Optimists Education

Fashion Today

2011-07-10T08:58:00.000-07:00

This article would help you to learn how to stay stylish and fashionable by letting you know about the best resources which present latest news regarding fashion today. Along with providing you details regarding resource, it also features useful tips and experts advice about todayâ€™s fashion trends which are in thing on the fashion runway today.

One of the best resources to find what the latest in fashion is today is the internet. You will get to know plenty of information from the online fashion magazines, dedicated fashion sires, blogs and so on. The good thing about internet resources catering to all your needs which are required to remain updated with the fashion today is that they offer your free information and charge nothing. Moreover these resources also features a section which presents valuable tips about make-up dressing and all kind of tips which makes you look fashionable and thus making you feel confident.

If you are interested in knowing about what is the latest on the fashion runway today, you can get all the news on your favorite fashion TV channel. There are channels which run for twenty four hours a day and are totally dedicated to fashion and in bringing out fashion today to you.

Apart from the internet resources and TV channels to get latest information about todayâ€™s fashion, there are various prestigious magazines dedicated to fashion at your disposal. These magazines have created a niche for them in fashion industry and considered as one of the most sough after mediums to get the latest info about fashion today.

Last but not the least, it is important you try and explore all the resources which can offer you the best of info about todayâ€™s runway fashion by remaining active in your social circuits. By attending general get together and going out with your friends to happening places will surely help you stay updated about latest in todayâ€™s fashion.

What the Future Holds

2011-07-04T17:34:00.000-07:00

Sociologists of education love longitudinal studies since they allow us to get a sense of how people's lives unfold over time as they engage with schools and society. But man, they take forever to produce data! We have to wait, and wait, and wait for kids to age, then for data to be assembled, made available, etc.

So I get kinda psyched when NCES issues a newsflash with the latest report from one of its longitudinal studies. The most recent is not even longitudinal--yet. It's about fall 2009 9th graders, who form the basis for the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009. The results are based on a nationally representative sample of 20,000 9th graders attending 944 high schools.

In a sense, this is decent way to examine what's coming down the pike towards the nation's colleges and universities. Prior research clearly demonstrates that the road to college entrance requires a surefooted start in 9th grade. So how do things look now?

No doubt about it, these 9th graders are ambitious. Fully 73% expect to attain more than a high school degree (another 22% aren't sure what they will do). This isn't surprising, as John Reynolds, Barbara Schneider and others have been describing an upward trajectory in college ambitions for quite some time. Consistent with national trends, girls expect to go further than boys -- 44% of 9th grade girls said they would earn a graduate degree, compared to 35% of 9th grade boys. Sadly, 27% of students in the bottom fifth of the socioeconomic distribution didn't expect to attend any college, compared to just 3% of those in the top 5th. A similar proportion of those in the bottom 5th planned to attend graduate school, compared to 56% of those in the top 5th.

Some kids are also pretty realistic. NCES administered a test of algebra achievement, and 39% of those scoring in the bottom quintile don't expect to go beyond high school. Nearly one in four said they "don't know" what their educational expectations are. In comparison, just 14% of students in the top quintile on that test weren't sure of what would happen after high school, and 95% expected to go on to college. But oddly enough, almost 25% of students who expect to finish college and/or go to graduate school hadn't even made it as far as Algebra I by 9th grade, and 29% weren't taking any science.

And this time NCES asked a pretty cool question about the probability that students will be able to finish college: "Whatever your plans, do you think you have the ability to complete a Bachelor’s degree?" What amazes me is that the percent of students who responded that they would "definitely" complete college didn't exceed 75% for any of the subgroups analyzed-- at best, 75% of 9th graders who expected to complete graduate school were definitely certain of their ability to complete college. That may indicate that they've internalized a fair bit of the world's uncertainty. Especially the boys--heck, 34% of these 9th grade boys couldn't identify what occupation they'd like to be working in at age 30.

These kids have a long road ahead of them- I only hope that when they reach higher education, our colleges are ready to meet their needs.

**The next HLS wave is 2012-- when most of the students will be 11th graders. We'll see what happens!

Shining (a little) Light on Net Price

2011-06-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

I must admit, I got a little excited when I (virtually) opened the Chronicle this morning and saw that the Department of Education had published its own personal scarlet letter list of the colleges and universities charging the highest net price. Finally, the government did what government can do best-- draw our attention to important national trends that make our local (personal) problems into national (public) ones.

I was also psyched about the list because it's another step towards helping change the deeply entrenched public perception that the sticker price listed by colleges is the actual price people pay. It's not-- since almost everyone get some kind of discount-- but that fact is so little known that some of us are pretty convinced that sticker shock exerts effects on the decisions made by families with little information.

But as I read about this list, I deflated. First of all, it's clearly obtuse. It's got 54 lists made up of 6 variables and 9 sectors. 54 lists. Come on...most of this country still thinks USA Today is a good, thorough read. And the thing is, some of the smarter government guys know it's too much-- but hey, Congress said so, so here we are (look at the quote by professor and NCES chief honcho Jack Buckley, who is far too polite when he says "this definition of net price is far from perfect." If only I were so diplomatic...).

