August meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees: "Golly, the climate is improving!"

     (Please see Tere's Board Meeting Highlights)
     5:30 - Welcome to the August meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. The meeting hasn't started yet, but it looks like it will commence presently.
     While I've got a moment, I should mention a couple of things. First, one wonders (or at least I do) if the board will ever comment on the recently revealed "climate survey" results (See here and here). The survey measured employees' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the district and the college operations. It revealed expected and significant levels of dissatisfaction with some top IVC leadership, HR, etc.
     5:35 It looks like the meeting is about to start. Yep.
     Clerk reads out actions taken in closed session: 6/0 vote, Jay absent, approved unpaid leave, custodian. That's it.
     Trustee James Wright: does the invocation: "Our Father, who art in heaven....amen." —Really. Then a moment of silence.
      (Good Lord. Don't these people have any respect for that very real constituency that is offended by these manifestly Christian prayers? How clueless can you get?)

     ADDRESSING THE BOARD. Two requests to speak. Chris H and Heather P (re anti-smoking, anti-tobacco initiative).
     First Chris, Director of Health and Wellness, IVC. Park (former student trustee) joins her: changes with regarding to smoking on campus. These two have been pursuing further restrictions. Need zones without smoke. Student Government and others joined a workgroup re this matter. Tobacco free vs. smoke free. E-cigarettes not considered smoke. Chewing tobacco, etc. (I think they want to restrict the latter as well.)
     CIG BUTTS. Chris is interrupted: you're taking more than 2 minutes. Park says she's giving over her two minutes to Chris. Heather holds up graphic re picking up cigarette buts (6,997 of 'em) in one hour at IVC. CSUs and UCs are ahead of us on this. Need to be smoke free, tobacco free.
     Chris says she'll be retiring in about a week, hoped that policy would be in place by then....

Board reports:

      Tim Jemal: participated in summit re future of ATEP and buildup of "college of the future." We have a lot of work to do. Looking forward to next steps. Hope to get more participation from stakeholders. Enjoyed Chancellor's opening session. Bramucci's presentation: enjoyed it. Breakfast with Todd B at Saddleback College.
     Marcia Milchiker: couldn't attend any inservice this time. You can find a great deal of the flex week info online. Informative presentations. You can find the district climate report online. "Things have improved incredibly in our district."
     Great, I write a challenge to the board to notice the climate survey, and this is all that Marcia gets out of it? GOOD GRIEF.
     TJ Prendergast: no report
     Nancy Padberg: went to Las Lomas Park event, Chancellor's opening session, faculty union event.
     James Wright: always enjoy inservice. Attended Monday President's breakfast at IVC. Very well done. Handouts: new employees, etc. Tuesday: Chancellor's opening session. One of the best I've been to. "Very well done." Faculty Association luncheon. Don Taylor event. Other sessions, handouts. IVC's agreement with CSUF. Helps prepare student...lower division requirements...transfer to CSUF. Picture in paper on Friday: campus expansion. Photo with Susan Cooper, Roquemore, Burnett.
     Dave Lang: couldn't attend inservice events. Lang and wife traveled down Mekong River, etc. Saddleback College is host to "a number of Vietnamese students." Cal V-Tech. Office in Saigon. Lang is big proponent of study abroad programs. Best wishes to our students and new and returning faculty.
     Student Trustee D. Robinson. Seems to support the no-smoke, no-tobacco initiative.

     Chancellor Gary Poertner: change is coming. Expectation of improvement at state and federal level. Sentiment of most of the nation. Need to improve our competencies. Over the weekend: President's speech about improvement of higher education. Discussed high cost or higher ed. Noted that the increase in costs over 30 years (public colleges), 250%. Median family income had gone up only 16%. And so rising cost way out of balance. He also wants to develop metrics of college performance, etc. In Cal, we already have such things. Awarding credit based on competency, not seat time. Discussed barriers to innovation and competition. We'll hear more and more about these ideas. I strongly feel that our faculty and other employees need to be involved in shaping the coming change. We don't want to stand by, we want to participate. (See Chancellor's Opening Session.)

