Sequestration

The one very minor positive for me in the current economic cliffhanger is that my vocabulary has expanded to include sequestration and I even find myself unfortunately using this word on a regular basis. In the next few weeks, I may even get to the point of asking friends and acquaintances how they are and how they will be after sequestration. The reality is I would be happier if I never needed to use this word again. More importantly, as I have indicated in previous blogs, failure of the democrats and republicans to agree on budget cuts would be extremely harmful for the economy. And especially since the signs of recovery are stronger, the downside of aborting that recovery and having a mandated sequestration becomes more devastating. Just so we are all on the same page, by sequestration I am referring to mandated, virtually across the board, reductions in most federal expenditures. Rather than making the decision in terms of priorities, these are autopilot decisions.

The mandated cuts in education, where we know upfront that education is an investment in our future, are particularly harmful. Between cuts in the work study program and cuts in the supplemental opportunity grants program, approximately 100,000 students will be adversely impacted by sequestration. Support for special needs students and students with disabilities would also be significantly reduced. No one can argue that the need for these programs will disappear or argue that there will not be significant consequences; what we will be left with are consequences, many of which will have their greatest impact on those who are economically disadvantaged.

We have no choice at this point in time other than cutting spending and limiting the increase in future spending. And since taxes were dealt with already, short term this is not an area that we can turn to help resolve the current situation. Even more importantly, I am not at all supportive of increasing the burden on taxpayers while not realistically confronting the expenditure part of the financial equation.

We know there need to be cuts in spending. For me, reducing spending in education should not be a significant source of savings. These would be short term savings with long term negative and counterproductive consequences. Passions are high on all sides of the spending/sequestration issue; many of us have specific priorities in one or more areas where we feel that spending cuts should be a last resort and perhaps a never resort. Those of us in education should do all that we can to passionately make the case for education. We can be sure that each area has it advocates. The case for education is very strong; our advocacy should be at least as strong.

Snow Job

The New York blizzard of 2013 really made an impact. With a range of snow falls that increased from about 6 inches in Manhattan, to 21 inches in my backyard on Long Island, to 30 inches in the eastern part of Long Island, there were areas even two days after the last flake hit the ground that were still impassable.

On Friday, the University closed at 2 PM. Up to that point in time there had been a dusting of snow followed by heavy rain. At closing time, the rain was transitioning to snow. To the credit of the University community, even with a dire weather forecast as of late Friday, Friday classes up to 2 PM were very well staffed and very well attended. It was a regular Friday in terms of participation; not even a phone call asking why we didn’t close earlier in anticipation of blizzard Nemo.

On Saturday night, however, just twelve hours after the snow stopped, my kids and I decided to venture into Manhattan to see a show which, I had learned earlier in the day would be performed as scheduled. My first inclination was to make use of mass transit and go into Manhattan via the Long Island Railroad since my local station was less than a mile from my house. Great idea but there was only one problem: the railroad had suspended operations on the branch that services my area. Mass transit, especially by rail, should be among the most reliable inclement weather providers of transportation. I understand the challenges but if mass transit is to make inroads against using a car, it needs to work that way.

The trip to and from Manhattan was effortless. Less traffic than usual and the famous Long Island Expressway, on the stretch of road from the western part of Long Island to the Queens Mid-town Tunnel to Manhattan was snow free and dry. Manhattan had a moderate amount of snow. The roads were fine and parking on the street was still easy to do. The next morning I drove my older daughter to a play date at a friend’s house and was shocked at the condition of a number of neighborhood roads. I’m not sure that the snow removal crews plowed these roads, and if they did, they certainly didn’t get the level of attention provided to many other neighborhood roads.

If there was quality control for the snow removal, it just didn’t work as it should have. Adjoining roads should not have the variability that these roads had. In thinking about education, K- 12 as well as higher education, we have some of the same variability problems. With differences in the results on standardized tests for the different sections/teachers, or differences in preparation for subsequent classes that impact how a student does in those classes, we know that the cause is often the teacher/faculty member teaching the class. What we don’t know, especially in the first example, is whether the cause of better student performance is teaching to the test or better teaching. As complex as the issue is, quality control and the consistency inherent in good quality control are essential. We should all redouble our quality control efforts, and we should all embrace the outcomes assessment that helps validate the outcome.