There we are--getting it done, but not getting it done right.

Moreover, in talking about the power of the list, some officials clearly want to take this too far, suggesting the list tells us something about institutional "performance." Um, no-- not at all. Net price tells us nothing about the impact the institution has on students--only about the price it charges.

All that to say-- this is a decent step in the right direction but we can and must do more. This is prime time for higher education, we've got a growing cadre of smart folks paying attention to the national problems of affordability and degree completion and we need to develop metrics that deliver the kind of information parents and students can use (sorry, I refuse to call people "consumers") in a manner in which those who need it most can find it accessible. How about tweeting the highlights of the list for starters? Arne? David? Jack? You up for it?

Fit to Lead

2011-06-29T13:30:00.000-07:00

UW-Madison has a new interim chancellor and it's a person of great integrity, intellect, and experience. David Ward has led Madison before, and is exactly the right kind of person to lead us through the current high waters.

My opinion of David is based on many things, including:

-- His decision to found the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education with gifts he received when completing his term as chancellor. This was an effort to let more flowers bloom in higher education research and policy, and it led to the creation of several faculty lines including one I occupy.

-- His leadership on the Board of the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars, the state's largest private need-based financial aid program. Again, in full disclosure, it's the program I have spent the last three years studying. I've watched David interact on this board, asking tough questions of us researchers, and offer sage advice. He's fully capable of making thoughtful decisions informed by rigorous evidence.

-- His prior term as Chancellor of UW-Madison, during which time he showed great respect for shared governance and solid choices in selecting staff.

-- His work as president of the American Council on Education.

This, ladies and gents, is the power of a System. President Kevin Reilly has installed just the kind of leader we need at this moment, someone who has not been embroiled in rancorous campus politics, and can come and steer us onto calmer seas.

Trust me, given their druthers, it's not whom "Bascom" would've appointed.

Rock on.

Wake Up and Smell Scott Walker's Plans for UW-Madison

2011-06-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

Biddy Martin is moving on to Amherst. Sadly, UW Madison is stuck with the Martin/Walker, Walker/Martin plan for public authority-- and Scott Walker still seems hell-bent on pushing for it.

Make no mistake about it, this fight ain't over. Rest up this summer, and while you're recuperating, please do some reading on what Walker and his ALEC cronies think is "best" for public higher education. That is, privatize the heck out of it.

That's the plan folks, mark my words. If you thought this was Biddy's bright idea, think again. In her effort to save us from financial disaster, she walked us right into the lion's den. That's the "hand we were dealt" of course, a "reality" handknit for us by the corporate elites determined to ensure that big business rules, no matter what the cost to the working people of Wisconsin.

Get ready. We have work to do. RECALL WALKER. Save Wisconsin public higher education.

Making Our Investments Count

2011-06-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

In a few weeks my research team will release findings from our ongoing study of need-based financial aid, as we host a conference on Affordability and Attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher Education. Preparing for this event has given me the chance to think more about the things colleges and universities might do to maximize the substantial investments federal and state governments--and taxpayers--make in college students.

In particular, I propose that institutions begin to leverage their existing resources-- namely, their faculty-- to support the neediest students, those who enter with a low probability of success. While some might argue those students simply shouldn't be admitted, I take a different stance: given the labor market returns to college degrees and the widespread ambitions for college, it's incumbent upon higher education institutions to get "student-ready" -- rather than simply demanding that students get "college-ready."

I hope to begin writing about this concept of "student-ready" colleges from time to time over the coming months, but let's start with two ideas for how it could work.

(1) The Chronicle of Higher Education today highlights a program that assigned retired faculty to mentor first-generation students. Love this-- it's a win-win for all involved. Students without college-educated parents gain the benefits of having a college-educated "grandparent" of sorts who has not only attended but succeeded in college and worked at one!

(2) Here's an idea of my own. Policymakers should experiment with a new program to provide colleges and universities with incentives to place Pell Grant recipients in contact with faculty. Student-faculty interactions have been shown to enhance retention rates, and they are less common among low-income, first-generation students. A work-study type program could be a starting approach, but typical work-study jobs are located in cafeterias and libraries where students cannot form new connections with their educators. This approach should enhance the effectiveness of financial aid by supplementing it with increased faculty interaction. The federal government could begin with a trial effort using funds from the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The effort should be rigorously evaluated and used to inform future revisions of financial aid programs.

For sure, many faculty are overworked as it is. These kinds of things won't work everywhere and under all conditions. But let's say we tried them at four-year universities first. I'm willing to bet that even with uneven quality of mentoring, the effects on some students would be large enough as to raise persistence rates. The mentors will also benefit, and perhaps become advocates for these students and the programs that serve them. Student contact reminds us why we got into this biz in the first place, energizes us, and grounds us. We should be urged and rewarded for focusing that contact where it's most needed.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm...

2011-06-16T14:11:00.000-07:00

Twitter is such an amazing resource. For those following Chancellor Biddy Martin's departure from the University, I thought you might enjoy some of these recent tweets about her statements at Amherst today.

