more than made up for the loss.

What makes this show special, in its first iteration or the new version, is the staging.  It remains brilliant as do the costumes and the sets.  Without the flair inherent in Julie Taymor’s vision of Spider-Man, no amount of revision could have been made this production memorable.  And the producers and directors of Spider-Man were completely correct, the show needed the time and attention to go through the evolution that many Broadway shows need, and given the scale of the production that process needed it happen under the glare of the Broadway lights.  Where the producers and directors were wrong is in underestimating the time this evolution would take.  The resulting five postponements of the opening just served to erode confidence in the show, certainly not a help when the goal is at least earn back the $75 million that this production cost.

As I stated in my last blog on Spider-Man many of the most memorable authors often required many drafts and many rewrites before an outstanding final product emerged.  And many educators recognize that the development of our most outstanding students and graduates is often also an evolutionary process.  For Spider-Man, Turn Off The Dark the process is complete, the story did “Rise Above” and the result is certainly worth the wait.  The evolution of Peter Parker and the evolution of many of our students is always a journey where the final product is certainly worth the wait.

Blunt Economics

Across the country, virtually every state is trying to control spending, and nationally we are also working hard to control spending.  Who could argue?  No one wants additional taxes, so raising revenue (absent a more robust economy) on the state level will be difficult while raising the deficit on the national is equally unpopular.  We all demand, and rightly so, fiscal discipline from our leaders.

To control spending, you could do a thorough national, state, and local review of all policies, programs and regulations. It is certain that some programs have a great deal of waste, or have outlived their usefulness, or provide only marginal benefit.  It is equally certain that some unfunded mandates/regulations are costly and not needed.  But doing a program by program or policy by policy review is difficult, time consuming, and often impacted by politics at least as much as merit. Given that difficulty, tax caps have become more and more popular.  You can stringently limit spending increasing but avoid making the tough program by program or mandate by mandate decisions.  We have such a cap now in New York, and as a school board member I can clearly tell that there are serious problems ahead that virtually all school districts will face as a result.  With the legislation recently in place and given unfunded mandates, the built in annual education cost increase (inflation rate) will likely be higher than the cap.  Overriding the cap will require a super majority (60%) and consequently be very difficult but living within the cap will squeeze education and in time almost certainly adversely impact quality.  Tax caps are blunt instruments.  I am not disputing that they can be helpful but there are certainly alternatives and there are certainly negative consequences.

On the revenue side, we also seem to be embracing a blunt approach.  The mantra of no tax increases is alive and well at every level of government.  The appeal is enormous and I’m certainly sympathetic.  But once again there are consequences of following a one size fits all policy rather than taking a more micro look at taxes.  Are there some tax rates that are still too high and tax payers paying more than they should?  Are there others where the tax rate is too low and tax payers should be paying more?  Remember that if there are no possible increases in tax revenues, we will likely be forced to cut important programs (such as in the education area), that are key investments in our future.  Blunt instruments and one size fits all policies may be easier to articulate and implement but may have far greater negative consequences than a more thought through less arbitrary plan of action.

We are all invested in keeping spending under control at all levels of government.  We are all invested in minimizing the tax obligation.  Both need to happen. But moving forward wearing the blinders of blunt policy parameters can’t be the best decision making process when our future is on the line.  Now is the moment for our government leaders to provide the sophisticated leadership that these challenging times demand.

The C Word

I had the pleasure of attending my local high school graduation last week.  This was a class that was recognized for their social action, for their sense of purpose, and for their involvement.  A nice change in priorities from the “me” generation that we suffered through not that long ago.  Early in the ceremony, there was a speech by the class valedictorian who as you can imagine was very bright and articulate, and had a sense of humor besides.  Certainly an impressive young man with a great combination of positive attributes.

The speech by the valedictorian noted that their journey as students had progressed from the relatively simple learning early in elementary school (spell “cat”) to the more complex learning and socializing as you approached and entered middle school, to the much more complex environment in high school.  According to the valedictorian, it was upon entering high school that the students were introduced to the “dreaded C word” where the “C” stood for college. At the point this comment was made there was a laugh from many of the graduates and an unhappy look from a few.  Why the laughs, why the frowns, and why was there a sense of “dread” when it came to thinking about college?

The sense of dread didn’t really come from thinking about college. Rather it came from the realization that almost everything you did in high school would impact the chances of your getting into college, most especially perhaps the schools you most wanted to go to.  Your grades, your standardized test scores, as well as your other school related activities all made a difference.  Add to that, your economic situation, especially the ability of your family to help cover the costs of higher education which can also make a significant difference.  As do any number of life events, from the most positive to the most tragic.

For some of the students graduating, the journey from high school to college was as smooth as can be and they were positioned perfectly for this next step in life’s progression.  But for others in the audience the journey was more complex and the end result may not have been everything they desired.  Sometimes the journey leaves the current graduate in an uncomfortable place and the disappointment permeates the person and perhaps also the family. At an early age, optimism is clouded by failure and a person may end up being judged solely by his or her SATs or high school average.

Students don’t always accomplish everything they want to, especially by age 18.  But what makes our system of higher education work so well is that there are multiple opportunities provided to change schools, majors, career goals.  In many societies and in many situations in life, there isn’t the opportunity to move forward from a difficult situation.  Our system isn’t perfect but the opportunities are there.  So, after high school, the old saying really does apply, “if you don’t succeed at first, try, try again.”  And our role as educators at all levels of education is to help instill in our students the determination and ability to move forward and ultimately succeed.