Varied Provost Responsibilities Lead to Less Focus on Academic Programming and a Less Desirable Job

The Chronicle of Higher Education July 2, 2010 article titled ‘Attrition Among Chief Academic Officers Threatens Strategic Plans’ should be of concern to Higher Education administration today. According to the author, Tim Mann, statistics show that more Chief Academic Officers (CAO), in other words provosts, hold their positions for shorter periods- an average of 4.7 years- than in the last five years. A recent study of 323 CAOs by the Eduventures Academic Leadership Learning Collaborative cited the top three reasons for this attrition rate as “…expanded responsibilities without sufficient resources (57 percent), economic issues at the college (50 percent), and faculty discontent (30 percent). Perhaps as a consequence, 40 percent also said that the job had become less desirable.” (Mann, 2010).

This should be of great concern to institutions considering the fact that provosts play a vital role in the day to day operations, are central to the institution’s strategic plans, and are in charge of the design and refinement of academic programs. The 4.7 year average enervates such initiatives that take a long time to plan, implement and modify while focusing on the institution’s long-term prospects. Granted, every institutional department is directly run by a vice president, director or dean. However, is not only charged with curriculum and faculty issues, but it is also increasingly becoming the case that he or she is also directly engaged in the operations of administrative departments such as safety, facilities, health, public relations, admissions and retaining, institutional effectiveness, strategic planning, and a multitude more.

With so many issues to deal with, and most likely some feeling of abandonment from faculty, no wonder we see such a high attrition rate. In a previous Chronicle of Education edition of July 2008, James J. O’Donell, Georgetown University provost, puts it, “Those of us who choose to accept leadership roles soon wake up to the fact that a thousand incremental changes have made our institution something very different from what it was before – something bigger and far more demanding. The professor-turned-provost, however engaged an academic she or he may remain, is now a different kind of creature, and improved posture is only an outward sign of it.” A high turn over of one of the top positions in a university paints not so good a picture and it means that chairs or department heads and faculty would have to make do or improvise to keep whatever plans in place going. Secondly, it takes time and money for an institution to search for, interview, and hire a replacement that is qualified enough to continue the institution’s traditions, has a lucid understanding of all operations and capable of effectively continuing its strategic plans. There are always exigent issues that always need the provost’s attention such as the “…shifting demographics of high-school graduates, the growing presence of online education, the challenging financial environment, and the need to innovate.” (Mann, 2010).

The provost’s absence is therefore most likely to create uncomfortable uncertainties in all sectors of operation and this may affect the institution’s image externally. “Productivity suffers during a transition period because of lost momentum. It takes time for a new provost to build relationships and assess the political and cultural landscape, along with institutional strengths and weaknesses.” Mann, 2010).

It seems financial demands, public relations and legalities are slowly taking over what the provost of earlier day collegiality used to focus on. Engaging professors and students in an enriching academic environment seems to be taking back stage- something most faculty resent. One has to feel empathetic to the provost for, they are caught in a situation where they are tasked with maintaining and protecting the institution’s name while also serving it’s most important employees who provide the core service. “That's the burden of the job: knowing all the things that others don't know or would rather not know. Much that I know I can't talk about, and I have had to get used to being the object of (usually) undeserved suspicion. Because I know so much, my actions are not fully intelligible to those who observe them. (O’Donell, 2008)

In the stressful environment that would eventually lead to the provost resignation, his or her “…role as chief academic officer is being marginalized as the new role of juggler of many new external forces takes center stage. This proliferation of added roles is further compounded by new accountability demands related to spiraling tuition increases, graduation rates, entrance requirements, exit requirements, outcomes assessment, and student athletes’ academic performance.” (Paradise & Dawson, 2007).

This marginalization seems to mirror institutional spending trends where less money is being allocated to direct academic operations and more on public relations, legal services, intercollegiate sports, remediation, security, to name a few, and the provost is directly involved with them.

These responsibilities are by no means arduous and no wonder the high turn over rate. The question therefore should centered on what should be done to keep provosts longer in their positions. In the Eduventures study the surveyed provosts offered some input on the characteristics of the next generation CAO. Most of them cited leadership, change management, and financial management as the top skills a provost should have in today’s higher education institutions while academic program development ranked bottom. The changing times warrant a new look at how many hats provost should wear and effectively manage the most important product in higher education. Or may be the provost’s paramount responsibility should be revised. One of the CAO’s who took part in the survey put it this way: “The traditional concept of a provost's preparation (department head to dean, dean to associate provost, associate provost to provost) is coming to an end. Within the next 10-15 years, I project that provosts will not follow this traditional path, a development as much a product of supply and demand as it will be changes in the expectations of provosts within a market-driven, accountability-focused institution.”

References:

Mann, T. (July 2010). Attrition Among Chief Academic Officers Threatens Strategic Plans. Chronicle of Higher Education, 56, 39.

