Arts Priority

Recently at a program presented by the Long Island Arts Alliance, New York State Education Commissioner David Steiner made an impassioned plea to a very friendly audience in support of arts education.  The Commissioner feels strongly that art and music education not only has a place in K-12 education but that it is a very important place equal in importance to English, Math and Science.  I very much agree and I would also add that health and physical education hold a place of importance as well.  It all comes together as a well rounded education, which hopefully brings with it, well rounded students who do better in college, at work, and in life.

To make the case for the arts and music being important, the Commissioner advocates a New York State (Regents) exam in these areas much like the sate wide exams already given areas such as English, math and the sciences. And though the audience was completely on board in recognizing the value of the arts and arts education, there was no such unanimity regarding a standardized test in these areas.  How would the test work; how would you assess both the theoretical as well as the performance elements of arts education? The Commissioner felt there were already examples in actual use elsewhere and he gave Britain as an example of a country where an arts test dealt successfully with the issues raised.

There was another concern raised during this discussion regarding the potential negative consequences from turning arts education into another area of test preparation at the middle school and especially the high school level.  Would this limit creativity?  Would this diminish enjoyment of the arts?   And would the long term negative consequences create a population that moves away from these areas as soon as there are no more requirements and no more standardized tests. This is certainly a valid concern and could be a very negative unintended consequence of an effort to make the arts more prominent.

I have great difficulty conceptualizing a standardized examination in these areas.  And I urge that no such examination be implemented without a full review and opportunity to provide feedback on what is being proposed. Schools of Education and university music departments can be of great assistance in both the development and assessment phases and should be fully utilized.  But I worry in this time of potentially significant reductions in K-12 education funding, that implementation of an arts standardized exam will not follow such a  comprehensive vetting process.  And I worry even more in this constrained time that teaching to the test will provide the most economical and therefore perhaps most utilized response to the test.

We really need to be very careful that in our quest to give the arts their rightful place in a program of essential learning that we don’t weaken rather than strengthen arts education. The most important test is whether we can foster creativity as well as a long-term appreciation of the arts as part of every child’s education.  For our children’s sake, we need to do well on this test.

Charging Into the Future

For the last four days, I have been driving a Chevrolet Volt which is a real electric car (different from the typical hybrid) with a back-up gas powered engine to charge the Lithium-Ion batteries when necessary.  The “when necessary” is when you drive the Volt for more than 40 miles.  It’s been very interesting and the future is clearly visible here.   The car will be displayed on campus (courtesy of East Hills Chevrolet) as part of the University’s Earth Day activities, and the dealer also invited me to drive the car for a few days before it goes on display.

Where I live is just less than 11 miles from the campus.  The Volt is therefore good for my daily commute including a meeting or lunch off campus, which of course happens regularly.  The car has keyless ignition, automatic transmission, Bluetooth, a highly interactive and well thought out instrument panel. leather seats, pleasant styling, and power window, mirrors etc.  This is a very well equipped and very comfortable vehicle, it handles well and rides well, not that different from many other very nice sedans.  Except there are differences—first and most noticeable, the car is silent.  Not just quiet but beautifully silent (unless the climate control fan is on a higher setting, in which case the car is virtually silent).  Even more importantly, there are no emissions when driven within its electric range and so the environment clearly benefits. The other major difference is that the car needs to be plugged in when I come home at the end of the day.  So now when I come home, I not only make sure my phone is fully charged for the next day, I also make sure my car is fully charged as well.  In fact I never travel anywhere without an extension cord.  At the beginning of the day and the end of the day, I am liking this car.

What I am also liking, is what the car says about General Motors and by extension what it says about the American automobile industry.  We can compete, and we can be at the cutting edge.   Overall, the cars being produced this year by GM, Ford and Chrysler come closer to meeting the needs and desires of the American public than any product line-up in many years.  There is no longer a need to go to a Japanese or German car to drive a top quality vehicle.

But there is still much more work to be done.  The American automobile industry must show it can build quality cars responsive to consumer demand, not just this year but over the long term.  And the cars must also last over the long run.  Innovation must continue.  Here too there is much more work to be done.  The Volt is a great car but it is only a start.  The battery capacity needs to be increased and the price needs to come down. The technology is brilliant but this is still not my idea of a $40,000+ car ($32,500+ after factoring the Federal tax credit).  I would like to drive a green car but one with an electric range of closer to 200 miles.  And if I spend $40,000 on a car, I certainly expect power seats rather than the manual adjustment the car presently has.

I will miss driving the Volt and I really like the car.  Perhaps not in the next year or two but certainly in the next 5 or 10 years, I see myself driving an electric car on a daily basis.  The world is certainly changing.  In the car industry as well as in higher education, we need to make sure that what we do facilitates change, prepares us for change and respond to change. No short circuits welcome here.

