Saturday, June 4, 2016


1969
I always loved this surprising version of the song. Gayle really knew when and how to scream. My jaw dropped, back then.


1961
I really love some of the so-called "girl group" hits, including this one. I love the spare production. The cheesy organ break is perfection.


1998
Chrissie Hynde is a marvelous singer, and she shows some of her stuff on this rendition of the song, with Burt ticklin' the ivories in the background. (I love Adele, but her 2008 version is somehow far inferior.)

Friday, June 3, 2016

Weighing For-Profits' Access to Military Bases (Inside Higher Ed)

June 3, 2016
By
Ashley A. Smith

     Nine states are now opposing an amendment the U.S. Congress is considering that would open up for-profit colleges' access to military bases.
     The amendment, proposed by West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, in the U.S. Senate's version of the National Defense Authorization Act would expand for-profits' opportunities to recruit and advise students on bases. Critics say the amendment also would undercut a U.S. Department of Defense memorandum of understanding that defines which institutions are allowed on bases.
     For example, in a statement released Thursday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said, "Predatory schemes targeting veterans are unconscionable. The proposed amendment would weaken current rules intended to protect our service members and harm veterans by making them vulnerable to fraud and exploitation. We must protect our nation's veterans and service members from predators who would exploit them for their educational benefits."
     Harris and the attorneys general from Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania have now joined more than 20 military and veterans' groups and some Senate Democrats in opposing the amendment.
. . .
     The American Public University System, a for-profit based in Manchin's home state of West Virginia, which operates the online-based American Military University and American Public University, has a sizable population of service-member students, and could benefit from the access….




w/ Esmé Patterson

One year ago

The IVC guide to insulting the IVC community
     We are hoping [you] might recommend a UCI faculty member who would help us EDIT or [sic] IVC STYLE GUIDELINES = we are interested in paying your faculty member a stipend for this project.
     Thanks so much! 
     Diane

Monday, May 30, 2016

The Engaging Mr. Roquemore? (Faculty champions on campus!)

     Recently, I found a curious article in the “Lesson on Leadership” portion of the February/March 2016 issue of the Community College Journal. In Building Engagement for the college of the future, our own Glenn Roquemore crows about his/our success in developing ATEP, against all odds.
     The article is a bit odd, given that, to date, little has been accomplished at the "Advanced Technical and Education Park." There's money for the first of two major buildings, and planning and construction is going forward. That building will house IVC programs. The next building, of equal size, will house Saddleback College programs. (See HERE for the last word on what these colleges are planning.)
     As the article's title suggests, Roquemore's main point is that, in the course of developing the allegedly wondrous ATEP, stakeholder “engagement” has been sought and achieved. —"Especially faculty" engagement.
     Really?
The excitement is palpable
     Especially during those years (1996-2010) when Mathur and his crowd ran things at the district, faculty complained bitterly that they were left out of the ATEP planning loop, despite the law that gives authority to faculty in the planning and development of educational programs. After Mathur's departure, matters have improved on this score, but not nearly enough. From my perspective as a long-time member of the IVC Academic Senate, recent years seem to have been more about a turf war (over ATEP, between IVC's Roquemore and SC's Tod Burnett) than about anything else. Very little if any planning of the proposed ATEP programs has been accomplished thus far.
     It seems to me that Rocky is crowing about progress that hasn't actually occurred. And whatever progress has occurred has occurred essentially without faculty at the table.
     We've grown used to that sort of thing at IVC.
     Let us know what you think.
     An excerpt:

Just who are these "faculty champions"?
What the two colleges promise...er, plan.
Hey Saddlebackians: $2.75 is about the price of a good cup of coffee. What gives?


Also: we keep hearing that Tod's ass is grass.
Anybody know anything?
If so, who'll take his place?

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Rocky (the red nosed college prez) supports Irvine school bond measure

