The violence on campus - the wounds inflicted by the budget ax

Source: https://www.cagle.com/jimmy-margulies/2010/10/education-budget-cuts

We are shocked and outraged at the violence resulting in injuries and loss of life occurring in academic settings at all levels, and we should be. If students can't be safe in school, whether K-12 or college, then where can anyone be safe? Guns have no place on the grounds or in the halls of educational facilities - not in the hands of a disturbed child, a disturbed adult, or even a sane teacher. It is easy to raise our voices about this, and we should and must continue to raise our voices until changes of real import are made.

There is another kind of violence on campus that receives little press, though it is very damaging and is destroying innocent lives. It demands our angry voices, but doesn't get much if any notice, so how can we complain if we are unaware?

The president of a local university sent an email out to all faculty and staff Thursday morning to advise all of the current state of response to the budget cuts imposed by the governor and legislature. (These are the very same who decry Kentucky's reputation as being "backwards and uneducated" but still cut deeply into its schools' capabilities to improve the educational level of its citizens.) Buried in the middle of it were 3 short words that sacrificed the dreams and life goals of 352 completely innocent and blameless university students: "close regional campus". The university's regional campus is designed to reach out to students who could not otherwise attend classes on the main campus. This regional campus has been serving its local community and neighboring communities as well as its county and neighboring counties for 20 years.

The media release from the university claimed the regional campus had a student population of 93 students. Somebody in the administration didn't check their facts or the spin doctors had their hands in this. There are currently 140 students attending the regional campus plus 225 dual-credit students who are taking college classes while still high school seniors. (The regional campus also has 8 full-time employees and 6 part-time faculty who weren't mentioned in the media release.) When is campus closing? At the end of spring semester, less than 2 months away.  

How did the students find out? Not from the university president or administration. Rather, they found out when the long-time regional campus administrator sent them a very caring and heartfelt email to break the news.  As one student aptly stated, "They just stole my education from me!"

How did the regional campus staff find out? First thing that morning, the regional campus staff were called into a group meeting with an HR rep who told them their employment was terminated at the end of the semester.  How did the part-time faculty find out? From either another caring, heartfelt email from the same regional campus administrator or reading those 3 words in the president's email, whichever came first. How did the department chairs who support the part-time faculty find out? Only by reading it in the president's email to the entire faculty and staff.

The university's stance is that the regional campus students can now either come to the main campus 45 minutes away or they can take online classes. Neither are viable solutions.  If students decide to transfer to another institution, they will lose scholarships and funding - another consequence that jeopardizes these students' futures.

The problems with commuting: The regional campus students are very much non-traditional students. Many work 40 hours a week. Many have families and children. Some have grandchildren. The one who proclaimed that EKU had just stolen her education works part-time, volunteers as a fire-fighter for her county, and lives on a shoestring budget - all while taking college classes and maintaining a GPA above 3.0. Like her, most of the regional campus students don't have the money to drive the 90-min round-trip to attend classes on the main campus. The time to make the commute would decrease the precious little time they have to study and do their coursework. Many regional campus students can't afford the time to make such a commute for another reason - they have children to care for, pick up from school, and other family responsibilities that don't preclude pursuing a college education but certainly prevent a 90-min commute each day.  That is why the regional campus location in or near their home towns was ideal for them.

The problems with online classes: One of the options students have at the regional campus is to take classes offered via telecast. The faculty member is in a classroom somewhere else (most commonly the main campus) with students physically present in that location. The regional campus students frequently complain that this is not a functional arrangement for some very valid reasons. First, the faculty member is focused on the students in front of him/her, not on the audience "attending" through the camera and microphone. Students in the remote location can't raise their hands to ask questions because the remote faculty member rarely notices. The faculty member cannot work one-on-one with a remote campus student to provide additional assistance. Even though there is a regional campus staff member present for these classes, student attention almost immediately wanders and there is often low-level chatter that prevents students who are trying to focus and hear from doing so. All of that aside, have you ever taken an online class? I have, and in my opinion, the results gained do not come anywhere near being equal to what a student can get by being in the classroom with the instructor present.

These students did nothing wrong. They attend classes. They pay tuition and fees - even fees for main campus programs that they never utilize. How is it fiscally responsible to cut off 352 tuition-paying students? How does that help the bottom line of a budget? How is it fiscally responsible to cause such ill will among these students and the communities that the regional campus serves? Goodwill is a commodity in decline these days. It is not wise to squander it.