Honor Code

We are getting close to implementing our Honor Code and Honor Board and I am very excited by the our progress in this critical area. It is not that our campus is any different from most other campuses. We know that there is academic dishonesty taking place on virtually every college or university campus. We have just, however, made a commitment to push for a measurable decrease in such behavior. Students will sign an Honor Code that will serve as both a commitment as well as a reminder of the values we ascribe to and an Honor Board will work to promote activities in support of academic honesty and also ensure that there is fair and consistent treatment when there is a violation of the Honor Code.

Our Honor Code and Honor Board is an outgrowth of an extended campus wide discussion and debate regarding academic honesty. This debate was sponsored by a Task Force that had been established to review our existing policies on academic honesty and recommend possible changes. The discussion and the resulting recommendation then went through our campus shared governance, first passing scrutiny by the University Senate followed by the full faculty reviewing and recommending these policies. Our Senate is our shared governance organization that includes representation from the faculty, the students—both undergraduate and graduate – academic and non-academic administrators and a staff member. We are fortunate to have such a strong and vibrant facilitator of shared governance. After the action by the full faculty, I was pleased to endorse these recommendations and the President was pleased to approve them. The campus conversation and the campus governance process provided the greatest buy-in possible for this new initiative.

In selecting the Honor Board student members, I worked closely with our Vice President for Student Affairs to assure the best possible student representation (which includes serving as one of the three co-chairs of the board with the other two co chairs coming from the faculty and the academic administration). The faculty and administrators who have been chosen are clearly highly regarded opinion leaders widely respected by their colleagues and other members of our community. So far, so good.

And yet, to be realistic, there are two concerns that I have. First, a number of faculty, here and elsewhere, want to make whatever decision there is to be made in response to academic dishonesty themselves. Sometimes these actions are very lenient and other times very drastic but regardless these faculty don’t want to fit any framework or adhere to any standard other than their own. To this day, there are incidents of academic dishonesty that are never reported and are known only to the faculty member and the student or students involved. I believe that faculty should have wide latitude in resolving incidents of academic dishonesty but I also believe there needs to be full disclosure and reporting. Not to second guess the faculty member but to make sure that repeat offenses by the same students are dealt with sternly. My other concern relates to a number of students who have been so accustomed to cheating that it is both second nature and not recognized for what it is—unethical behavior, presenting someone else’s work as your own. I have even heard a story from a colleague about a student in a very good university who tweeted matter of factly about cheating. One comment noted that if this person had a smart phone in high school, Harvard would have been within reach while another tweet noted incredulously that that the cheating had only resulted in a C and how could that be. It will take considerable time, even with a heightened awareness of the importance of academic honesty for individuals like this to clean up their acts.

Our Honor Code and Honor Board are one major step forward for academic integrity. And now we have to work together that regardless of the school, and whether we are talking about higher education or K-12 education, students always receive a consistent message regarding the importance of academic honesty.

Yesterday

My older daughter and her best friend were going to an ice skating birthday party and I was the designated driver to the rink. We were ready to leave and my daughter texts her friend to let her know we will pick her up in a few minutes. But there was no imminent response. So what were we to do? Head to her house though there was no response from her or wait until she responds.

We ultimately decided to go to her house and we are waiting outside on the driveway but even now there is no response. My daughter sends another text and I just innocently say to her “why not just call?” The response comes instantly and puts me in my place: “calling is sooooo yesterday.” Yikes, what a comment and what an effort to put me in my ancient place.

Two minutes later, just as I was getting ready to call the parents, the response came in the form of my daughter’s friend leaving her house and heading to my car. We were on our way, though I wasn’t ready to forget about the “yesterday” comment.