     IVC's Pres. Roquemore: one topic: student success task force. Recommendations. American Ass. of Community Colleges convened blah blah blah. Series of recommendations. Holds up report, meaninglessly. A "call to action." Thanks to Academic Senate for spearheading "our call to action." (This is a document the senate semi-reluctantly composed declaring our commitment to loveliness and justice or something. We kept wondering what it was for, whether we should participate in such pure politicking.) He has a copy of that, too. It's framed. Reads the dang thing. Signed by Poertner, Padberg, Schmeidler, et al. He's actually framed these danged things and hands them out to Poertner and Padberg.
     What horseshit.

     Saddleback's Pres. Burnett: things went well with first week of classes. Demand is very high. Student seem to be better prepared. Thanks for making it to Flex Week, board members. Saddleback just launched new campaign for drug and alcohol prevention/intervention. Helping students with those problems. We're very excited about that.

     Board requests for reports: none.

     Consent Calendar: Padberg: 5.5, 5.10, 5.11, 5.15, 5.12 pulled. Unanimous.

Discussion of "pulled" items:

     5.5. D Fitzsimmons address this (ATEP amendment for real estate services). She explains. Dry as dirt. "Logical and protective," says Nancy. moved, seconded. Unanimous.

     5.10 -- will do presentation later

     5.12. Inspection services. Lang: blah, blah, blah. Brandye comes up to clarify some language. Adds something. Unanimous approval.

     5.15. Payment to absent trustee. Wright wanted to abstain since he's the beneficiary. Unanimous.

     D. Fitzsimmons now comes up to present re 6.4, 5.10 and 5.11.
     All relate to fiscal accountability. We've discussed this in April. Non payroll vender checks.  Blah blah blah. (Some sound gremlins compete with Fitz.) She goes on: pretty dry stuff.
     ...She's still yammering about this. Good grief. I'm sure it's important, but I have no idea what this is about. --She's done!
     Lang has some questions. I understand the benefits of (whatever is proposed). No additional personnel costs. Any hidden costs that we should be aware of? Additional audit procedures? Additional insurance costs, bonding? Fitz nods--"That is correct." (I.e., no extra costs) Lang: will there be mission creep here? Will we be going to independence, taking over all these functions, going in-house? Fitz: I don't see this happening. At this point in time, we get services without paying for them. Lang: what other districts are "fiscally accountable"? How many in state "fiscally independent"? Fitz: don't have a count. Etc.
     Wright: how does your staff feel about this change? F: they support it.
     Vote: unanimous.

5.11. Dispersing officer, blah blah blah. They vote: unanimous.
6.4.  They vote: unanimous (for review and study)

Next, GENERAL ACTION ITEMS.

     6.1 Adopted budget for fiscal year 2013-14. Fitz and partner come up, present. Again, this is pretty dry. I am falling into a coma. Goodbye now..... Board Philosophy: after the word "student": "in accordance with the district mission statement" (to be inserted). That's the change, recommended by Accreds.
     Turn to page 11. Flow chart. Blah, blah, blah. Total all funds: $598.3 Million
     Reviews some changes.
     Salary and benefit changes. State COLA of 1.57% added to salary schedules for faculty, classified, POA, administrators and mangers.
     Blah, blah, blah
     Got unexpected funds re instructional equipment and scheduled maintenance funds. ($560,000, I think).
     Basic Aid funds. We allocated $56 million. 3.8 million unallocated.
     We use conservative projections, basic aid (property values).
     Blah, blah, blah.
     Income is not increasing as quickly as costs. A challenge. Any questions?

     Jemal: for SC 86%, IVC 89% District 84.5% (of budget for salaries and benefits).
     Fitz: yes. But it depends on how you do the calculation.
     Jemal: where should we be? What is the fiscally prudent number? F: we're where we should be right now.
     Any other questions? No.
     Approval: unanimous

6.2 - Student Government budget

     Saddleback College. Students Sabahi and Stephens come to the podium. Presents the usual charts, etc. They read their presentation. (I'm looking at chart. The amount for 2012-13 adopted budget is much higher than adopted 2013-14 budget: $630,000 to $476,000. Don't know what that's about.)
     "Changes are inevitable." Some changes from tentative in June. Lowest ending balance on record. Very little rollover. Significant source: guaranteed revenue: coffee cart, cafeteria, bookstore, etc. $61,000 reduction, bookstore revenue. (One-time amount last year.) Blah, blah, blah. "We can all do more with less."
     "High level of scholarship support in relation to our budget." Partnership with SC Foundation: matchup funds. 50% increase in scholarships!
     It all sounds good. Impressive.
     Any questions? None.
     Padberg: "I guess you did a perfect job!"