O’Donell, J. (July 2008) What a Provost Knows and Can’t Tell. Chronicle of Higher Education, http://chrolincle.com

Paradise, L., V. & Dawson, K., M. (April 2007). New Peril for the Provost: Marginalization of the Academic Mission. About Campus, v12 p30-32

Green Technology in the Higher Education Classroom

Green Technology in the Higher Education Classroom
Miracle or Nightmare

By: Robert Miller

Higher education is going green; this is one of them most common heard buzzwords in college planning committees. (Frey, 2006) The green concept seems to be both politically and environmentally correct in today’s culture.
But what does this mean to the colleges who must meet this new demand on a system already strapped in today’s tough economic times. The goal is simply enough in theory, but is very complicated in reality. Colleges have to meet governmental regulatory demands to provide basic infrastructures, while integrating environmentally friendly technology and methods into available facilities and processes.

This will require green technology integration across all areas of the college campus and create additional administrative demands to include green concepts in all decisions for the college in order meet societal demands, and current and future stringent environmental regulations. (Frey, 2006) The colleges will have to reduce their carbon footprint (a modern term which equates the total of all resources used to create a product from concept to disposal or in layman terms from cradle to death) in order to comply with proposed future regulation. This integration has begun with the introduction and use of new technology in the classroom. (Nightingale, 2010)

The incorporation of technology in the classroom has had a large effect on the classrooms contribution to going green. Many current green concepts in higher education are currently being used in today’s classrooms. Some, such as the development of distance education technology went green as an added benefit

The smart board was initially created to serve as an interactive learning and presentation tool. The effect on green technology of the smart board is the reduction in the number of paper handouts which must be given to students. The smart board does have a carbon footprint of its own and the carbon footprint information is not disclosed in available literature. However the use of one of the commonly available carbon footprint calculators will yield approximate values.
Results for the smart board values were yielded by: “The Carbon Footprint Calculator” available at , the calculator estimates that the typical smart board has a CO2 footprint of approximately 3.2 kilograms.

Distant education reduces the numbers of students on campus which reduces the demands on the infrastructure of the college and has resulted in the creation of its own green tool. This new green tool is the E-Book - an electronic book downloaded and posted within the course documents for the course. This can eliminate the need for a printed textbook which has the potential to reduce the’ carbon footprint of a college significantly.(Sarah Axon, 2009)


Most do not realize the carbon footprint required to put a college textbook into a classroom. The creation of a book involves the necessity of millions of dollars in investment and equipment to grow and harvest timber, the destruction of the environment in collecting and processing raw materials and finally the release of toxic emissions through in the processes of manufacturing, printing and delivery to the final user and then eventually the landfill. (US. EPA, 2006). This does not take into account the countless energy and other resources consumed during the research and writing of the material to be used in the book. When one considers the number of text books used on a campus in one year, the use of electronic texts would foster a significant reduction in the overall footprint of the college (Sarah Axon, 2009)

Technological advances are quickly altering the traditional view and role of the classroom and virtual technology will become much more prominent in future educational systems. However, this is not a method without flaws; current technology has been helpful in reducing the classrooms’ carbon footprint, however the incorporation of such technology results in a larger overall carbon footprint when you begin to calculate all the impacts due to the cradle to grave requirements necessary for the production of the technologies and the energy top operate them. (US EPA, 2006)

Works Cited
Nightingale, J. (2010, may 4). classroom inovation. Retrieved september 20, 2010, from www.guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/classroom-innovation/problem-solution-schools-cut-ict-spending/print

FREY, C. (2006, August 23). Seattle PI. (L. ©1996-2010 Hearst Seattle Media, Editor) Retrieved October 9, 2010, from seattlepi.coml: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/282232_greencampus23.html

U.S. EPA, 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, EPA530-R-06-004

Sarah Axon. (2009). carbon reduction and e-learning. Epic Performance Inc.

The Changing Paradigm of the Nontraditional Student

by: Jennifer Derushia

No longer the exception but instead becoming the norm, the nontraditional student has grown into the primary type of student found in higher education today. Economic shifts have played a major role in this change, from adults returning to college for professional development to high school graduates postponing the start of their post-secondary education. In addition, advancements in technology have allowed for individuals to attend college via online and distance learning courses, which accommodates larger numbers of students both with jobs and with families. Such changes have made it possible for students of a “nontraditional age” (adult students) to increase in number over the past few decades. Statistics show that approximately 40% of all college students in 1999 were adults, and this number seems to have grown steadily since (Kortesoja, 2009).

In its definition of the “traditional” undergraduate, The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) includes students that have: obtained a high school diploma, enrolled in college full time after high school, considered dependents by parents, and if employed, are working no more than part time. However, this type of student is becoming less traditional as shifts in the economy have forced changes to student demographics in higher education. In fact, using the NCES criteria, nearly three-fourths of all undergraduates have at least one characteristic that would define them as “nontraditional” (Choy, 2002). One reason for this transition has been the mere issue of access to higher education. College tuitions have been on a continual rise and financial aid has become more difficult to obtain, particularly unless a student is in a degree-seeking program. Families are finding it harder to fund a college education for their child—and wondering if the expense is worthwhile—since even a college degree does not guarantee a job in this current economic market. A studentPOLL survey taken last spring showed that one in six college-bound high school students had changed their plans for college. Some planned to delay beginning college after graduation due to the economic recession and join the workforce right away. Other students were considering different routes to college, such as attending a community college, so they could live at home and commute to save the expense of room and board (Supiano & Hoover, 2009).