I am significantly older than my kids but I’m not a “yesterday” kind of person. I was an earlier convert to email, to online shopping, to texting, to ebooks, and even to writing a blog. I also have a strong attraction to new technologies even though my wife feels it is more an attraction to gimmicks. But there is no convincing your kids and I remember feeling the same way toward my parents.

Technology has made an enormous difference in the education we deliver and in the life we lead. The information I can access and the transactions I can complete enhance my sophistication and improve the quality of my life. I’m not interested in going back and living in a world of less robust technology or less life saving health care. But I’m also old enough to realize that with technology you may pay a price; inter-personal skills now seem less sophisticated; social situations somewhat more stained; the pace of activities more speeded up. Having lived in yesterday’s world, I recognize its benefits and its limitations. Kids seem only to see the limitations of what existed before. What can we do to make sure education makes clear not only what has been gained over time, but also what has been lost. And also makes clear, that when choices need to be made, the newest technology is not necessarily always the best technology.

Global Orientation

At the last Board of Education meeting, in addition to dealing with the critical issue of security, we also continued our discussion of FLES—the teaching of language at the elementary school level as well as our discussion of a world languages orientation. Often, at the college level, students look to minimize their course work in foreign languages. But in a global environment, where English is not the only world language, such an orientation is clearly short sighted.

The recommendation of the Superintendent, which we accepted, was that students would begin learning Mandarin in kindergarten. From kindergarten until third grade, Mandarin would be the only foreign language option, after which a student could decide to take Spanish instead of Mandarin. Both are key world languages and both are being taught at an ideal developmental time for our kids. Then in seventh grade, students would once again have a choice, this time between continuing with Mandarin or Spanish or beginning French, Italian, or Latin. Each of the additional language options is an important and valuable alternative that works well strengthening the academic preparedness of our students. For me, my priority in an extricably interwoven world would be the world languages that will dominate the 21st century. But there are other good and valid reasons for studying other important languages and as a school board member, I am pleased we are providing these language options. All serve an important purpose.

In making this decision, there is another important part of the equation that needs to be factored in here, as it does for the security issue that I discussed last week. We are living in a time where resources for schools are constrained, often as in this area, via a tax cap that effectively limits increases. As we increase our options in and commitment to foreign languages, are there areas where we will be less able to provide the options or the commitment that would also serve well the needs of our kids. Will we be able to do less in the vital STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) areas? We know how competitive the world economy is today; doing less in STEM would not be a wise strategy. Will be need to offer less in the arts or music? Will athletics suffer? All have a tremendous value in the education of our children. Should we let class size increase? Reduce the time in class for various subjects, etc? Or will we do less than is called for in the security area? In addition, there are recommendations to increase the length of the school day or the school year that we are hearing more frequently. How compatible are these with the constraints we are facing?

I am an advocate for not raising taxes and not raising government spending but I am also a realist. Important priorities for our children or our country should not fall victim to arbitrary taxing and spending constraints.

Global Competitiveness

At the last school board meeting there were two distinct discussions, both excellent. The first, not surprisingly after the tragedy in Connecticut, dealt with school security and the second dealt with an early exposure world languages program. For the school security discussion there was a wide range of opinions expressed. Some parents wanted armed guards, bullet proof doors, a sure double door entrance system while other parents felt strongly we should not overreact to what was a tragic but still isolated incident. My opinion, which I voiced at the meeting, is that security needs to be both substantial and at the same time unobtrusive. And clearly my opinion is to some extent defined by the very suburban, very middle class area that the schools are located in. But what does substantial and unobtrusive mean. The terms seem in conflict but nevertheless are exactly what we need. One example relates to the windows at our neighborhood schools, which are plentiful, especially at ground level and are often open to some extent especially during the fall and spring months (since the buildings are for the most part not air-conditioned). I would not want bars on any of the windows; a school shouldn’t give the impression of a prison. On the other hand, I am cognizant that with so many windows that are unlocked and even partially open, security revolves around more than a door buzzer and an entrance guard. Screens (that can’t be cut easily) can provide at least somewhat of a deterrent (even though there needs to be a way to open them if necessary from the inside) and should be seriously considered.