     Irvine Valley College. Helen Locke, Dir., student affairs, comes up. Turns it over to student government dude. Ji Chong?
     2012-13 adopted budget $472k. 13-14 adopted budget $526.
     Blah, blah, blah. Pretty dry stuff. Again, reads presentation. A bit monotone, boring.
     Will take questions. No questions.
     Padberg: "very good, excellent job."
     Vote: unanimous approval.

6.3 Furniture purchases, $802,000. New Life Sciences building. Brandye D presents.
     Any questions? None. Something we're doing with County of Riverside.
     Vote: unanimous

6.4 - done
6.5 - board policies, approval. Vote: unanimous.
6.6 - Software contract with Neudesic. Bramucci presents. $1.84 million. (Gremlin in sound system.) Student success dashboard project. Have Neudesic reps here today. Woman stands up in back.  Vote: unanimous.

     6.7 COLA. "Approve 1.57% increase in salary schedules for Faculty Association," et al.
Prendergast: we pretty much have to vote yes, since we arrived at agreement, etc. Vote: unanimous.

     6.8 Academic personnel Actions. Approved.
     6.9 Classified personnel actions. Minor change made. Approved.
     Lang makes a point about applying earlier action to.... "in accordance with the district's mission statement." Added to item #3. Lang: did we formally incorporate that language? No. So let's do that for this budget item. "Maximize...opportunities for students, in accordance...." Vote: unanimous.
     6.10 Approved, not unanimously. One no vote, Wright.

REPORTS

7.1 Outside speakers. (No questions.)
7.2 Basic aid reports.
7.3 Facilities plan status report.
7.4 ... 7.5 ... 7.6 ... 7.7

8.0 - reports from governance groups.

     Saddleback College Academic Senate: Blah, blah, blah.
     Faculty Association: blah blah blah
     IVC Ac. Senate: Schmeidler. Refers to Chris H's exemplary service. Great flex week, etc. Classes started and we're very full. Increased student attendance, participation on committees.
Peebles: blah blah blah Aug 9, district and Tustin finished land agreement. Says usual things about that: press release. "Long endeavor." Discusses demolition--presumably at ATEP. Lots of new progress out there.
     Bramucci: no report.
     Bugay: Kathy S and Lewis L and Bugay worked as a team. Enjoyed working with them. Bugay will be on panel to discuss recent actions against SF.
     Fitz: student reps did good job tonight.
     Etc.

South County 73rd AD Melee Attracts a Democrat: Prof. Wendy Gabriella, Esq. (OJ Blog)
     I wish her well.

Wendy Gabriella

Well, yeah

Obama Singles Out For-Profit Colleges and Law Schools for Criticism (Chronicle of Higher Education)
Excerpt:

     At some for-profit colleges, students are "loaded down with enormous debt," said Mr. Obama, speaking at a Binghamton University town-hall event. "They can't find a job. They default. The taxpayer ends up holding the bag. Their credit is ruined, and the for-profit institution is making out like a bandit. That's a problem."
     Mr. Obama, who has tended to leave direct public criticism of for-profit-college abuses to others in his administration, also cited his concern over the treatment of military veterans and service members. "They've been preyed upon very badly by some of these for-profit institutions," he said, adding that a special task force now exists "to look out for members of the armed forces who were being manipulated."

Making sense of the RG Group's curious report

"We believe it is the failure of the field [of educational research] to develop … a [scientific culture] and to forge consensus on such matters as research quality and coordination of perspectives that has contributed to an environment in which members of Congress are compelled to impose them."

—Feuer, Towne, and Shavelson

1  Not as advertised
     I’ve been thinking about yesterday’s post, which examined—and ridiculed—a recent report, by the RP Group, entitled What students say they need to succeed – Key themes from a study of student support.
     Evidently, it is being passed around as an important tool (data!) within the CC system for improving student success (completion, persistence, etc.).
     Much verbiage in and about the report, including its title, implies that it reveals, in particular, “what students say they need”—that it’s essentially a survey of student opinion.