The number of adults turning to postsecondary education for work or career advancement, as a means to better job security, has risen due to the current economic uncertainty. These adult learners range from enrolling in a degree program in their field to simply furthering skills that will enable them to become more marketable in the workplace (Milam, 2009). Due to the varying needs of these students, institutes of higher education are presented with the challenge of adapting to these shifts in student demographics. Colleges and universities must rethink and restructure their traditional classroom teaching and look at alternative assessments, distance learning, and varied teaching strategies to accommodate this diverse student body, which comes with a wide range of educational backgrounds and life experiences (Kortesoja, 2009). Programs have shifted their emphasis from offering all daytime courses to evening classes, online classes, and even blended or hybrid classes to allow students to interact and connect with the course content and with each other remotely.

For the past several years, enrollment in online learning has been growing at a significantly faster pace than overall higher education enrollments. Numerous factors have contributed to this increase, including rising unemployment rates, increasing fuel costs, and the need for flexibility in education courses (Hoskins, 2009; Allen & Seaman, 2008). In addition, advancements in technology have created “new modes of knowledge” that students are utilizing on a regular basis: smart-phones, social networking websites, e-books, wikis, and blogs. Institutions of higher learning are beginning to discover that incorporating this technology into their courses can provide students with better information access and communication (Allen & Seaman, 2008).

Previous definitions of traditional and nontraditional in higher education are being transformed and redefined, based on changes in the global society. Is higher education up to the challenge of delivering education to the 21st century learner, with limited funding and resources, and increasing enrollments and demands? Have faculty accepted the new role of online learning and are they prepared to adapt their instruction and content to the necessary formats? Will increased competition between institutions for the “nontraditional” online learner cause postsecondary learning environments to keep up with technological innovation? In a global context, can colleges and universities in the United States afford not to do so? Clearly, the needs of society are in rapid transition, and the time has come for higher education to respond.



REFERENCES:

Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2008) “Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008.” Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/index

Hoskins, B. (2009) “Opportunity Knocks.” The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 57,131-133, doi: 10.1080/07377360902984846

Kortesoja, S.L. (2009) “Postsecondary Choices of Nontraditional-Age Students: Non-Credit Courses or a Credential Program?” The Review of Higher Education, 33 (1) 37-65, e-doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.0109

Milam, J. (2009) “Nontraditional Students in Public Institutions: A Multi-State Unit Record Analysis. Retrieved from HigherEd.org, Inc. website: http://highered.org/docs/NontraditionalStudentsinPublicInstitutions.pdf

Supiano, B. and Hoover, E. (2009) “Will the Economy Really Change Students’ College Plans? Early Signs Say Yes.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (33) A21.

Privacy Rights And/Or Public Safety Post Virginia Tech
Jennifer B. Espinola
University of South Florida

Privacy Rights And/Or Public Safety Post Virginia Tech

Seung-Hui Cho’s killing spree on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007 has sparked an unsettled national debate regarding the privacy rights of individuals against the public safety interests of a college or university. The backdrop to this issue highlights America’s litigious nature, coupled with sporadic examples of significant monetary pay-outs to persons claiming that their individual rights had been violated by acts of the institution. The negative media attention garnered by such cases, along with the substantial financial commitments to legal representation and sanctions, have understandably inflamed institutions’ anxieties. One might argue that squeaky wheel individuals and watchdog activist groups were in effect weaving imaginary binds around the hands of institutions who felt incapacitated. However, more recent incidents on campuses around the country resulting in fatalities caused by people who provided warning signs are now giving rise to a potential paradigm shift. Public safety is emerging as a viable contender for highest priority. And what may be most surprising about this transformation is that it will likely happen without a single revision to law. The key to this change will be in the institutions’ reassessed values, which the laws will support in their current state.
Since the Virginia Tech incident, reports have been generated by the campus itself (Fischer, 2008), other institutions and states including Florida’s Gubernatorial Task Force on University Campus Safety (2007), and even the Federal government. President Bush requested that the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services jointly investigate the matter to offer recommendations and guidance (HHS Report, 2007). While illustrative and interesting in terms of deciphering the associated problems, these reports are not clear on changes in institutional responses to cues or warnings from potential threats. Yet there is quite a bit of commentary accusing the collective of colleges and universities of an overly conservative reading of the Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (Schuchman, 2007). These federal laws, along with accompanying state regulations, are implicated by institutions claiming they are not permitted to disclose information without consent. Yet, the real power is in the interpretation and use of law, and this occasion demands an exploration of the original intent of HIPAA and FERPA.
“A major goal of the Privacy Rule [in HIPAA] is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public's health and well being.” (HHS HIPPA Report, 2003). However, the stigma surrounding mental health issues may have given special emphasis to the protection of an individual’s health information at the cost of protecting the public’s well being. But the solution can be found in the Act itself. The name of the Act, and a closer read of HIPAA suggest that protection of the individual’s rights regarding information sharing appears to be mostly related to the involvement of insurance companies. And it clearly states that promoting high quality health care is as weighty a goal as any other. So in the context of the Virginia Tech incident, the institution had the obvious goal of providing quality healthcare to Mr. Cho and to also protect the health and well being of the community. These objectives support information sharing among the health care providers who were involved in his case and nothing in HIPAA suggests it would be a barrier. But even more importantly, and rarely discussed, HIPAA’s privacy rule excludes medical treatment records protected by FERPA (Dept. of Ed. Report, 2007). Virginia Tech officials stated during the post-incident inquiry that state and federal laws were prohibitive of campus medical personnel and law enforcement officials sharing information about Mr. Cho (Fischer, 2007). Yet this claim appears to be based more on assumptions then on the laws themselves.
FERPA addresses the protection of educational records of students, which include medical records generated by the university. The mantra repeatedly cited generally states that all records are protected and not releasable without consent. However, “in an emergency, FERPA permits school officials to disclose without student consent education records, including personally identifiable information from those records, to protect the health or safety of students or other individuals.” (Dept. of Ed Report, 2007).
It is time for institutions of higher education to reconcile their interests. By reestablishing a priority on the well being of the entire campus community, individual privacy rights and/or public safety can be enhanced simultaneously. Believing that sharing pertinent information about a student amongst relevant professionals on campus is not only in the best interest of the community, but also in the best interest of the student will make this philosophical transition more palatable. And in the case of Mr. Cho, it can hardly be argued that his litany of prior warnings did not justify a more collaborative response by professionals on campus. It seems that Virginia Tech General Counsel would rather have defended against his claim of privacy violations, than have to substantiate the choice to keep warning signs undercover.