Right-winged Glenn
     As you may know, the Irvine Unified School District has placed a measure on the June ballot, asking voters to approve a bond measure to improve “aging school facilities.” It's called Measure E. Clever, that.
     Back in March (3/2/16), the OC Reg reported:
     The Irvine Unified School District will ask voters in June to approve a facilities bond measure that would raise money to improve aging school facilities.
     The school board on Tuesday unanimously approved the formation of a school facilities improvement district encompassing 28 campuses and said it would seek $319 million in bond revenue to those schools.
     Only voters within the district will get to cast a vote on the measure – and only campuses within it will get funds for improvements.
     Residential and commercial property owners would pay a yearly tax of $29 per $100,000 of assessed value if the measure is approved. At least 55 percent of voters would need to be in favor….
     Sounds good to me.
     You can read all about Irvine’s Measure E at the OC Registrar of Voters website. Or click here. Or, at the ocvoter.com website, search under “measure e Irvine.”
     According to the Registrar, the usual suspects favor Measure E:
Supporters:
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure: 
Mark Warschauer, Professor & Interim Dean, UCI School of Education
Paul A. Bokota, IUSD School Board President
Gavin Huntley-Fenner, Business Owner
Connie Stone, Irvine Unified PTA President
Cyril Yu, IUSD Finance Comittee/Deputy District Attorney
G. Rick Marshall
     Who opposes E? No surprises there. G. Rick Marshall, Chief Financial Officer, California Taxpayers Action Network, provides the “con” arguments on the ballot. He's the Howard Jarvis type, Christian division.
     These “pro” and “con” arguments have rebuttals, too, you know.
     And get this. Among the signatories of the rebuttal to Marshall's “con” argument (that is, among the pro-E crowd) is none other than Glenn R. [the "R" is for "Republican"] Roquemore, President of Irvine Valley College and inveterate Neander of Thals.


     Golly. Next, we'll be reading that ol' Glenn is feelin' the Bern!
     Are you, Glenn?
* * *
     There'll be an Organizing Rally with National Bernie Staff on Wednesday, June 1ˢᵗ in Irvine.



If,
If I,
If I ever wander on by
Could,
Could you,
Flag me down and beg me to
Drop what I'm doing and sit beside you

8-14: do you regret all the lying?

✅ Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility to Be Vice President NYT ✅ Orange County Sees Overall Coronavirus...

Goals and Values and Twaddle

blather: long-winded talk with no real substance*
The whole concept of MSLOs [measurable student learning outcomes] as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited fad of the '90's, Total Quality Management, or TQM. Essentially, the ACCJC adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement.... After repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective, none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC [accreditors]. Prior to large scale imposition of such a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because there is none….
The Accountability Game…., Leon F. Marzillier (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October, 2002)
In the summer of ’13, I offered a critique of the awkward verbiage by which the district and colleges explain their values, goals, and objectives —aka SOCCCD'S G&V (goals and values) blather.
I wrote a post each for the district, Saddleback College, and Irvine Valley College efforts. (See the links below.)
This verbiage—stated in terms of “values,” “missions,” “goals,” “visions,” and whatnot—is often badly written. It is sometimes embarrassingly trite.
It occasionally communicates something worthwhile.
No doubt you are familiar with the usual objections to jargon. Higher education, too, has its jargon—an irony, given typical college-level instruction in writing, which urges jargon eschewery.
Sure enough, SOCCCD G&V blather is riddled with jargon and with terms misused and abused. For instance, in the case of the district’s dubious blather, the so-called “vision” is actually a purpose. Why didn't they just call it that?
As one slogs through this prattle, one finds that "visions" tend to be awfully similar to “missions,” with which they are distinguished. The latter in turn are awfully similar to “goals,” which must be distinguished from “objectives.” But aren't goals and objectives pretty much the same thing?
These perverse word games will surely perplex or annoy anyone armed with a command of the English language. In fact, readers will be perplexed to the degree that they are thus armed. Illiterates, of course, will be untroubled.
Here's a simple point: the district and colleges’ G&V blather tends to eschew good, plain English in favor of technical terms and trendy words and phrases (i.e., it tends to be bullshitty and vague). Thus, one encounters such trendy terminological turds as “dynamic,” “diversity,” “student success,” and “student-centered.” Even meretricious neologisms such as ISLOs and “persistence rates” pop up, unexplained, undefended.
Does anyone see a transparency problem with all of this? Shouldn't the public, or at least the well educated public, be able to comprehend statements of the colleges' goals and values?
In the case of the district, to its credit, all it really seems to want to say is that it wants to teach well and it wants students to succeed. Admirable!
So why all the ugly, common-sense defying, buzzword-encrusted claptrap?

Districtular poppycock: our “vision” and our “mission” and our tolerance of twaddle - July 31, 2013

THEY BUZZ: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" - August 4, 2013

IVC’s vision, mission, and goals: nonsense on stilts - August 5, 2013

THE IRVINE VALLEY CHRONICLES: no ideas, just clichés & buzzwords - Sep 30, 2013

*From my Apple laptop's dictionary