     (Naturally, one wonders why we would focus on student opinion about their needs. It isn't obvious that they are the best judges of that. This focus seems to suggest that the road to success for the CCs is "giving students what they want." If that's the road we're on, we're in big trouble.)

     One might suppose, therefore, that the RP people found some students and tried to derive from them their views about what helps them (or what would help them) succeed in completing their studies in college.
     But that’s not quite what happened in this study. The students weren’t provided a blank slate and asked to fill it. No, they were given six success factors—“directed,” “focused,” “nurtured,” “engaged,” “connected,” and “valued” (DFNEC&V for short)—and were asked essentially to rank these six (or otherwise opine about them) as “contributors” to “achievement.”
     These “factors” were evidently gleaned from a “review” of the relevant research literature, such as it is.*
     And so this “study” is more theory-laden than one might at first think. It’s not quite the survey of student opinion that it is advertised to be. (Is that a good thing? Not necessarily.)

Those odd bromidular emissions

2 What causes what?
     Today, I made a brief effort to understand this theory, but that only puzzled me further. As we’ve seen, the RP Group seems to say that research reveals DFNEC&V to cause success. But in a shaded section of the report entitled “Defining the “Six Success Factors” (page 6), we’re told that

     A growing body of evidence indicates that strategic supports … can increase students’ abilities to achieve completion and transfer. … The RPGroup’s review of leading studies on student support found that effective support … helps students become [directed, focused, nurtured, engaged, connected, & valued].

     Did you get that last part? “Effective support…helps students become” directed, focused, etc. That is, “effective support” yields (causes) students achieving the six “success factors.”
     (Or perhaps they mean to say that effective support is support that makes students DFNEC&V. Is that what they mean? If so, then they're saying that DFNEC&V causes success.)
     But aren’t these “factors” supposed to cause success? But, here, they are effects, not causes.
     So maybe it’s like this: the “Effective support” brings about DFNEC&V, and DFNEC&V brings about success. Sheesh, I dunno. I’m lost.

Minority report

     Elsewhere, the RP Group, discussing the “research,” assert that it “demonstrates that students are more likely to succeed when they are directed, focused, nurtured, engaged, connected and valued.” The causal claim being made here seems to be: let’s make sure that students are “directed” (etc.) because that will help them become successful. That is, “the factors” cause the success.
     So now I’m confused. Are we supposed to embrace the aforementioned “effective support” in order to have students that are DFNEC&V? Or are we supposed to bring about DFNEC&V in order to cause student success? Is it both?
      Evidently, the “effective support” is something other than (because it causes) DFNEC&V. Just what is it then?
     *And, again, one big question here is: what is the quality of this research regarding "effective support"? (See Re the quality of research in education.) Studies, I suppose. Did these studies involve large or small numbers of students? Were results replicated? Inquiring minds want to know.
     As you may know, in recent years, the issue of study/research quality (low quality and fraud) has roiled the scientific (let alone the education/pseudoscientific) community.
     SEE False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research (Guardian UK) and Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries (Scientometrics) and Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science (Guardian UK)

SEE ALSO EdDreck: the so-called experts

The odd bromidular emissions of community college “experts”

From "What students say they need."

 "We accept the diagnosis that a self-regulating professional community does not exist in education."

—Feuer, Towne, and Shavelson†

     I love my cat Teddy, but sometimes I wonder if I’m doing a good job taking care of the boy. What are his needs? Am I satisfying them?
     I decided to get scientific and just ask him what he needs. I mean, science is about cutting to the chase, isn’t it? And who would know better about Teddy’s needs than the Tedster himself?
     That's logic!
     So I went right up to Teddy and asked, “What do you need, Teddy?”
     Naturally, he said nothing. That’s ‘cause he doesn’t speak my lingo. Adjustments were in order.
     To make a long story short, I started to listen to what Teddy was telling me in cat, and it’s clear—from his consistent felocutions—that he is plainly of the opinion that he needs constant food and play and brushing.
     If you want his opinion, anyway, those are the things he needs.
     Hence, those are the things he needs. Now, I'm feeding him all the time, playing with him all the time, and brushing him all the time. Sheesh.