References

Fischer, Karen (April 18, 2008). Virginia Tech Weighs Hundreds of Recommendations and Acts on Some. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Special Report Volume 54, Issue 32, Page A15. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/article/Virginia-Tech-Weighs-Hundre/6707

Florida Gubernatorial Task Force For University Campus Safety. (May 24, 2007). Report on Findings and Recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/initiatives/campussecurity/.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (June 13, 2007). Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/vtreport.html.

Schuchman, Miriam. (July 12, 2007). Falling Through the Cracks – Virginia Tech and the Restructuring of College Mental Health Services. N Engl J Med; 357:105-110. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078096

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (Last Revised May, 2003). Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf.

United States Department of Education. (October, 2007). Balancing Student Privacy and School Safety: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/postsec.html.

Fischer, Karen (June 22, 2007). Report on Virginia Tech Shootings Urges Clarification of Privacy Laws. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Money & Management Volume 53, Issue 42, Page A30. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/article/Report-on-Virginia-Tech-Sho/30736/.

Online Education

Current Issues in American Education:Online Education

Emma R. Brown


There are many issues that can be considered “hot topics” when it comes to higher education. One that affects all disciplines taught in higher education is online education, also referred to as distance education. There is considerable debate over the quality and usefulness of distance education.

The particular type of institution involved can also have an effect on online education’s overall usefulness. For instance, Lattuca and Stark (2009) emphasize that the missions of many public universities are to serve their state and region’s populations by educating undergraduates and graduates. Online classes aid in this mission by providing students an opportunity to learn without having to be on campus. Larger universities can also have a greater opportunity to provide online education as they have greater financial resources at their disposal to fund and staff them. In addition, with such a large student body enrolled, they can see a greater profit margin from online education as more students are able (and likely) to enroll. In general, advances in technology have increased the likelihood and capability of online courses.

Online education is not the answer to all education woes. Additionally, it is not an option for every type of degree. Some program curricula are not appropriate for online teaching. For many degrees, particularly those in the sciences, physical time in a lab, or hands on practical experience, is an absolute necessity. Lattuca and Stark (2009) raise the point that staffing becomes an area of concern too. Are instructors able and willing to teach online courses? Are they trained to do so, and if not, would they be provided with such training?

Lei and Gupta (2010) look at distance education from the perspectives of the institution, faculty, and students, to evaluate the benefits and costs associated with distance education. Their definition of distance education is perfectly appropriate for this paper: “distance education refers to technology-based instruction in which the students are at a location physically separated from their instructor during the entire course of study.” (Lei and Gupta, p. 616)

Literature reviews show common pros and cons when it comes to getting an education online. For the student with a busy schedule, either due to course scheduling conflicts or full time employment, distance education has obvious benefits. Doyle (2009) found that most online education students tend to be older; the average age is 29 and most are over 30 (p. 57). Students in other states or even countries can now participate in the course. Students need not fight over parking, nor worry about physical appearance. The universities benefit by having much larger class sizes, without an overcrowded classroom.

While the technology and programs needed for distance education can be costly, there is also a decrease in cost as photocopies are no longer necessary. Another way to offset some of the cost to the university is to charge students technology fees in order to take the classes. (Lei and Gupta, 2010)

Some downsides to online education are for students with lower socioeconomic status who are left out of this opportunity because they have limited, if any, access to computers. There is also a risk of a lack of computer skills among students. Technology always comes with the potential for hiccups, whether it is due to downed servers or incompatibility between the programs the instructor and student are using. Greater opportunities for cheating on tests and quizzes can also be a problem. Students must learn to develop proper time management to succeed in distance education because there is a serious lack of accountability.