If this were all that the university administration has done in the name of budget cuts, it would be shameful enough, but there's more. In the first round of budget cuts forced by the governor and legislature, the administration dictated that part-time faculty (adjuncts) must go. The department chairs, having no choice, cut most or all adjuncts. It is the part-time faculty that teaches virtually all the General Education courses the university demands all students take as part of a well-rounded education at the university. The faculty should teach those, you say? The faculty are overloaded with teaching requirements already since there has been a hiring freeze and as faculty retire, they can't be replaced. But, don't the faculty have teaching-hour limits stipulated? Yes, they do. The simple solution to that was the re-definition of the number of credit hours for each class so that on the books, the faculty are not teaching more hours than they are supposed to teach. How is that working out, you ask? Well, a class that meets for 4 hours a week is now listed as a 3-hour course. Students only pay for and earn 3 hours, but they still meet with the faculty member for 4 hours a week, and the faculty member still meets with the students for 4 hours a week. A shell game pure and simple. Accounting to make the numbers look better than the reality of the situation. Faculty are still overworked.

And if one looks at the cost-benefit analysis of employing adjunct faculty, one will see that adjunct are paid far less than their full-time counterparts and adjuncts receive absolutely no benefits. Basically, well-qualified adjuncts are a very cheap work force. I am not advocating terminating tenured faculty in the least. However, if one thinks about the instructional and program needs of the students that can't be met properly by the tenured faculty and budget prevent adding new tenure-track faculty, then adjuncts are definitely the way to go.

That result is bad enough. The following set of real numbers for just one department at the university makes it far, far worse. In one department that historically has served the Gen Ed needs of a large portion of the university's student body, here's what has happened. I'll refer to each Gen Ed course by Gen Ed A, B, C, and D to keep the department's identity hidden.

• Gen Ed A: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 320 students with 4 sections. In Spring 2018, the department has 4 sections of that can hold a maximum of 204 students.  
• Gen Ed B: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 461 students in 15 sections. In Fall 2018, the department will offer 4 sections with a maximum enrollment of 97 students.  
• Gen Ed C: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 244 students in 12 sections. In Fall 2018, the department will offer 2 sections that can serve a maximum enrollment of 120 students. Those 2 sections will be comprised of one integrated (part online, part in-class) and one traditional model (one large lecture with 4 smaller labs).  
• Gen Ed D: Before the adjunct cut, the department served 121 students in 6 sections. In Fall 2018, the department will offer 1 lecture/lab course and 1 integrated course with a combined maximum enrollment of 96 students.  

Let's add up those numbers, shall we? Before the adjuncts were cut, the department served 1,146 students in 42 sections of 4 Gen Ed courses (that is approximately 27 students per section). After the adjuncts were cut, the department is able to serve 517 students in 12 sections of 4 Gen Ed courses (that is approximately 43 students per section). I should mention that the university mandates Gen Ed courses to have smaller enrollments, ideally 24 or less, for the benefit of the student. So, there are 30 fewer sections of Gen Ed serving to serve 45% fewer students while the total university student population must still take the full complement of Gen Ed courses.

Compounding this decreased Gen Ed availability is that this university's enrollment continues to grow. The math just can't work. More students being required to take a full course of Gen Ed while fewer and fewer Gen Ed sections are offered.

If students can't get into Gen Ed courses, they must postpone taking them until they can get in, which could result in students taking longer to complete their undergraduate degrees. The university may end up receiving more tuition money from each student who stays the course, but student frustration will increase and student loan debt will increase as a result. Many students may simply not be able to hold on long enough financially and will give up on their dream of obtaining a college education. Or, students may see that this university's graduation rates for a 4-year degree are decreasing and opt to go elsewhere.

Violence can be inflicted by armed conflict, but is also inflicted emotionally and spiritually and though the person still lives, the damage is still terrible. When you steal the dreams of an education and better life away from a person, that is violence pure and simple. The talk late Thursday and into Friday amongst the students was to transfer away from a school who could do this to them. I certainly can't blame them.

I speak of one university, but this is not an isolated problem. These budget cuts are affecting K-12 and universities across the country. Seems to me that one of the most over-looked, devalued, and under-appreciated needs in our society is an education, at least in the halls of government. Until education and its teachers again regains their high place and value, this violent theft of dreams will continue.

The Downward Spiral in U.S. Education Continues - the ongoing impact of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

From the Linked In Daily Rundown for Sunday 25 March 2018: Companies are stepping in for colleges: A growing number of employers are finding that their college-educated new hires lack necessary skills. So they’re launching education programs, offering classes in academic disciplines such as physics, algebra and writing, in addition to guidance on how to do well in specific roles, reports The Wall Street Journal. Tightening labor markets means that employers who might otherwise hold out for candidates with the right skills are opting to train those with potential instead.

