The troubling sentiment

I’ve been trying to locate the sappy patriotic video shown by Chancellor Raghu Mathur two weeks ago at his fall opening extravaganza. It presents a series of more-or-less patriotic images—including bald eagles and Americans experiencing hard times—and is accompanied by Lee Greenwood’s execrable “God Bless the USA,” a clumsy, bombastic anthem that seems to be “de Bomb” in Redneckville and environs.

I haven’t located the exact video.

I tried to remember the troublesome sentiment with which the video ends, and it appears that it is the following:

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

That’s right. Jesus Christ. This inarticulate blather ("defining forces" that make "offers"?) is making the rounds among the usual suspects.

"Wildly unbalanced"

TONIGHT, I attended the August (but not august) meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees.

Some faculty came to object to that seriously in-your-face Christian message stuck at the end of the Chancellor’s silly patriotic video for his Opening Session (nearly two weeks ago).

Jesus Christ, we were informed, died for our souls.

Some faculty said that that nakedly Christian message failed to respect the diversity of the community. (This was a highlight, not a lowlight.)

A few minutes later, Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur made a “brief statement.” “It was,” he said, “a diverse chancellor … who was not offended.”

Huh?

I think he was referring to Opening Session guest speaker Michael Drake, Chancellor of UC Irvine. Raghu was saying, I suppose, that Drake did not tell him (Raghu) that he was offended by anything.

Oh.

Fuentes gangster Chriss Street, our county's beclouded Treasurer and Tax Collector, showed up to speak. He had nothing new to say. He gave me a handout.

As you know, in my preview of the board meeting, I noted the odd distribution of “basic aid” bucks among the colleges, according to the Chancellor’s “basic aid priority list.” According to the Chancellor's reckoning, ATEP should get $5 million, Saddleback College should get $8 million, and IVC should get—$650,000.

Evidently, board President Don Wagner had a similar reaction. He found the list to be “wildly unbalanced.”


Essentially, the board decided to put off approval of the list to the next meeting.

Tom Fuentes carped, as usual, about the “high cost” of the study abroad trips, including a trip to Spain. One of ‘em cost $7K, and another cost $6K, I think.

We can send kids to learn Spanish “in our own hemisphere,” he said, harrumphing.

At some point, Fuentes suggested ominously that the college presidents had better come up with some snappy stuff to commemorate 9-11. The sides of his mouth drooped southward hideously, as he leered about the room.

Later, Tom grandly requested a report on the salaries of OC college professors, including a comparison with professor pay in our district. Again, his mouth became hideous. Luckily, there were no children in the room.

Mathur started nodding: “Yes, yes, we’ll have that for you in a month or two.” Heads nodded all around.

Toward the very end of the meeting, a certain faculty leader, apparently referring to this blog, condemned its writing as “inaccurate” and “inflammatory.”

She bemoaned the fact that the “First Amendment protects” such scribblers. “But it does,” she said.

More nodding from the seven elders.

She used to call me, making similar claims. I always assured her that I sought to avoid errors, that I am always glad to correct them. I have done so in the past.

I would ask her, “exactly what is it that we got wrong?”

To date, she has not answered that question.

I am baffled.

Some, it seems, do not see the value of our little publication. They find it neither funny nor enlightening, an ugly thing, unredeemed by any virtue.

What must they think of you, dear reader?

The faculty leader also went out of her way to remark on the three faculty who spoke about the "Jesus Christ" video. These speakers, she said, do not speak for the faculty. Only the academic senate, she said (and, I suppose, the union), speaks for faculty.

As I recall, the three speakers did not claim to speak for all faculty.

On the other hand, not so very long ago, our academic senates passed resolutions to the effect that trustees should cease these public prayers. (See Faculty, students want to ban prayer at college events. See also graphic below.)

Those resolutions expressed essentially the same perspective expressed by these three speakers.

Again, I am baffled.

On Top of Old Smoky

Mount Wilson Observatory boasts the longest recorded history of the sun of any observatory - dating from 1906, two years after its founding in 1904 by George Ellery Hale.

Click here to access the webcam on top of Mount Wilson (elevation: 5,700 feet) and see its unsettling view of the approaching fire.

There hasn't been a fire burn over Mt. Wilson for over a hundred years - today's fire threatens to do just that.

update: Mt. Wilson webcam comes and goes - be patient and try again.