Teddy

     THE LOGICAL LEAP. I know what you’re thinking. “Hey,” you’re thinking, “that’s not scientific or logical! You’re assuming that Teddy knows what he needs, or at least that his opinion about what he needs is relevant to a determination of what he actually needs! How can you justify the logical leap from ‘he wants X’ to ‘he needs X’?”

     BEHOLD THE EXPERTS. Well, gosh, I think I’ve got an answer for you. Essentially, it's an appeal to The Experts. The community college Experts. And such fine Experts they are.
     As you know, officials and hired experts in the state community college system are paragons of scientific competence and integrity. It's well known. I mean, they’re all about data and evidence, man. Don’t you doubt it, cuz they throw those words around constantly.
     So if they do something, it's ipso facto scientific.
     And, as it turns out, the Experts just did a study that’s a lot like mine! The name of the study report is: What students say they need to succeed – Key themes from a study of student support.
     Let’s call it the “STN” study (for “say they need”). Check it out! It's official!

It can't be stopped. Resistance is futile.

     WE'RE JUST SAYIN'. At first, the title mystified me. Why should we care what students say they need? We want to know what they need, right? Why assume that the students know what they need? Prima facie, it would seem more reasonable to assume that they don't.
     On the other hand, the second part of the title emphasizes, not what students say they need, but what students need. It is, after all, “a study of student support” not a study of “what students think or say they need for support.”
     It's a report motif: switching from "what students need" to "what students tell us they need" and back again. Plus a persistent delightful obliviousness to this phenomenon as any sort of problem!

     THE EXPERTS EXPLAIN. Here’s how the RP Group—the clever bastards who conducted the study—explain their study:

…[W]e gathered students’ feedback on what generally supports their educational progress as well as their perspectives on the relevance and importance of “six success factors” to their achievement. We derived these success factors based on a review of existing research on effective support practices and interviews with practitioners and researchers.

     Here’s what I get out of this particular cluster of words:

• They zeroed in on some students, 900 of 'em.
• They got the students’ feedback on what “supports their educational progress.”
• They also got the students’ “perspectives” (their ranking, I guess) on the importance of each of the “six success factors.”*

     Just what are these "factors"? And where did they come from?
     Answer:

• They consulted the available research on “effective support practices.” [Gosh, I wonder if they asked themselves about the quality of this research? (See Re the quality of research in education.) Is that an uncivil question? I bet it is.]
• They interviewed the researchers and “practitioners” (teachers?).

     But wait! Presumably, the STN study seeks to identify ways to give students what they need. Or do the RP folks really care, not about that, but about what students “think” or “say” that they need?
     Gosh, that would be odd.
     But since these success “factors” are supposedly research- and practioner-based, and since RP didn’t ask the students whether these six factors are true factors (they only asked them to rank them, I guess; the factors as genuine factors were a given), it appears that this whole study presupposes a big chunk of [alleged] knowledge of what supports success and what doesn’t.
     So this isn’t a study to find out what students need after all. We already know that, evidently (namely, the six “factors”). It’s a study to find out what students think of these allegedly proven factors—i.e., how they rank them!
     But of course!
     Gosh, "science" sure can be deep. And puzzling. (Or maybe just fucked up.)
     So, already, I see that I made a mistake in my own study re Teddy. I shouldn’t fret about the link between what Teddy thinks he needs and what he in fact needs. Gosh, no—plus I already know what Teddy needs just by hanging around. I should just consult my inner genius whilst engaging in pseudo-research, sitting in my armchair, recalling buzzwords.
     The only thing to do now is to determine Teddy’s opinion of my list of Teddy’s needs. Yep.

     SUCCESS FACTORS. Let’s return to STN. Just what are these “success factors” that have been gleaned from research? Here’s the list ranked by the students:

• Directed: students have a goal and know how to achieve it
• Focused: students stay on track—keeping their eyes on the prize
• Nurtured: students feel somebody wants and helps them to succeed
• Engaged: students actively participate in class and extracurricular activities
• Connected: students feel like they are part of the college community
• Valued: students’ skills, talents, abilities and experiences are recognized; they have opportunities to contribute on campus and feel their contributions are appreciated

