Our "strategic plan": a creature of the inane educationist playbook?

     The agenda (available here) for Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees (BOT) includes an “information item” (7.3: development of district-wide strategic plan [2011-2014]), which includes a draft of that document. (It’s a three-year plan.)
     Check it out. Arguably, this document is important. Very important.

* * *

     I've begun to read it. I want to say: nothing will ever be right in education until we banish educationists and their idiotic jargon.
     (And I want to say this as well: “poor writing—the only kind found among educationists—is poor thinking.”)
     Here’s the logic of the development of this document—taken right off the page. It’s a marvel of delusion and self-mystification:

First step:
   Identifying CHALLENGES (of next decade). (This is a “DIALOGUE” using “RESOURCES”)

Second step:
   Developing district-wide GOALS [“or institutional goals”(?)] … that articulate … INTENTIONS and AMBITIONS … related to … meeting CHALLENGES

   GOALS are achieved through OBJECTIVES identified in the District Strategic Plan – and the colleges’ Strategic Plans

   In future, district-wide goals will be a CATALYST for, and REINFORCEMENT of, the colleges’ planning [I imagine that this is conceived as a major step in the right direction. I don't mean to question that.]

Third step:
   Developing district-wide OBJECTIVES to identify the INITIATIVES to achieve district-wide GOALS. (Objectives require COLLABORATION and COORDINATION [among various parties])

Fourth step:
   Developing ACTION STEPS to describe ACTIONS to be taken to achieve district-wide OBJECTIVES

     The English language allows its speakers to communicate wonderfully. It is a magnificent thing. Obviously, in some settings, technical terms must be coined and used. Hence, the “mass” of the physicist and the "point" of the geometer.
     But some fields—the notoriously unimpressive field of education is a standout in this regard—seem to generate technical terms unnecessarily, promiscuously, absurdly.
     Educationists will actually stare at you in disbelief if you reveal ignorance of the alleged distinction between, say, “goals” and “objectives.”
     They are clueless. In my experience, they don’t even seem to know that they’ve adopted technical terms. So they impose this idiotic usage on everyone they meet. They manage to be both bullies and dolts.
     Now, suppose that one is reasonably well educated. If so, one will likely be struck by the educationist’s insistence on “the distinction between goals and objectives.”
     Luckily, we have dictionaries. Among other things, dictionaries tell us what we mean by the words we use. An “objective,” according to my dictionary, is “a thing aimed at or sought; a goal." —No surprise there.
     A “goal,” on the other hand (according to my dictionary), is “the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.” Yup.
     Let’s compare these meanings, shall we?

(objective:) a thing aimed at or sought; a goal VS.
(goal:) the object [i.e., the “thing”] of a person's ambition or effort [i.e., what one seeks]

     These words are usually pretty close in meaning. Obviously.
     Now, I did a little looking, and I came across the website for San Diego State University College of Education. SDSUCE’s Department of Educational Technology (EDTEC) provides a glossary of terms.
     Here’s the alleged “Difference between goals and objectives”:

Goals are broad objectives are narrow.
Goals are general intentions[?]; objectives are precise.
Goals are intangible; objectives are tangible.
Goals are abstract; objectives are concrete.
Goals can't be validated as is; objectives can be validated.

     Obviously, this is not “the difference between goals and objectives.” It is, rather, the difference between these things when one adopts educationist jargon.

* * *

     Well, OK. If this odd way of thinking and speaking helps, then fine.
     But I’ve never known it to help.
     And here’s a case in point. Read the “strategic plan.” Ask yourself (for instance): how are the participants in this process aided by structuring their thinking in terms of the technical distinction between:

The narrow, precise, tangible, concrete, and “validatable” (“objectives”) VERSES
The broad, general, intangible, abstract, and “unvalidatable” (goals).

—Conceived as the first (the “objectives”) achieving the second (the “goals”)?
     This is so confused, I don’t even know where to begin.
     I’ll leave that for another occasion. (No doubt some of you are way ahead of me.) Let me just say that I long for the day when I can arrive at a meeting in this district in which people just think and speak in plain English:

What is our task? (This ain’t rocket science.)
Will our task change, include more, include less?
Do we anticipate that circumstances will make our task more difficult?
What are our greatest failings and our greatest strengths in pursuing our task?
Etc.