I want our kids to be safe but I also don’t want them to feel threatened or anxious. Guns in schools don’t foster a sense of peace and tranquility and should never be more than a last resort. I also recognize that the k through 12th grade populations is very different than the higher education population and that the openness of a college campus is not what would work for our public schools. As we grapple with what more we should do, our school district is likely to bring in a consultant to work with us. Real security that is unobtrusive is what we need; what more do we need to do to make sure that is what we have?

There is an important economic element to this discussion that needs to be recognized going forward. In past years, when school budgets were being discussed, there were often advocates of spending less on security. Five buildings, each with an unarmed door person during school hours, plus cameras and monitoring add up to real dollars that impact a tight budget. I have always been against reducing security but now I think it is clear that even more needs to be done. A person should be at the entrance doors anytime the building is in use which is substantially more than regular school hours. In this era of tax caps and constrained budgets, more spending for security translates into less spending in other areas. There is no choice.

Fiscal Cliff part one

I usually ease off on reading news stories during the time period between Christmas and New Year’s Day. It isn’t that the news is less important, it is just that I find this an ideal moment to just relax and enjoy quality family time. This year was different. I was focused on the cliff, the ominous fiscal cliff. I had always thought there would be a solution, an acceptable compromise that would unite most Democrats and Republicans, and it came (in the Senate) just as the ball dropped at Times Square. This part of the cliff solution was the easier of the two major parts. There was never a doubt that taxes would rise on the wealthiest taxpayers and there was never a doubt that there would be some greater limits on deductions and exemptions as incomes rose into the uppermost percentiles. The only ultimate surprise is that it took until the last minute (or slightly thereafter in the House) and maybe that wasn’t a surprise at all. Perhaps the give and take on both sides required waiting until the last minute to be acceptable. For Democrats to raise taxes less than they wanted and for Republicans to raise taxes more than they wanted was not pleasing to either party, though it did come together at the end as a well thought out moderate response to the tax side of the equation.

The agreement on taxes also bought time for the other critical aspect of any long term workable solution to be worked through. Sequestrations, which are virtually across the board spending cuts, are delayed for a two month period so that more intentional and surgical but still critical spending cuts can be agreed upon. Spending cuts have always been the more difficult part of any compromise for it requires deciding not only what to preserve but more critically, what to curtail and or what to eliminate. Raising taxes on the most wealthy is easy compared to inevitably alienating a constituency that supports a program that is slated to be diminished or eliminated. And the reality is that virtually every program has such a constituency that will try to convince you that the less important is really the most important (which for the constituency involved, may be completely correct). We all want and need a strong social safety net, and we all want and need a strong level of defense preparedness but clearly there will have to be adjustments in both areas. Social Security and Medicare as well as defense expenditures will all have to be adjusted in some ways. I know that some people will say that we should be able to do more with less or the same with less and note that with proper efficiency that will happen. More than likely, gains in efficiency will be marginal and the result is that we will have to do less with less. And also more than likely, the Federal government will try to force states to contribute more to maintain certain programs, which most states are not easily in a position to do. There will clearly be pain associated with the spending cuts. And yet with scarce resources there are no choices, something has to give.

We have avoided the fiscal cliff for now. But the reality is that all we have done is make some tax cuts permanent and others, on the wealthiest tax payers, have gone back to the levels of the Clinton administration. For those of us who believe in a more progressive tax code, this is progress. However, compared to doing nothing at all (and allowing all tax rates to rise), which I think would have been a serious mistake, the federal deficit has increased further. Therefore, the really hard work still lies ahead and the next sixty days are critical. We need significant spending cuts, which will clearly be painful but are necessary to curb a rapidly accelerating national debt. And just as it would have been inexcusable for Congress and the President to not come to a compromise agreement on taxes, it will clearly be equally inexcusable to not come to an agreement on spending cuts.