From RP Group's website:
the wheel of need

     (When I first encountered this list—presented with hoopla during a Flex session about a week ago—I thought the speaker was kidding. But no! My manifest incredulity notwithstanding, everybody nodded and stared. Seemingly awestruck, they beheld these curious profundities, strewn across a whiteboard in the dark. "Guess so," I thought.
     (Still, I was puzzled. "How," I asked myself, "can 'directed' by a factor? I guess they mean to say that a student's being directed contributes to success. Oh. They found that to be true whilst doing empirical research, did they?")
     So I gather that, based on research and practitioner advice, we know that, to help students, we need to make sure they’re directed, focused, nurtured, engaged, connected, and valued. (It’s a good thing I’m a trusting soul; I don’t doubt the high quality of research that yielded this list of “factors.” Only a lout would raise questions of quality!)
     (And isn’t it amazing how closely this list resembles the list certain people might pull out of their asses, sitting and thinking in their armchairs?)
     So here’s the news bulletin: our students ranked these research-identified factors. Yes! They put “directed” on top and “valued” on the bottom. Wow. Thank you, RP Group. A good day's work!

     ACHIEVING SUCCESS FACTORS AT SCALE. Let’s return to the RP Group’s account of their study:

… During this literature review [their survey of relevant research, I guess], we paid particular attention to the outcomes different strategies and approaches intend to accomplish with students. By exploring what outcomes these practices aim to achieve—rather than simply documenting how structures like learning communities or student success courses are delivered—we intend to begin shifting the conversation away from how to replicate entire programs to how to feasibly achieve these student success factors at scale.

     Here’s what I get out of this:

• Whilst surveying the research, we focused on the intention (goal) per strategy.
• By focusing on these intentions/goals, we intend to shift (completion efforts) in the direction of “how to feasibly achieve” the “success factors at scale.”

     I wonder what these RP folks mean by “strategies”? These darned researchers tend to be abstruse.
     Well, in context, it appears that “strategies” refers to “effective support practices”—those (allegedly) identified as effective by research, I guess.
     So, again, we see that this study presupposes knowledge of what works and what does not work in fostering student success. There are those “success factors,” plus there are the “effective support practices” that, somehow, connect with those factors. (I guess I’m too dumb to understand the connection. Anybody got it? 'Splain it to me, please.)
     So what then is the point of this study? It’s to determine what students think about that list of, um, factors.
     No, that can’t be right. They just said that they want to “shift the conversation” to achieving these “success factors.”
     Gosh, this sure does seem complicated. That’s because “it’s science”!

     ABSTRUSITUDE. Let’s return to the RP Group’s account of their report:

     As California’s community colleges … respond to the state’s Student Success Task Force recommendations, many constituents are considering how student support can be implemented to improve completion. College practitioners, policymakers and advocacy groups are all exploring how to preserve delivery of existing supports, while at the same time, rethink ways to effectively engage more students with the assistance they need to succeed.

     They must be seriously good thinkers, this RP crew. Their language is so technical, so delightfully convoluted! I wish I could be just like them. I think I’ll start by using the phrase “preserving delivery of existing supports” at the next School meeting.
     Now, despite what your college writing instructor told you, it is in fact a good idea to highlight all the good stuff you’ve got to say with italics or something. Use lots of exclamation points and coloring, if you’ve got it.

     BROMIDULAR PUKITUDES. Essentially, that’s just what the RP crew did in their report. Here are all the sentences that they put in bold face. As you read these Bold Remarks, allow the wisdom and sheer bedazzling scientificness therein contained to ooze all over you. Imagine the unfathomably elevated perch necessary to arrive at these penetrating bromidular pukitudes.
     Ready?

