Monday, November 28, 2011

That's some survey, that Don Wagner "immigration" survey


     Today, I visited Assemblyman (and former SOCCCD trustee) Don Wagner’s government website: here. I noticed a button: “click here to take our latest survey.”
     So I did. At present, Don has three surveys: Healthcare, Immigration, and Jobs.
     I chose the one on immigration. It asks just four questions:


     Observe that the third and fourth questions of this survey are about how respondents “feel” about things:


      (California's "situation"? That's mighty vague. On the other hand, under the circumstances, I think we can safely assume that Don means the state's fiscal situation, which, of course, is dire.) 

     Whether "illegal immigration is a large contributing factor to" the state's fiscal "situation" and how much (if at all) it contributes to it—these are empirical questions. When confronted with empirical questions, one should make the appropriate observations; one should seek the relevant data. 
     One does not ask for people's opinions.
     Odd.
     Also, Don is asking questions about matters imbedded in a cluster of empirical and non-empirical issues that comprise the illegal immigration issue. (Can the existing pattern and amount of immigration be stopped or thwarted? How can it be? At what cost in other values such as privacy? Is multiculturalism a legitimate value? Is it decent to seek to prevent such phenomena as the gradual dilution of one's "culture"? Etc.) 
     Don distorts the immigration issue by implying that it's essentially about whether illegal immigration is costly.
     And isn't Don asking for people's opinions (about these curiously selective matters) already knowing full well what those opinions are? ("It's a big contributor! It's immense!")
     That's some survey, that Don Wagner "immigration" survey.

That's some catch, that Catch-22

Rant On: "futile, if not cynical wastes of time"


Monday is here and, as promised, Rebel Girl has some reading for you.

Clio Bluestocking, Reb's most recent infatuation, weighs in on her community college experience in "The Nebulous Creature."

Blue writes:
In my years at the community college, I found three insidious concepts that pointed toward the endemic problem of the college. All three were the sort of things that, on the face of it, seem like they could maybe be good ideas; but, when you looked a little beyond the surface, you could see that the ideas were concocted outside of the reality of the institution, of the needs of the institution, and of the needs of everyone associated with the institution, including the students. These three things were outcomes assessment, online instruction, and "completion."
Reb likes it when teachers write about teaching. She finds it refreshing.

As you may remember, late last week, Rebel cited Bluestocking's assessment of SLOs.

In the same post, Blue makes the familiar arguments about online education: "The problem is that the dictum seems to not seriously care if it is done well. The dictum is to serve more students and this is an easy and cheap solution. Doing it well will require more staff and therefore more money."

Regarding "completion," Blue points out that institutions, even though they advise instructors "to have compassion and understand the problems facing students with full-time work, full-time family, and full-time course loads; yet, they do not look at that very fact of the students' lives as an obstacle to advancement. You want completion? Address the real reasons that students don't complete."


But here's where she won Reb's heart:
Who is "they" in my rantings here? Who comes up with these ideas, thinks they are grand, and demands their implementation in the face of overall opposition from the people who have to do the implementing? Well, I wish I knew. Anyone can be part of "they" at any point on any issue, I suppose, but the main "they" is the real, endemic problem of the college where I worked. The endemic problem went above and beyond the college itself to the people who the decision makers at the college seemed to want to serve...

This nebulous creature and its handlers, however, had very very little knowledge of how education works or the purpose of education. Very few people connected to this nebulous creature had any experience in education beyond their last college course; and this nebulous creature had obviously failed itself in its own education because it could not conceive of anything as being useful unless there was a point-to-point correlation between something in a classroom and a specific skill that might be demanded by an employer. Anything going on in the classroom must directly translate into a student's ability to profit and the line had to be direct. Any questioning of the nebulous creature's demands was met with "if we don't do what it wants ourselves, then it will come in and do it for us."

Now, I don't think it is a bad idea to explain how the Humanities are useful to society or even to individuals who are just in college to get a better job. That's most of the students in a c.c. anyway. It is the reason that college is connected to upward mobility. Humanities exposes people to a variety of ideas, expands their way of thinking, hones their analytical skills (or exposes them to the concept of analysis), and requires verbal expression and communication most often in written form. Sometimes this may not seem so obvious as one tries to wade through the causes of the American Civil War or the intricacies of Hamlet.

Sadly, the nebulous creature seemed not particularly interested in those explanations. It understands "business writing" or Elizabeth I, CEO. It understands, "student will be able to demonstrate the ability to use a comma" or "student will be able to identify George Washington." It understands "history" as "dates and facts and wars and politicians who have no connection to anything happening now." It understands "literature" as "that boring shit in which everything meant something when really the white whale was just a whale and who gives a damn anyway?" This nebulous creature is simplistic and does not take into consideration that education is a complex endeavor that is bigger than the numbers that they want to production -- sometimes even more subjective and not apparent for years. It can sometimes be as traumatic as it is enlightening, if done right, which is why it should not be a series of hoops to jump through or numbers to generate in order to do it right.

The biggest problem in the face of this nebulous creature was the way that it was able -- despite its nebulous nature -- to force complete capitulation and compliance, to draw so many into its thrall. I kept asking, as everyone complained about the "outcomes assessment," and online "learning," and "completion" -- at every level in some cases -- "at what point do we just say 'NO'?" Seriously, at what point do we, those of us actually IN the college, say "WE are the professionals here, we actually ARE competent, and we actually DO know what we are doing." When do we -- and I mean faculty, staff, librarians, counselors, administrators, everyone at the college who increasingly sees these measures as futile, if not cynical wastes of time -- when does that we seize control of our own business as professionals?

Indeed, what would happen if we did? What if we said, "we will decide our own 'outcomes' and how best to determine if they are being met," rather than going through the farce of the current system in place at the college? What if we said, "these are the terms on which we will offer and implement online courses in our departments according to our department's needs"? What if we said, "your definition of 'completion' has no meaning at our institution, so here is our varied means of determining 'completion' at our college"? Seriously, what would happen? ...
Rebel Girl has not successfully resisted the urge to quote often and long here. Sigh. Forgive her. She hopes that you will visit Blues' original post here and read it in its entirety. She hopes that you will chime in in the comments section and tell us what you really think.

More later~~~~

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...