Positive Disagreement

At least one a year, an entry level administrator will ask me if it is OK to disagree with his/her boss and, if yes, how should s/he disagree.  We all know that differences of opinion and the resulting discussions are valuable aspects of an enlightened decision making process. And I could just respond to the question (since I am a Broadway musicals fan) by saying (since singing is not my strong point): just do everything “the company way.”  Instead, my answer is that it is certainly OK; if you keep in mind the time, the place, and the style.

The easiest to explain is “the place.”  If you are with your boss at a meeting with others and a difference of opinion arises, it is not helpful to disagree with your boss in front of others.  Whether you are right or you are wrong, airing a difference of opinion in front of others undercuts your supervisor and is not consistent with “positive disagreement.”  If you can take a break in the meeting, if you can discuss after the meeting, if you can anticipate differences before a meeting, all of these provide appropriate alternatives.  The only exceptions to these guidelines are life or death situations, and meetings where everyone knows, respects, and works well with everyone else at the meeting. 

By focusing on “the time,” I am clearly not talking about whether early in the morning is better than immediately after lunch or just before going home.  I am also not suggesting that disagreeing on Monday is fine but that we follow the rule of never on Sunday.  The time needs to be as early in the decision making process as possible.  Insights are most helpful early in the process; positions are most flexible early in the process.  By sharing your thoughts early in the process you also have the maximum opportunity to make a difference in the process as well as the maximum opportunity to make a positive impression.  What happens if your supervisor doesn’t agree with your position?  It happens, and you need to understand that it can happen almost regardless of the level that you are at.  You need to get used to it, and it really can be OK for the situation and for you. If your opinion doesn’t carry the day, but your argument or the points involved are well made, you enhance your chances of moving forward.  However, if you disagree with almost everything your boss says or does, it’s time to look for a new boss and a new opportunity.

And of course, by focusing on style, I am not suggesting that dark business attire is prerequisite to a stylish difference of opinion.  What is prerequisite is a sense of respect and the need to be a good listener as well as a good communicator. In making your point of view known, please understand that there are likely other equally valid points of view.  Please also take for granted that your supervisor is a knowledgeable person.  Never be insulting, derogatory, sarcastic; never question your supervisor’s intelligence.  Just focus on the issue at hand and make you point.

Is this always easy?  Clearly not.  Can there be times in your career when the opinion you have of your supervisor for valid or not so valid reasons make it impossible to follow the rules of time, place, and style?  What should you do?  You needn’t spend a long time searching for an answer; search instead for a new position.

The Easy Choice

I have been busy completing my remarks for this season’s first admitted students’ day event.  Actually there are now multiple admitted students’ day events since we want the experience to be both as convenient and as personal as possible.  And though my remarks are substantially changed from what I said last year, the message each and every year has been remarkably similar. I urge potential undergraduate students and their families to look for the long term value of the higher education the students are about to embark on.  I encourage students and their families to find the education that is a “best fit” with the needs and interests of the students.  I focus on the value of excellent teaching plus support services and I also stress that national accreditations equate to verifiable quality.  And I note the importance of a fully textured undergraduate experience including internships, civic engagement and athletics.  And this is an easy speech for me to deliver since I completely believe in what I am saying.

Earlier this week I went to a local swim center for an end of the day swim.  Swimming laps for me is a mindless way of not only getting cardio-vascular exercise but swimming also provides a wonderful venue for thinking through what happened that day or just before or just after that day.  While swimming I was thinking about admitted students’ day and whether I should make any major changes in the thrust of what I was saying.  I was still thinking about my message when I left the pool and went back to the locker room to change.  At the other side of the locker room there was a conversation in progress between what I gather were a handful of high school seniors.  These young men were loud and they were talking about choosing colleges for next year.  It didn’t appear that any of their parents were around and they did not notice me since there was a bank of lockers between where I was and where they were.  One of the young men indicated he had already made up his mind to go to a local college (not Hofstra).  He indicated it was an easy choice since the school selected offered more of what he wanted.  Another kid asked him why not another area school.  And the first young man volunteered without any hesitation that the local school he had decided on had “easier girls” and “easier courses” than the other choices.  Unfortunately no one followed up by asking the first young man the basis for these conclusions.  And the conversation switched shortly thereafter to weekend plans and cars, and a few minutes later the young men left the locker room.

 What are the deciding factors in the selection of a college or university?  I know what I want them to be for a decision of such importance.  As indicated above, long term value, best fit, teaching excellence, verifiable quality, a fully textured experience are at the top of the list.  I also recognize the financial constraints that many families face.  But are these the factors that matter most, or is the decision made on the basis of factors that really shouldn’t carry the day?  When a student selects a for-profit institution, is it based on the education provided or is it based on sophisticated marketing?  When a student selects the absolutely lowest cost alternative, is it based on the education meeting the needs of the student, or simply the absolute cost considerations?  Are easy schools favored; the closest schools favored; the furthest schools favored; a party school favored?  A regional clothing chain has always stated that “an educated consumer is our best customer.”  Our standard should be at least as high and we should all do whatever we can to increase the sophistication and expertise of our customer. We would all benefit: the student would have the education that was right for him or her, and we would have higher retention and graduation rates.

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.

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.

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.