     Now, I know that many who are involved in this strategic plan “development” (many are administrators) are bright and sincere people. My guess is that at least some of them are not (entirely) bedazzled and bedeviled by the above abysmal educationist architectonic.
     But I’m here to tell you: if these people have succeeded at all—and maybe they have—it is despite the nonsense with which this project is saddled from beginning to end.
     And don’t forget: everything in the colleges and the district will be done in terms of this document.
     Isn’t our job hard enough? Must we be forever thwarted by the poor thinking of embarrassing pseudo-experts?

Well, here they are. Presented as "info" Monday night.

FURTHER READING:

• Educating Researchers (pdf), Arthur Levine (2007). An excerpt below:

     This study asked a single question: Do current preparation programs have the capacity to educate researchers with the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out research required to improve education policy, strengthen education practice, or advance our understanding of how human beings develop and learn?
     The answer is that a minority of programs do, but most do not.
     There are three major obstacles to creating and sustaining strong programs:

1. The field of education is amorphous, lacking agreed-upon methodologies for advancing knowledge, common standards of quality and shared mechanisms for quality control;
2. Education doctoral programs have conflicting purposes and award inconsistent degrees; and
3. Research preparation programs are under-resourced, with inadequate funding and insufficient faculty expertise.

     The result is a body of research of very mixed quality, more weak than strong, with low readership by practitioners and policymakers and low citation rates by scholars.
     As a nation, the price we pay for inadequately prepared researchers and inadequate research is an endless carousel of untested and unproven school reform efforts, dominated by the fad du jour. Ideology trumps evidence in formulating educational policy. And our children are denied the quality of education they need and deserve. (P. 71)

• The Awful Reputation of Education Research (pdf) Carl F. Kaestle (1993)

IVC's Parkinggate: we look forward to the cover-up

From a reader:

When I arrived at 10:08 am Monday and began looking for a parking space prior to my 11:00 am class, I noted that there were students using the faculty lot — and that none of them were being ticketed. I eventually drove over to what turned out to be the Goodwill Lot (a section of our public campus that has been given wholly over to some private group for some reason), which was the only obvious place to park; parked; and walked back over to the faculty lot where I still saw no sign of previous or ongoing police enforcement.

When I later returned to my vehicle that afternoon and found it ticketed, I again checked the faculty lot to see if any cars lacking permits had been ticketed: I saw that none had.

When I mentioned to our Parking Enforcement Diva, or whatever his name actually is (I only know what people call him) over in his parking enforcement cubicle, that this uneven ticketing pattern seemed to constitute what my attorney calls "selective enforcement," he haughtily (haughtily, it were) informed me that the police officers were not selectively enforcing the rules, but were simply doing other duties -- opening doors for instructors, directing traffic, helping students find classes, etc., etc.. Hmmmmm. Helping students find classes. I guess he forgot to mention rescuing small children from wells, interdicting narcotics flow, aiding Libyan revolutionaries and solving the DB Cooper mystery.

I also pointed out that the lack of enforcement in the faculty lot was what led to I (or is it "me"?) and other instructors parking in the wretched Goodwill Lot with its highly not-so-highly-visible "no parking" signs -- the only place on campus, apparently, where the rules were actually being enforced.

SO — get this: apparently Parking Enforcement Diva (again, I don't think that really is his name, just a rude derogation people use to describe him because they don't actually know his name or care to find out) did NOT have the actual police log book in front of him when he described officer activities that morning.

(HINT: DB descended
into a lake and drowned)

On Wednesday, two students informed me in my class that they had observed two officers sitting in their cars near the faculty lot, just before the (highly significant) hour of 11:00 am on Monday.

"Are you handing out tickets today?" one of them asked the officers.

"Well," the officer responded with a loud chortle, "We're supposed to!" They then went back to talking.

Both students parked in the faculty lot Monday with no consequence.

*

Readers tell us that Tuesday and Thursday morning are the worst. On Thursday morning an official of some type was seen waving people into the dirt lot adjacent to the Goodwill shortly after 10:00. One driver, nervous after receiving a ticket earlier in the week, asked the official if he was sure it was legal parking only to be yelled at: Why do you think I am telling you to park here? Soon, that lot filled and the overflow went where it could: the Goodwill lot where all received tickets.

Team Hunky-Dory

According to the Accred Draft, at IVC, we're all singin' Kumbaya. Really?

     So, things are hunky-dory between governance groups at IVC, are they? Remember this?

Crean Lutheran again ~ Monday, November 22, 2010 

     Remember the time that Crean [Lutheran high school] officials asked Irvine Valley College instructors to fill out forms indicating their level of agreement with Christian and Lutheran doctrine? Sheesh! Yeah, and those zany Crean people even unilaterally monkeyed with staffing so that IVC instructors were actually teaching credit courses that they weren't qualified to teach! Gee willikers, it took a lot of doing to untangle that fur ball.
     IVC officials did a boffo job keeping our attention off of those monumental f*ck-ups, didn't they? You've got to hand it to 'em. 