An online course can be a very successful learning environment for students. In order for it to be a high-quality course, it becomes very time consuming to the faculty involved. It is the opinion of this author that distance education can serve a great need in our society, particularly when it comes to special needs students. It becomes efficient from an administrative standpoint since the university can get many more students into a course without having to use up resources on campus. However, lack of face-to-face interaction is slightly disturbing. Part of what makes a good group discussion is being in the same room. Conversation largely involves facial expressions, tones, and even gestures that are lost through a keyboard. It is more difficult to make sure the correct message was sent, received, and retained by the student.

Online courses tend to require one to “read and regurgitate” information onto exams. Brown and Liedholm (2002) found that students actually did worse on online class exams than a live course when asked questions that were deeper and required practical application of the material.

A benefit of online education cited by Lei and Gupta (2010) was that students will feel more comfortable expressing themselves online and therefore participation from most students is more likely. While this may be true, part of the higher education experience is learning to assert oneself in a group setting. Students need to learn to get involved in discussions, whether confident or not. Confidence comes with time and practice and overcoming shyness is a necessary skill not just in the classroom but in life.

An online revolution to education is not quite in the works yet. It serves a purpose, but the majority of students mix online with face-to-face courses (Doyle, p. 57). Perhaps higher education institutions have just not figured out how to properly utilize online education in a way to make students want to go all online, all the time. It is the opinion of this author that there are some things that are just best learned in a classroom and we as a society have not changed our minds about that being the case.

Works Cited

Brown, B.W., & Leidholm, D.E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? The American Economic Review, 92,444-448.

Doyle, W.R. (2009). Online education: The revolution that wasn't. Change, 41(3), 56-58.

Lattuca, L.R. and Stark, J.R. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. San Fransico: Jossey Bass.

Lei, S., and Govra, R. (2010). College Distance Education Courses: Evaluating Benefits and Costs from Institutional, Faculty and Students' Perspectives. Education, 130(4), 616-631. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Increased Use of Adjuncts in Higher Education

Increased Use of Adjuncts in Higher Education

Todd A. Wells

University of South Florida

The increased use of adjunct faculty is a prevalent issue in higher education today. The debate that continues to develop is related to the overall teaching effectiveness and experience level of adjunct faculty. Many believe that the use of adjunct faculty are reserved for lower division undergraduate courses and for-profit and community/technical schools. The Society for College and University Planning (2007), made an observation that almost all colleges and universities in the United States use adjunct faculty in some capacity. The SCUP report found that schools such as Harvard with 56 percent of faculty outside of the tenure system to the University of Maryland with nearly 70 percent were forced to use adjunct instruction to support undergraduate education. Research reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education (2007) from a study by The American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) indicated that between 1975 and 2003 the number of adjunct faculty was on the rise from 43 percent to 65 percent. The need and obvious use of adjunct faculty in higher education is clear. What becomes important to address is if the quality of instruction and the level of expertise provided by adjunct instructors begins to diminish the overall learning experience of undergraduate students.

Adjunct faculty can add to a student’s learning when they bring experience from their professional career, but when does experience lose its effectiveness? Adjunct faculty are often seen as very dedicated to the process of student engagement and classroom teaching. A Chronicle of Higher Education article (2009), briefly introduced results from a survey of over 600 adjunct faculty members in the Chicago, IL area. Adjunct faculty from this survey reported that the love for teaching and the ability to stay away from the typical office environment provided enough reasons to love this type of job. Other adjunct faculty reported that this type of teaching environment provided some necessary skills to gain tenure track positions at colleges or universities in the area.

At the same time, adjunct faculty are forced to teach several different classes and at several different colleges or universities in the same city, just to earn a very minimal salary. Adjunct faculty are typically not paid to hold office hours or be accessible to undergraduate students. They often only have time to come to campus to teach their class and this can lead to less individualized attention for students and less time to engage in conversation outside of the classroom. Some adjunct faculty report being marginalized and not valued members of the university community and again this drives them to not be present on the campus expect to teach their class.

Adjunct faculty are often asked to teach courses on very short notice and at times on subjects that they have little prior experience. Due to the need to teach many different classes to make ends meet, adjuncts frequently do not have time to properly prepare lectures or stay current in the field that they are teaching. Undergraduates being taught by adjuncts are typically presented the most general levels of the material rather than current or research based instruction that can be provided by tenure track professors. Adjunct professors that are searching for full-time tenure track positions often have the mindset that they will wait to put in full effort that teaching requires until they are better compensated for their efforts.

What will be the future of adjuncts in higher education? Will we continue to increase the use of adjuncts until they provide the majority of instruction in our colleges and universities? Budget issues will prolong the use of adjunct faculty for undergraduate instruction as universities struggle to meet their obligations with reduced resources. Higher education must turn to supporting adjunct faculty with professional development experiences, increased management, and ideas on integrating them into the curriculum development process. A shift will need to occur in supporting the real world experiences provided by many adjuncts with the expert knowledge provided by tenure track faculty members. The moment in time has come for those who truly care about the future higher education and it is time to provide a balance of quality undergraduate instruction with a high level of knowledge and expertise.