• …while many students arrive to college motivated, their drive needs to be continuously stoked and augmented with additional support in order for success to be realized. [I.e., when it becomes clear that college entails sustained discipline and hard work, many students lose interest.]
• …students spoke of their struggles to understand what they needed to do to succeed in college. [I.e., Some students are unprepared for college.]
• These findings imply that colleges should educate students about how to navigate their community college and thrive in this environment. [I.e., colleges must teach their students how to be students.]
• … students described how different factors interacted with each other to contribute to their success. [This is flat bullshit.]
• …they also identified relationships between the factors and noted how experiencing one factor often led to realizing another, or how two factors were inextricably linked to each other. [Good Lord what bullshit.]
• …colleges should consider investing in structures that connect more African-American, Latino and first-generation learners to existing services. [Structures? —Programs.]
• Colleges must find a way to provide a significant proportion of these student groups with comprehensive support—at scale. [Big programs.]
• These findings underscore the importance of colleges promoting a culture where all individuals across the institution understand their role in advancing students’ success. [How 'bout a culture where students do their homework? Promote that.]
• At the same time, students most commonly recognized faculty as having the greatest potential impact on their educational journeys. [Students see that teachers can help guide them. I did not know that.]
• This research indicates that because faculty are at the center of every student’s educational experience, they have a significant opportunity and ability to influence their students’ success not just in, but beyond, their own classroom. [Tell 'em "carpe diem." Follow 'em home and say it again.]
• …now is the time for colleges to redefine support in a way that aligns with what students say they need. [They tell me I'm too hard and demanding, so....]
• We encourage colleges to use the results from this research when reimagining student support and working to advance the completion of all learners. [I'm beginning to feel the urge to break things.]
• The RP Group recommends that the primary ingredient for productive discussions is the inclusion of people who interact with students at all points in their college journey…. [Who writes this shit?]

     I want to know. Do others share my, um, bedazzlement?
     And why do I feel such utter despair?

     †Scientific Culture and Educational Research (Michael J. Feuer, Lisa Towne, and Richard J. Shavelson, 2002)
     *I've long felt that people who insist on using the word "factor" should receive the death penalty.

stuff

8/21/13
• Register launches weekly university sections (OC Reg)
     In a move to dramatically expand its coverage of college campus life, the Orange County Register announced it will begin publishing three weekly, stand-alone sections devoted to UC Irvine, Chapman University and Cal State Fullerton.

• Supervisor Janet Nguyen Drew Scrutiny of the FBI (Voice of OC)
     Federal agents contacted a San Diego County-based contractor and another source close to Orange County government regarding Nguyen late last year.

• Outsourcing Public Higher Ed (Inside Higher Ed)
     California lawmaker wants MOOCs and other online providers to help meet student demand, and will encourage -- and some fear force -- public colleges to accept those credits.

In Defense of a Real Education

In today's New York Times (Yes, Rebel Girl gets the paper delivered to her canyon doorstep.  She's old school, very old school.), Michael Roth (president of Wesleyan University) reviews the new book by Mark Edmundson, professor of English at the University of Virginia—highlighted earlier this week by the editor of this distinguished blog.

She recommends the review and the collection of essays with the title "Why Teach? In Defense of a Real Education" as a good way into the academic year.

What is it now, Day Three of an unprecedented 18 week semester?

Sometimes in her feverish early semester dreamings, Rebel Girl imagines a book club for the college where faculty and staff and administrators read texts like this throughout the year and get together to discuss them monthly in gatherings where tea and wine flows and the food and talk sustain all in ways that truly help what we do here at the little college in the orange groves.  Could we get some FLEX credit for that?

excerpt:

...Much of “Why Teach?” concerns the impediments to this search. Under the guise of practicality, universities and their “customers” now stress that education should provide a return on investment. They speak of excellence and innovation, and what they really mean is money and notoriety. They talk of a well-rounded learning experience, and what they really mean is checking off boxes denoting that you’ve taken required courses that weren’t too challenging. Mr. Edmundson contends that the “corporate university” has abdicated its mission to confront our prejudices and conventions while inspiring our passions and talents.

He fervently advocates for the transformative power of a true education because he experienced it firsthand. In high school, he cared about football and rock ’n’ roll more than about literature until he was stirred by great teaching and “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” “I think that the highest objective for someone trying to provide a literary education to students is to make such moments of transformation possible,” he writes.

This “highest objective” is also extraordinarily fulfilling. “Teachers who have been moved by great works have been moved to pass the gift on,” he says, with a nod to Wordsworth and Coleridge — and to all professors who introduce students to books that have changed their own lives. Art inspires us; teaching changes us.

Mr. Edmundson worries that too many professors have lost the courage of their own passions, depriving their students of the fire of inspiration. Why teach? Because great professors can “crack the shell of convention,” shining a light on a life’s different prospects. They never aim at conversion, only at what Emerson called “aversion” — bucking conformity so as to discover possibility.

To read the rest, click here.

*