My immediate response to reading this was the thought, "the cycle continues to its logical end." What cycle? The one that started with standardized testing required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its results. For a K-12 public school to continue receiving its federal funding, approximately 70% of its students must pass the appropriate standardized tests in content areas. Did this improve educational outcomes for students and, therefore, America? No. Students became trained to memorize factoids so they could be spit back out on questions written at the lowest order (Remember) on Bloom's Taxonomy. Once the test was done, the factoids were forgotten. Skills were not learned (Apply). The ability to think and problem-solve were not learned (Analyze, Evaluate). The ability to link information from disparate sources to creatively gain new insight was not taught (Create). In a nutshell, the industrial model of education ("Factory school model") reached its apex: mindless memorization - perform - move on. (For more on the industrial model of education, see this excellent article from Huffington Post.)

What did improve were the individual school's and collective school district's ability to successfully play a statistical shell game to make their numbers better than they really were. What do I mean? They simply started re-classifying students (based on their test performance) into different reporting categories to improve results. Here's what this looks like in practice. Jamie is classified in X class and failed the test. Class X overall does not meet the 70% pass metric. So if we reclassify Jamie into class Y, which exceeded the 70% metric, Jamie's failure does not negatively impact the Class outcome. So, that is what we will do. With statistics, all reports are possible.... I observed this directly myself in K-12 faculty meetings where the results of the previous year's results were reported. Do I blame the districts? No, they were simply making the best of a broken system in which funding to teach students was based on student performance on standardized tests that had absolutely no value - academically, practically, socially. Schools need to stay open and without federal funds, that wouldn't happen. They are fighting for survival. Teachers desperately want to help young people even in and despite of a system that seems to not want to do so.

How to get students to pass these standardized tests? Simple: teach to the test - nothing but the test, drill on factoids, give practice tests, use Pavlovian conditioning to reinforce good results and punish the bad, and repeat. Ask any experienced classroom teacher (not administrator or newbie teacher) what she or he thinks of standardized testing and No Child Left Behind, and the virtually unanimous response will be a statement of utter abhorrence followed by numerous reasons supporting her/his opinion.

Students coming out of public K-12 education cannot think, cannot problem-solve, cannot compose cogent discussions, and do not believe that what they think or know is of any value. Why would they? None of this is part of the world of standardized testing.

At the same time, two related trends were occurring: who goes to college and who teaches K-12. Both are critical parts of and reactions to this same No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its emphasis on standardized testing.

Who teaches K-12 has changed substantially over the decades. It used to be the very best and brightest taught our children. Teachers were highly paid for their work and they were at the apex of societal respect. Today, it is a standing joke that a degree in education is the easiest to get in all of the college programs. I was talking with a friend the other day, and she said, "my daughter is in her senior year at College W as an education major. She and I were talking, and you wouldn't believe what she told me she has been doing in one of her methods classes this semester! They have been making foldables, cutting out cardboard manipulatives, making posters, and crap like this! I am horrified!" Sadly, I had to share with her that I was not at all surprised.

Getting back to the whole emphasis on learning factoids, education majors are given all kinds of approaches to make learning these factoids fun and efficient. They don't learn content. While a major in earth science requires 120 hours of geology, meteorology, oceanography, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and math, an education major who wants to teach earth science in K-12 at one of my alma maters is only required to complete 21 hours selected from 100-level geology courses, 1 introductory geography course, 1introductory astronomy course, and 2 300- or 400-level geology courses. This does not give the education major enough content knowledge to be able to creatively teach the content, even at the memorization level. Imagine a world (or the U.S.) in which those who teach our students at all levels have a major in both their discipline and in education, or perhaps more functionally - a major in their discipline and a minor in education.

Is this at all reasonable? Absolutely! There is a critical shortage in STEM teachers in K-12, and earth science is at the top of that list. Loving to work with young people, after several decades as a practicing geologist (with a M.S. degree), I pursued getting certified to teach through one of the alternative paths to teaching. I along with 20 others in my cohort from a diverse collection of disciplines completed a year's worth of courses in the methodology of teaching and the administrative requirements imposed on teachers. We all were hired at the end of our year, and we all were highly successful teachers. Our schools and school districts prized the breadth and depth of our content expertise and the creative ways we employed to teach it. This opinion is not just mine. See this article written by a former superintendent in Arizona.

Who goes to college also has substantially changed. A college degree originally designed for higher learning moved from something required to pursue a few select careers to something required for EVERY career, and those careers who formerly did not require a college degree were incredibly devalued. "I want John/Jill to go to college - not be a car mechanic!" Honestly, does a car mechanic need a college degree? Not to work on my car. I want a mechanic who has extensive hands-on experience, who has seen innumerable vehicles with a large variety of problems all manifesting in different ways. I want a mechanic who can think through the symptoms, creatively find commonalities with what s/he has learned on those innumerable vehicles, and then make a correct diagnosis. I then want that same mechanic to have the technical skills to fix the problem fully the first time and be so confident of the repair that s/he proudly offers a warranty on it. So, I would much prefer someone who served an apprenticeship and has become a journeyman for many diagnosis and repair needs or master for more complex issues. The same is true for every trade: plumbing, heating and air, welding, beauticians, and such. We NEED these folks on a daily basis and we need them to be highly competent in their trade. They don't need a college degree for it. (For more on "higher education" and what it means, see this excellent article from the University of Oxford Institute for the Advancement of University Learning.)