References

Society for College and University Planning (2007). Trends in Higher Education.

Retrieved from http://www.scup.org/asset/49721/scup_trend_7-2007.pdf

Gravois, J. (2007). Tracking the Invisible Faculty. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, 17.

June, A.W. (2009). Love of Teaching Draws Adjuncts to the Classroom Despite Low Pay.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56, A1-A10.

Building Safer Campuses

Patrick I. Romero-Aldaz

Considering the climate in higher education post Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, institutions of higher educations have been held responsible for the safety of their students where it could be demonstrated that the injury to a students was foreseeable or that there was a history of similar events that gave rise to the injury. (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, chap. 7). As a result, colleges and universities have been examining their role in providing for campus safety.

According to the Violent Victimization of College Students report (Baum & Klaus, 2005), compiled with data from 1995 to 2002, college students were victims to approximately 479,000 crimes of violence annually. With such high rates of crime ranging from individual incidents to mass school shootings this subject has become a major topic of conversation. The occurrence of violence has resulted in an environment where campus administrators and government officials are scrambling to determine what proper steps must be taken to ensure a safe campus and to protect our students.

One way in which such steps have been taken is through continued revision and clarification the Jeanne Clery Act. Enacted in 1990, and Revised in 1998, the legislation aims to provide crime information to current and prospective students and employees, educate students and staff about campus crime so that they may better protect themselves, and reduce crime (Gregory & Janosik, 2002). A key component of the legislation requires that campus administrators provide timely warning when dangerous crimes occur on campus (Janosik & Plummer, 2005).

The subject of timely warning has been gaining traction as a major part of this conversation in that many administrators cite lack of clarity in the legislation as a major deterrent to compliance (Gehring & Callaway, 1997). McNeal (2007) reports that of Law Enforcement Officers participating in her study, 86% of them indicated that ambiguity in the law made compliance and reporting difficult. This issue of effectiveness brings to light the question of how institutions are fulfilling the requirements of the legislation. Further if the vast majority of law enforcement officials find it difficult to comply with the expectations of the legislation, how is that we can expect for hundreds of thousands of university administrators act in similar fashions using very broadly defined parameters.

The 2010 revisions of the definitions and requirements for Clery as a result of the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings require institutions to act in a “timely fashion” in notifying students when an “immediate danger” is present. The issue at hand is that no one knows what these terms mean and who defines what is “timely” or “immediate.” Further, when working with an environment in which a majority of students remain unaware of the legislation or its purpose, don’t read the reports, and fail to use the information provided in their personal decision-making (Janosik & Ghering, 2001), how is it possible to create environments where institutions and their constituent bodies share responsibility for creating safer campus environments?

In order to reach this goal of creating shared communities where safety is a defining factor, higher education must partner with those communities to assess expectations. Sells (1999) comments on the need for creating partnerships with parents [and students] to enhance the educational process and to help develop a shared sense of responsibility. These partnerships can and should begin as students are examining schools to apply to. Institutions need to integrate these conversations into their orientation programs, and students need to be socialized to understand and share responsibility for safe behaviors and campus culture.

McNeal (2007) concludes the findings of her research discussing the current state higher education and increased demands with diminishing resources. With this in mind, it is essential that proper training and support be given to administrators so that compliance and creation of safe campus communities can more readily be realized. The Clery Act and its expectations do not represent a one-stop solution, but rather serve as a mechanism by which Higher education can demonstrate its commitment to the importance safe campuses. Through the realization of this commitment, higher education administrators must commit to building those crucial partnerships and having difficult conversations about shared responsibility not just to one another, but also a greater necessity to become more educated and to act upon that knowledge.

References

Gehring, D.D. & Callaway, R.L. (1997). Compliance with the notice requirement of the Campus Security Act. College and University, 73, 13-18.

Gregory, D.E. & Janosik, S.M. (2002). The Clery Act: How Effective is it? Perceptions from the field, the current state of research and recommendations for improvement. The Stetson Law Review, 32(1), 7-60.

Janosik, S.M. & Gehring, D.D. (2001). The impact of the Jeanne Clery Act Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and the Campus Crime Statistics Act on student decision making. EPI Policy Paper, No. 10. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.

Janosik, S.M.,& Plummer, E. (2005). The Clery Act, campus safety and the views of assault victim advocates. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(1), 116-130.

Kaplin, W.A., & Lee, B.A. (2007). The Law of Higher Education: Student Version (4^th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McNeal, L.R. (2007). Clery Act: Road to Compliance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 19, 105-113.

Sells D., (2002). Parents and Campus Safety. New Directions for Student Services, 99, 25-35. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2005) Victimization of College Students, 1995-2002. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, D.C.: Baum, K. & Klaus, P.

The Impact of Declining Tenure

Tenure is virtually exclusive to higher education, and it is a fundamental part of an institution’s academic landscape and culture. Tenure is a guarantee of a career long job, and is deeply rooted into the American academy. It is vital to the concept of “academic freedom” which, at the bare minimum, allows faculty freedom in research, instruction, and scholarly activities. Unfortunately, there is a continuous trend in higher education institutions in regards to the decrease in tenured faculty over the past few decades. “The number of full-time tenured and tenure track faculty members declined from approximately one-third of the instructional staff in 1997 to just over one-quarter in 2007” (AFT Higher Education, 2009). The intent of this paper is to examine tenure within higher education, and the impact associated with this continued trend.