The real problem with distance ed

In this morning’s Inside Higher Ed (Going For Distance), Steve Kolowich debunks some myths about online instruction. For instance, one might think that faculty—especially senior faculty—are really dragging their feet on this kind of “distance ed.” Not so, it seems.

But there is a problem with it, at least according to faculty. It is the lack of support for the extra work involved in using and developing this kind of instruction. That's the clear message of a new study involving over ten thousand faculty.

One of the commissioners involved in the study opined that “The leadership of universities has been trying to understand exactly how [online education] fits into their strategic plans, and what this [study] shows is that faculty are ahead of the institutions in these online goals.”

How so? Well, more than a third of faculty who participated in the study had developed and taught this kind of course, but, they say, they aren't getting adequate support.

I suspect that faculty at our two institutions (Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College) are behind the curve on this. In my experience, senior faculty (including me) have been especially wary of online distance ed. (That's just an impression.)

In truth, research seems to show that, at least for many areas of learning, online instruction works.

Well, whether it is a good thing or not, it is developing all around us. It's a tsunami. Sooner or later, we'll be on board. And it won't be easy:

Almost two-thirds of the faculty said it takes more effort to teach a course online than in a classroom, while 85 percent said more effort is required to develop one. While younger professors seem to have an easier time teaching online than older ones, more than half of respondents from the youngest faculty group agreed it was more time-consuming. Nearly 70 percent of all professors cited the extra effort necessary to develop Web courses as a crucial barrier to teaching online.
…
Given the extra work, more than 60 percent of faculty see inadequate compensation as a barrier to the further development of online courses. “If these rates of participation among faculty are going to continue to grow, institutions will have do a better job acknowledging the additional time and effort on the part of the faculty member,” said Jeff Seaman, co-director of the Babson Survey Research Group and the survey’s lead researcher….

Yeah, when you teach online, you're pretty much on call all of the time. Sheesh.

I can just see the likes of trustee Tom Fuentes grinning over this.

“Let’s make the lazy bastards work for a living,” he’ll say.

And, who knows? Just maybe that hateful fellow will be our next board president.

Won't that be swell?

See also Challenging Microsoft With a New Technology (New York Times).

PART TWO: Has student writing ability declined over time? (YES.)

Two things.

First, when, yesterday, I posted about the increase in writing abilities of American students from 1998 to 2007, for some reason, in my haste, I read “1998” but thought, um, “1970.”

Don’t know why I did that. Getting old, I guess. D'oh!

Had I been aware that we were looking at this recent and puny 8-year span (from '98 to '07), I would not have declared, as I did, that the “Teeth Gnashers” were likely in error (in their view that student writing ability has seriously declined in recent decades).

Second, I briefly researched further and I’ve come across what would appear to be much more relevant data: it tracks student verbal performance from 1967 to 2006. Yes! (It might be the closest thing to definitive data that we are going to find.)

More on that in a minute.

That's the good news. The bad news is that those data tend to support the perspective of the Teeth Gnashers (and undermines the perspective of the "oldsters always be carpin' about youngsters, so forgetaboutit" perspective).

I came across a site called the “Humanities Resource Center Online,” which is “a project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences” (AAAS). That brought me to their Humanities indicators (for charting trends). That, in turn, led me to their data for “primary and secondary education in the Humanities.”

I clicked on “Indicator I-2 Writing Proficiency.”

There, the AAAS states that

NAEP findings are mixed….
…
Twelfth grade performance slipped between 1998 and 2002, with the percentage of students scoring at the basic achievement level or better declining from 79% to the 75% figure mentioned above. In 2002, fewer than one in four soon-to-be high school graduates were assessed as writing at the proficient level or higher. Students scoring at the proficient level demonstrate a grasp of writing skills that are essential for success in most walks of life; these skills include the use of transitional elements and the ability to select language appropriate for the intended audience….

Again, those data concern the brief period between '98 and '02—hardly the basis for conclusions about long-term trends.

But something caught my eye: “Indicator I-5: Performance on SAT Verbal/Critical Reading & Writing Exams.” There, the AAAS states

Although controversy over the SAT [i.e., the "Scholastic Aptitude Test"] persists on a number of fronts, the verbal portion of the SAT (renamed “critical reading” in 2005) is a valuable measure of college-bound seniors’ linguistic skills because the test has been administered for several decades and thus permits comparison over a fairly extended period of time. The SAT data reveal a steep decline between 1967 and the early 1980s in mean verbal scores, followed by a leveling off, with mean scores ranging between approximately 500 and 510 ever since ….