So, the problem of poorly educated students got passed up the ladder to colleges, who have now created courses at the 000 level to deal with lack of math and language skills that many incoming freshmen need before they can start the 100-level courses. But, what happens then? The same memorize-don't think approach from K-12 public school is repeated in many varieties in way too many college courses. Colleges are churning out graduates who do not have a higher education and are not qualified for many of the jobs that now require a college degree. Which brings us to where I started this article.

Companies are now finding they need to train their college-degreed new hires in skills specific to the jobs for which they were hired. I can only hope that the next step in the cycle is to go back to the prior steps in it. 

First, not all jobs will require college degrees. Universities will then return to institutions where not everyone has to attend to assure a secure future so that those attending universities are once again those who aspire to careers in which a truly higher education is required: teachers, scientists, engineers, medical practitioners, and such. 

Administrators in college and K-12 public education can no longer get a degree and then step into such roles with minimal or no service. They will have to actually serve in the classroom as instructors, professors, and teachers for at least 10 years as exemplary practitioners and then rise up in the ranks based on the recognition and support of their fellow faculty. Once there, they must continue to teach in the classroom on a limited but regular basis so they remember what it is like and they can see for themselves the needs and challenges faced by the current crop of students. 

The trades will once again become a highly respected and valued career and training will return to the apprenticeship system. No Child Left Behind will be revoked and the skills and knowledge required of all students at all levels will be taught in ways that best fit the student, the school, and the community. High schools will again have 2 academic tracks: college and trade and the curriculum will be tailored for success in either path. Students leaving high school with a diploma will be highly qualified to pursue an apprenticeship in a trade or to begin what will once again be genuine 100-level coursework at the university level. No matter which path they take, all young people will have the capability to think critically, have confidence in their abilities to do so, be able to creatively pull ideas from a variety of different areas and apply them to a single purpose, and then be able to cogently communicate their ideas and analysis in both written and spoken forms.

Let's not forget the economic impact of this. Many students will not have to attend college and so will not need school loans, which will substantially reduce that economic burden. That will free up more money for young career professionals to support the economy. Fewer college attendees will require less grant and scholarship funding, and so what would be available to these fewer students seeking college educations will increase - this leads to fewer student loan needs. Additionally, that will reduce class sizes in universities, increase the student-to-faculty ratio, thereby improving student educational results, decrease the top-heavy administration and expenses of the university, remove diploma- and grade-inflation problems so rife in education today.

Buried and usually forgotten - Indigenous athletes

Oft forgotten beyond the Indigenous nation of whom they are proud members, we have been proud sporting participants. Here is a quick look at some familiar faces and many not familiar.

• Wa-Tho-Huk (aka Jim Thorpe, Sac and Fox) was the first Indigenous person to win Olympic gold for his home country (U.S.) in the1912 Olympics. He went on to play both professional baseball and football. Wa-Tho-Huk was named as a charter member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and he served as the 1st president of APFA (now NFL).
• Makata Taka Hela (aka Billy Mills, Oglala Lakota) upset the heavy favorite to win the 1964 Olympic gold medal in 10,000 m race. Many consider his victory to be one of the greatest Olympic upsets in history.
• Two First Nations runners have won the Boston Marathon: Cogwagee, (aka Tom Longboat, Onondaga) in 1907 and Deerfoot (aka Ellison “Tarzan” Brown, Narragansett) in 1936 and 1939. Cogwagee then represented Canada in the 1908 Olympics. Deerfoot represented the U.S. in the 1936 Olympics.
• Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Northern Cheyenne) was the captain of 1964 U.S. Olympic judo team and served as U.S. Senator from Colorado 1993-2005.
• In the 2016 Rio games, golfer Rickie Fowler (Navajo) played for the U.S. where Lumbee gymnast Ashton Locklear served as an alternate.
• The 2018 Canadian Olympics team had four representatives from First Nations’ communities: men’s skier Jesse Cockney (Inuvialuk), women’s snowboarder Spencer O’Brien (Kwakwaka’wakw), women's hockey player Brigette Lacquette (Métis) and men’s hockey player René Bourque (Métis). The Canadian women's hockey team won silver medals, and the men's team won bronze.

Why is it so common for us to be overlooked and presumed extinct?  Why, too, is it okay for athletic teams to choose offensive Indigenous mascots when there are professional Indigenous athletes playing the same sports?