Tenure allows faculty academic freedom because it is an employment guarantee, and this freedom is an important element of an institution’s overall culture. Academic freedom allows faculty flexibility to develop their curriculum with independence, it allows faculty to discuss controversial subjects, and it allows faculty the liberty to conduct research and publish on inappropriate topics without fearing the repercussions. In sum, tenure provides faculty autonomy by providing protection to faulty with the intention that they are free to voice their opinions in the various aspects of their job responsibilities.

Tenure is an important component of the collegial culture within higher education institutions. The collegial culture values faculty research, scholarship, and their contributions within the institution. Tenure facilitates the idea of shared governance where faculty can speak freely about the institution’s leadership. As tenure decreases the collegial culture will continue to concede to the managerial culture in the academy. The managerial culture is focused on efficiency and competency with a goal to improve the organization with minimal direction from faculty. The growth of this culture invites the possibility of the faculty’s voice not being heard; therefore, faculty could lose the notion of shared governance, and the institutional managers may no longer value them.

This decrease in tenured faculty means that more of the teaching responsibilities will fall on part-time faculty and there are serious consequences with this trend. Part-time faculty members lack job security, and are less likely to take an active role in the governance of the institution. Additionally, these part-time faculty members are normally transient and have to teach at several different institutions; therefore, it creates a challenge for students who need to meet with them in person. Lastly, they may not have the same competency level as tenured professors, and there is no continuity in regards to relationship building between faculty and students. “A couple of dozen studies over the last decade have shown that as the proportion of professors off the tenure track rises, the proportion of students who return to college the following year and eventually graduate declines” (Wilson, 2010). Managers will argue that there is a cost-savings to employee non-tenure faculty; however, students need faculty with a vested interest in the institution, which is usually lacking in visiting professors.

The criticisms of tenure portray the ideas that it helps promote the egotistic attitudes of professors who are selfish, and that it supports their lack of commitment to teaching. Critics believe that once a professor achieves full tenure status that they are no longer held accountable for their work, and there is no incentive to publish or teach effectively because their jobs are not at stake. There are solutions to combat these negative qualities that come from tenure. One solution is to offer tenure in a multi-year cycle, and have reviews at the end of the cycle that focus on quality and not quantity. In addition, institutions can begin to offer tenure or tenure earning status to part-time faculty by offering them part tenure appointments, or they could increase them to full-time tenure faculty. In general, individuals need to be cognizant of the fact that tenure is an employment perk, and it is a security in exchange for a sacrifice of higher wages.

Tenure is special to higher education, and institutional leaders need to realize how vital it is to the academy and the need to make it a priority. The collegial culture promotes freedom and faculty could lose their academic freedom in regards to; instruction, research, and scholarship if this declining trend continues. Faculty need the freedom to speak liberally, and they need to participate in the governance of the institution. There is a cost savings for institutions to employee part-time faculty over tenured faculty, but is this savings worth impacting the quality of education students are receiving? Institutions need to be mindful of the impact of decreasing tenure; otherwise, they are risking their academic culture, the quality of education, and their reputation.

References

AFT Higher Education. (2009). American Academic: The State of the Higher Education
Workforce 1997-2007. Retrieved from http://www.aftface.org

American Association of University Professors. (2010). Tenure and Teaching-Intensive
Appointments. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/conversion.htm

Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowden, R. G. (2009). The Postsecondary Professoriate: Problems of Tenure, Academic
Freedom, and Employment Law. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,
Sept 2009, v13 i3, p17(20)

Burgan, M. (2008). Save Tenure Now. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubres/academe/2008/SO/Feat/burg.htm?PF=1

Wilson, R. (2010, July). Tenure, RIP: What the Vanishing Status Means for the Future of Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Tenure-RIP/6614