That's right: 2006 "verbal" scores can be compared to 1967 scores. The SAT is an imperfect measure of verbal abilities, but I suspect that it has significant validity. (No doubt some disagree.)

The trend in verbal SAT scores ain't pretty. The AAAS folks present the chart below. Check it out. That's some serious decline, baby.*

Click on image to enlarge

So, I’m back to being a Teeth Gnasher. Bigtime.

*SAT math scores were the same in 2006 as they were in 1967, although these scores dipped precipitously in the 80s and then rebounded.

Tomorrow’s board meeting: rode hard and put up wet

Hey, it’s time for another meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, starring Don Wagner and featuring Tom “sourpuss” Fuentes. —Monday night, same time (6:00 p.m.), same place (the “Ronald Reagan” room). (The agenda, a large pdf, is available here.)

As you know, board president Wagner has announced his intention to run for State Assembly, and so it seems unlikely that he’ll remain at the helm of the good ship Agitprop starting December (just 3 or 4 months away).

So, who’s gonna replace him?

Maybe Tom Fuentes?!

We keep hearing, mostly from trustees themselves, that the board is a group of unhappy campers these days, divided by—well, I dunno. For her invocation in July, given only minutes after the board’s closed session, trustee Marcia Milchiker alluded to the need for civility, but since everyone in the audience was genial to the point of comatositude, it seemed clear that she was referring to rank trusteecular kerfufflery.

Don Wagner has made similar allusions.

Kerfufflery? What about? I’ve been studying Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur’s lower lip-language. Judging by that and the perpetually rosy, red glow of his ass, it seems clear that he spends half of his time in the woodshed.

So, just maybe, tomorrow’s board meeting will be interesting. But I wouldn't bet on it.

CLOSED SESSION:

First, the board will hold a brief closed session, starting at 5:00 p.m. As usual, one agenda item refers to possible litigation.

For once, I looked up the section of the code to which the item refers (54956.9). That part of the code concerns legislative bodies (e.g., a board of trustees) and the appropriateness of meeting in closed session concerning “pending litigation.” (“3 cases” are involved, says the agenda.)

The specific parts of the code referred to in the item are:

…[L]itigation shall be considered pending when any of the following circumstances exist: … (b) (1) A point has been reached where, …, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.
…
(3) (A) Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed. [My emphasis.]

Well, whatever. (Republicans, of course, will recognize a fine business opportunity.)

OPEN SESSION:

The open session “reconvenes” at 6:00 p.m.

Early in the open meeting agenda, mention is made of a trustee request for a “report on Salaries of College Professors in Orange County.”

That’s gotta be our old friend Tom. He hates educators, y’know. He thinks they're lazy and wicked.

The “discussion item” for the evening will be each campus’s “strategic planning process.”

Among “consent calendar” items (that, therefore, likely will not be discussed by trustees) is a study abroad trip to Salamanca, Spain. No word yet whether Tom plans to pull the plug owing to some new Spanish treachery.

Looks like the board will approve an agreement between Saddleback College and “Lake Forest Beauty College.” Have you seen the people of Lake Forest? Most of ‘em look like they've been “rode hard and put up wet”—to use an expression my friend Marion used last night.

She’s from Texas. I asked her, hopefully, whether there’s any chance her state will secede soon.

She was not amused. She gave me the South Texas stink-eye.

As usual, the board will approve payment to a trustee who missed a meeting. They never discuss these freebies. They just approve ‘em. That's 'cause they're "fiscally responsible" Republicans, every one of 'em. Very staunch.

“General” action items include approval of final budgets for the district and the two student governments. That could get wacky, but it's more likely to get snoozy.


Item 6.2 is approval of the “basic aid project priority list” for 2009-10. It’s a significant agenda item.

ATEP (the Tustin campus) will get $5.5 million, including $2 million for “Negotiations,” $1 million for “development,” and $2.5 million for ATEP’s “operating budget.”

District IT projects will get $5 million.

Saddleback College will get $8 million, including $5 million for ventilation system upgrades, $1.5 million for “pool deck replacement,” and $1.5 million for “roof replacement.”