From Crean Lutheran High School’s website: 

Early College Course Program
Crean Lutheran has a relationship with nearby Irvine Valley College in which college professors come on to CLS campus and teach courses for high school AND college credits.  In our first year of offering this program, 23% of our student body took at least one college level course. 

From Crean’s Vision Statement: 

By the grace of God, …Lutheran South [Crean] High School is committed to providing Christian teachers and educational leaders who are empowered by the Holy Spirit and dedicated to establishing an exceptional educational framework that is innovative, future-oriented and responsive to the changing demands and needs of high school students in an increasingly complex and technologically advancing world…. 

     Golly, many faculty at IVC have expressed grave concerns about the college's relationship with Crean/Lutheran South. (Naturally, the program was created without soliciting faculty input.)  But, as usual, top administration have blown us off. Gosh thanks. How's that working out for you?....

     In fact, the whole business of faculty being sent to teach at a Lutheran high school flew under the Academic Senate’s radar. —Until it blew up in administrators’ faces. —And, even then, the only reason people knew about it was because it was reported in DtB. (Boy were they pissed.)

See also

• Irvine Valley College: contract ed at a Lutheran high school ~ Dec. 17, 2009 

• The chihuahua asks, “Why not bite?” ~ Dec. 19, 2009

Things sure are swell

One smiling dog trumps nearly everything

Show us your dog's smile OC Reg

Assessing the draft: re IVC’s “college recommendation 6”

Evelyn Nesbit

The "draft" says that things are just hunky

dory among groups at IVC. Is that true?

     In January, Irvine Valley College received seven recommendations—six “district” recommendations plus one “college” recommendation—from the accrediting agency (ACCJC). Let's focus on the "college" recommendation (CR6):

Although the college and its constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism, the college does not have this same type of relationship with the district leadership and the Board of Trustees. While some progress has been made and policies have been developed, the team feels that Recommendations 7 and 8 ... of the 2004 visiting team Accreditation Team have not been fully met. (See recs 7 and 8 here.)

     Observe that the first sentence assumes that “[IVC's] constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president.” The "working relationship" problem, according to ACCJC's CR6, isn’t within the college but between the college and “district leadership and the Board of Trustees.”
     The draft (of the follow-up)—about which input is due tomorrow—exploits that assumption, asserting that

At the college level the [Accred] team validated a solid working relationship among the administration, faculty, and classified staff [within the college]. Furthermore, various college climate surveys provide evidence regarding this assertion. The team went so far as to commend the college for the positive change in campus climate since the last accreditation visit.

     Note that the draft does not address relationships within the college. It addresses only the relationship between the college and the district.
     Ah, yes, but things change, and that makes the glacial Accred review process vulnerable to failing to take important changes into account. The draft explicitly acknowledges this phenomenon:

Dialog at the campus level after receipt of the Evaluation Report indicated a disappointment that the snapshot in time was not taken a month or two later. With changes in Board membership, Board Leadership, and the seating of a new chancellor the relationship between the college and the district leadership and Board of Trustees had already improved markedly by that time.

Glenn, Gwen, Craig

     But if this "things change" phenomenon can happen relative to the district/college level, it can happen relative to the college level too.
     Until about two years ago at IVC, faculty and administration (and other groups) had a common enemy, namely, the Chancellor (the odious Raghu Mathur) and the board (dominated by the Fuentes/Wagner block).
     That enemy is essentially gone. Meanwhile, in the last two or so years, it has seemed clear to at least some of us—our carping has been much in evidence on this blog—that the relationship between faculty (and other groups) with administration “at the campus level” has grown increasingly unhealthy.
     I believe that one can get a good sense of the problem by reviewing the history of IVC's “Early College” Program. It was originally foisted upon faculty several years ago (during the Dennis White era), despite expressed faculty concerns. Soon after its launch, severe difficulties of the sort predicted seemed to surface, and that led to a survey of participating instructors conducted by the Academic Senate. The survey indicated that there were indeed serious problems with the EC program. The Academic Senate continues to have serious concerns about it. It is pursuing further investigation.
     IVC administration has responded to all this with a degree of reassuring blather at Senate meetings—and, apparently, a total commitment to proceed with the EC Program. Indeed, just a month or two after the dismal findings of the survey were discussed on the senate floor, Pres. Roquemore, standing before the board of trustees, celebrated the alleged success and virtues of the EC Program as though it were the Crown Jewel of the college.
     It was as though the senate and its concerns did not exist at all.
     In my view the problem “at the campus level” more fundamentally concerns these facts (that I allege):

• The VPI, an intelligent but ruthless and crafty individual, actually runs the college, instilling fear and causing low morale. He does not take others' opinions seriously.
• The President, an obtuse fellow, seems oblivious to this circumstance; he has never “connected” with the campus community and seems forever unaware of its denizens' concerns. (He responds to crises of confidence by arranging to drop out of military aircraft and then showing video.)