Intercultural Competency Through Art and Design Curricula

It has been suggested that, in regards to globalization issues, U.S. institutions of higher education are progressing slowly when compared to most of the world. Americans themselves do not appear prepared for global competence. Bruestin (2010) reminds us that Americans scored poorly in the 2002 National Geographic-Roper poll of geographic knowledge. The author continues to point out that only 3 percent of U.S. college students participate in study-abroad programs, and enrollment in foreign language course has significantly decreased over the past 40 years. Reimers (2009) stated, “Yet in spite of growing awareness of the importance of developing global skills, few students around the world have the opportunity today to become globally competent.” He suggests that this is due to an absence of priority, a lack of resources and an obsolete mindset among educators.
The issues of globalization in higher education are complicated. Excitement is generated by the prospect of world-wide advances in technology, communication and social interconnectivity. However global interconnectivity skeptics fear of a loss of cultural authenticity as a result of the “McDonaldization”, or homogenization, of human cultural practices. Controversy surrounds the various world models of educational practices as they seek to inform and promote robust, ideological views of the development of knowledge exchange, economic capital, and human social equality. According to Brody (2007), “higher education, once the rarefied province of the elite, is now viewed by most nations as an indispensable strategic tool for shaping, directing and promoting economic growth” (p. 122). Furthermore, it is speculated that the emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies are on track to become the leading world economic powers by mid-century. These economies will continue to generate a thriving middle class, thus increasing access and demand for higher education. Higher education enrollment in India has grown 6 percent and in China, 12 percent per year (Lederman, 2010). Regardless of the apparent growth of higher education in countries abroad, the democratic American higher education system continues to attract demand and serves as a global authority of educational practices. Green & Baer (2000) suggest “as institutions engage more deeply with entrepreneurial global initiatives, it is likely that they will be pushed to think differently about curriculum.” Therefore, to continue to remain competitive and prosperous, American higher education leaders need to challenge their curriculum. The integration of art and design education curricula practices can contribute to the transformation of teaching and learning intercultural competency.
Intercultural competence as a learning outcome is a critical dimension in the global education discourse. Based on a definition of cultural competence as cited in Schuerholz-Lehr (2007) defines intercultural competence as, “a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes and policies displayed and applied by individuals that enable these individuals to interact effectively in cross-cultural situations” (p. 183). Intercultural education, like art education, constructs knowledge through multiple viewpoints, promotion of curiosity, flexibility and open-mindedness. These characteristics of learning are inherent in the pedagogy of art and design education. The growth of intercultural competence involves developing knowledge, skills, attitudes and values (Fleming, 2006). Likewise, the knowledge, creation and experience of art and design in education can contribute to the transfer of intercultural skills, shape personal values, and infuse global understanding. Nakamura (2007) points out that art can have a uniting power and is an important tool for transforming human relationships. He goes on to reminds us of the communicative power of art when he quotes Dewey,
Art is the extension of the power of rites and ceremonies to unite men, through a shared celebration, to all incidents and scenes of life. That art weds man and nature is a familiar fact. Art also renders men aware of their union with one another in origin and destiny. (p. 433)
The arts provide learners with a way of developing life skills and attitudes that are transferable across curricula and provide a framework for other learning experiences (Fleming, 2006). Eisner (2002) describes five different approaches to teaching the arts. A comparative analysis of these approaches to teaching the arts can provide insight to teaching intercultural competencies. The first approach portrays the experiential relational quality of art education and the ability for artists to reason in the absence of rule (Eisner, 2002). He further suggests that the arts teach students of the importance of acute attention towards nuance and the outcome of one’s choices. These qualities correspond to key concepts in intercultural education, such as the acquisition of knowledge, liberated inquiry, attitudes towards other cultures and the shaping of informed, sensitive ways of thinking. A second approach to teaching the arts concerns flexibility and the shifting of intention. This parallels intercultural competency characteristics of open-mindedness, exploration and discovery. A third approach to teaching the arts involves form-content relationship; in particular how messages are conveyed. A major goal of the arts and design in the realm of intercultural competency includes teaching students how to use visual communication and visual form as a tool to investigate meaning and purpose across world cultures. A fourth approach to teaching the arts deals with non-verbal communication and language. According to Eisner (2002), “not everything knowable can be articulated in propositional form.” This is a wonderfully complex approach that confirms the power of pure expression through the arts. Understanding alternative means of communication beyond verbal language is essential to learning cross-cultural skills aptitude. The last approach to teaching the arts focuses on the inherent qualities of the medium with which the artist work. The medium of the artist usually refers to actual, physical material and the artist’s task is to realize the possibilities of the medium, just as a sculptor transforms a crude piece of rock into a humanistic object of beauty. The medium of the intercultural competent student is represented within the constructs of the particular culture or human. The task of the intercultural competent student is to discover the possibilities of the formation of new cultural exchange.
Art and design education involves the engagement of the senses and expression of emotion, essential qualities which influence how humans develop relationships and navigate the world. Art and design curricula add value to intercultural competency learning outcomes.
References
Brody, W., (2010). College goes global. Foreign Affairs, 86 (2).
Brustein, W., (2010). Paths to Global Competence: Preparing American College Students to Meet the World. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from IIE Network website: http://www.iienetwork.org/page/84657/
Eisner, E., (2002). What Can Education Learn From the Arts About the Practice of Education? Retrieved September 13, 2010 from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/eisber_arts_and_the_practice_or_education.htm
Fleming, M., (2006). Justifying the Arts: Drama and Intercultural Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40, (1).
Green, M., & Baer, M., (2002). What Does Globalization Mean for Teaching and Learning? Retrieved September 13, 2010 from: http://joevans.pubworks.com
Lederman, D., (2010). American Universities in a Global Market. Retrieved September 12, 2010 from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/31/clotfelter
Nakamura, K., (2009). The Significance of Dewey’s Aesthetics in Art Education in the Age of Globalization. Educational Theory, 59, 4.
Reimers, F., (2009). Teaching for the 21st Century: Leading for Global Competency. Educational Leadership, 67 (1).
Schuerholz-Lehr, S., (2007). Teaching for Global Literacy in Higher Education: How Prepared Are the Educators? Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (180).