IVC will get a paltry $650,000—that's 8% of what its sister college gets—including 240K for various publications, 150K for “new signage and monuments,” 150K for parking lot repair, 90K “A200 & B200 secondary effects and library copy center,” and 20K for “landscape replanting.”

Including a few more odds and ends, it all adds up to about $22 million.

Gosh, IVC seems to be on somebody's shit list.

There’s the usual slew of new and improved board policies, including BP-4011.3, “Weapons on Campus.”


It is my understanding the Police Chief Harry Parmer is finally gonna get that M2 Browning machine gun that he loves so much. It’ll be installed in a fine nest atop the Ronald Reagan Room. (Well, no. But it is a cool weapon.)

Item 6.10 is the “elimination of one categorically funded position due to the termination of funding.” Ouch. (Reference is made to an “exhibit A,” but it doesn’t seem to be attached. What gives?)

That’s about it. Not too promising, but you never know.

Did you miss the Chancellor's "opening session"? It is now available here.

Has student writing ability declined over time?

Some of our recent posts have generated considerable commentary, and much of it has been quite good. Great!

For instance, my brief discussion (School of Fish) of Stanley Fish’s latest NYT column inspired scores of remarks.

One of the issues that has arisen is whether students’ writing abilities are worse today than they once were. Many of us who write for or to DtB are under the impression that student writing ability has definitely gone in decline in recent decades. At least one Dissent reader, however, took issue with that perspective and has reminded us that always elders have bemoaned the alleged decline of young people’s abilities and knowledge.

Well, you know me. “Let’s get empirical” is one of my mottos. So what’s the relevant data (re writing ability)? Who's got the info we need?

I suppose an obvious place to start is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is sometimes referred to as "the nation's report card." According to Wikipedia, the NAEP "is a periodic assessment of student progress conducted in the United States by the National Center for Education Statistics, a division of the U.S. Department of Education."

I know. No doubt there exists controversy about the quality of the NAEP’s data or tests. But I’m going to proceed on the assumption that NAEP’s data and findings are more or less sound. We can return to the issue of quality later, if necessary.

Here’s what those folks have to say:

The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007:

This report presents the results of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment. … To measure their writing skills, the assessment engaged students in narrative, informative, and persuasive writing tasks. NAEP presents the writing results as scale scores and achievement-level percentages. … The 2007 national results are compared with results from the 2002 and 1998 assessments. At grades 8 and 12, average writing scores and the percentages of students performing at or above Basic were higher than in both previous assessments. … Compared with 2002, average writing scores for eighth-graders increased in 19 states and the Department of Defense schools, and scores decreased in one state. Compared with 1998, scores increased in 28 states and the Department of Defense Schools, and no states showed a decrease….

The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007—Executive Summary:

The average writing score [at grade 12, in 2007] was 5 points higher than in 2002 and 3 points higher than in 1998. ¶ The percentage of students performing at or above the Basic level increased from 74 percent in 2002 to 82 percent and was also higher than in 1998. ¶ The percentage of students performing at or above the Proficient level was higher than in 1998 but showed no significant change since 2002.

State (California) snapshot report 2007 (Nation’s report card: writing):

• In 2007, the average scale score for eighth-grade students in California was 148. This was not significantly different from their average score in 2002 (144) and was higher than their average score in 1998 (141).

• California's average score (148) in 2007 was lower than that of the nation's public schools (154).

• Of the 45 states and one other jurisdiction that participated in the 2007 eighth-grade assessment, students' average scale score in California was higher than those in 4 jurisdictions, not significantly different from those in 6 jurisdictions, and lower than those in 35 jurisdictions.

• The percentage of students in California who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 25 percent in 2007. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2002 (23 percent) and was greater than that in 1998 (20 percent).

• The percentage of students in California who performed at or above the NAEP Basic level was 83 percent in 2007. This percentage was greater than that in 2002 (78 percent) and was greater than that in 1998 (76 percent).

It seems to me that that above information provides an impressive prima facie case that the Teeth-Gnashers (such as yours truly) are mistaken.

Naturally, it may still be true that students in a particular sector of higher ed (e.g., community colleges) are worse. For instance, despite the picture painted above, it may also be true that great middle of high school graduates are worse than they used to be and the well-performing outliers (those who qualify to enroll in the better institutions) are much better than they used to be.

Seems unlikely though. (See part IIof this post.)