     That's my opinion. What do you think? Let us know.
     And don't forget to pass along your input re the draft. Due tomorrow.

So says the draft

What the accrediting agency recommended to our colleges

     AS YOU KNOW, at each college, drafts of follow-up reports—to recently issued Accreditation recommendations—are being circulated. Obviously, in these reports, the colleges seek to satisfy the ACCJC (the accrediting body) that they have responded adequately to their recommendations.
     Both colleges have been given a "warning," so this is serious, accred-wise.
     Oddly, at least at Irvine Valley College, members of the college community seem to have been given only three days to provide feedback. (LDA sent out the draft on the 22nd of August. She wrote: "Please send all comments to myself and Dean Werle ... by Friday 8-25-11.")
     I offer the following as a reminder of the recommendations. Both Irvine Valley and Saddleback Colleges received six “district” recommendations. I list them below. (IVC also received a single college recommendation, listed at the end)*:

District Recommendation 1: The teams recommend that the chancellor develop and implement both a strategic short-term and long-term plan that is inclusive of the planning at the colleges and that this planning structure drive the allocation of district resources for the colleges, …ATEP, and the district….

District Recommendation 2: The teams recommend that the district and the colleges develop and implement a resource allocation model driven by planning that includes all district funds and is open, transparent, inclusive, and that is widely disseminated and reviewed/evaluated periodically for effectiveness….

District Recommendation 3: The teams recommend that the college, district administrators, faculty and staff develop a communications process among the entities on key issues of district-wide concern including academic calendar, planning, ATEP …, technology and building priorities….

District Recommendation 4: The teams recommend that the Board of Trustees widely communicate the results of its self evaluation process annually and use this as the basis for improvement….

District Recommendation 5: The teams recommend that the Board of Trustees develop a clearly defined policy for a code of ethics which must include dealing with violations of the Board‘s code of ethics….

District Recommendation 6: The teams recommend that the district provide a clear delineation of its functional responsibilities, the district level process for decision making and the role of the district in college planning and decision making. The district should perform a regular review of district committees, conduct an assessment of the overall effectiveness of services to the colleges and communicate the results of those reviews….

For Irvine Valley College, this recommendation was added:

College Recommendation 6: Although the college and its constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism, the college does not have this same type of relationship with the district leadership and the Board of Trustees. While some progress has been made and policies have been developed, the team feels that Recommendations 7 and 8 … of the 2004 visiting team Accreditation Team have not been fully met.

Babs

2004 IVC Evaluation Report Recommendations  7 & 8:

7. [DEFINING ROLES] Consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 team, the 2004 team recommends that the Board of Trustees, District leadership and College leadership define, publish, adhere to, regularly evaluate, and continuously improve the respective leadership roles and scopes of authority of college and district constituent groups and governance committees in meaningful, collegial decision-making processes….

8. [REDUCE HOSTILITY & DESPAIR] Consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 team, the 2004 team recommends that the Board of Trustees, chancellor, presidents, administrators, managers, faculty senates and unions, classified senates and unions, and students come together and take measures to reduce the hostility, cynicism, despair, and fear that continue to plague the college….

• See IVC’s Accreditation documents here.

• See Saddleback College’s Accreditation documents here.

*Source: recently distributed draft of IVC follow-up report

The consequences of high textbook cost

• 7 in 10 Students Have Skipped Buying a Textbook Because of Its Cost, Survey Finds (Chronicle of Higher Education)
…"Students recognize that textbooks are essential to their education but have been pushed to the breaking point by skyrocketing costs," said Rich Williams, a higher-education advocate with the group, known as U.S. PIRG….

Meanwhile, the New York Times is holding one of its “debates”:

• Do We Spend Too Much on Education?
Americans are spending more and more on education, but the resulting credentials — a high-school diploma and college degrees — seem to be losing value in the labor market…. See the debate