Marx: "Welcome to Amherst, @Biddy_Martin." Another standing ovation.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Martin: "I just feel the urge to get here and find out who all of you are."less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Martin: "I think people exaggerate the difference between private and public institutions, and even small and large institutions."less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Martin: "I need first to learn from the faculty ... staff ... students" about college's challenges and aspirations.less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Martin: "Every part of the community is critical to the success of the community."less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Martin: "Things can always be made better, no matter how great they are. ... But we'll want to do that together."less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Martin: "You can count on me always to want to discuss things."less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyAmherstCollege
AmherstCollege

Turn, Turn, Turn

2011-06-15T14:15:00.000-07:00

I've been asked by some readers for my thoughts on the resignation of Chancellor Biddy Martin, and her pending move to Amherst College.

My general sense is this: Martin's making the move that is right for her. There is a place and time for everything, and she must've had a sense that her time here might not last much longer when she entered the search at Amherst last fall. She had more knowledge of the full dynamics at play in these Wisconsin debates than anyone, since she was allowed into more conversations with more players. She was looking ahead.

The job at Amherst is an enviable one. The past-president, Tony Marx, is one of the most thoughtful leaders of higher education in the nation. His efforts at value-driven decision-making have challenged traditions--traditions that favor institutional interests over student and state interests. I am especially impressed by his efforts to promote socioeconomic diversity by not only offering enormous amounts of financial aid but also practicing class-based affirmative action. Many institutions do only the former but not the latter since it's the latter that makes the distribution of aid much more expensive. He used the advantages that come with being at an elite private institution to challenge the privileges the elites try to keep for themselves. Those are big shoes to fill.

Looking to the future I fervently hope that the search for a new UW-Madison chancellor will identify someone who thinks about both the institutional and student interests (and by students I mean all potential students not only those currently or previously enrolled) as well as the state's interests, and how those often conflict. I hope we will be led by someone who understands and is fully committed to the unique values, qualities, and challenges facing public higher education-- and who embraces its difficulties as opportunities, rather than resenting them. Public institutions should be recognized for the uncommon goods that they are, rather than treated like a dying breed that cannot be saved.

On Wisconsin!

Guest Blog: The Trouble with Transfer Articulation Policies

2011-06-11T05:00:00.000-07:00

Today's blog is authored by Josipa Roksa, assistant professor at the University of Virginia

Once again, transfer articulation policies are in the news, being touted as a viable solution to the problem of low transfer rates between 2-year and 4-year colleges.

Articulation policies sound like a good idea, but there are a few pieces of empirical evidence that should give us pause. Consider the following questions:

(1) Do states with articulation policies (and particularly those with more comprehensive articulation policies) have higher transfer rates?

According to at least three recent studies, the answer is no.

For example, see:
Gregory M. Anderson, Jeffrey C. Sun, and Mariana Alfonso Anderson, “Effectiveness of Statewide Articulation Agreements on the Probability of Transfer: A Preliminary Policy Analysis” The Review of Higher Education, 29 no 3 (2006).

Betheny Gross and Dan Goldhaber, “Community College Transfer and Articulation Policies: Looking Beneath the Surface.” Working paper # 2009_1R. University of Washington Bothell: Center on Reinventing Public Education (April 2009)

Josipa Roksa, “Building Bridges for Student Success: Are Higher Education Articulation Policies Effective?,” Teachers College Record 111 (2009).

(2) Do states with articulation policies have higher bachelor’s degree completion rates, shorter time-to-degree, and/or less “wasted” credits among their transfer students?

The answer, again, is no.

See:
Josipa Roksa, and Bruce Keith,“Credits, Time, and Attainment: Articulation Policies and Success after Transfer,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30 (2008).

(3) How many credits do four-year entrants earn on their path toward a bachelor’s degree?

Community college transfers are not the only ones earning 140 credits. A recent report noted that students who transferred from community colleges to the California State University (CSU) system graduated with an average of 141 credits. And how many credits did students who began in the CSU system graduate with? 142!! The situation is only slightly better in Florida: Associate of Arts (AA) transfers completed 137 credits before graduation while native four-year students averaged approximately 133 credits. Similar patterns are observed in national data: students starting in four-year institutions (and even those who attend only one four-year institution) earn more (and often many more) than 120 credits.

In conclusion: yes, low transfer rates are a problem, but there is no empirical evidence to suggest that articulation policies are the solution. This does not mean that we should not work on streamlining credit accumulation, or that the transfer process should not be more transparent and consistent. But it does mean that relying on articulation policies to increase bachelor’s degree attainment or improve efficiency in higher education is more hopeful than realistic.

A Few Thoughts on Faculty Productivity

2011-06-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

Richard Vedder isn't an easy guy to get along with, but he's good at one thing: pushing the agenda, sometimes in students' best interests.

I totally disagree with the guy when it comes to financial aid-- there's no way it's making students lazy on average, or causing them to party. On the other hand, he asks some good questions about our college-for-all movement that offers no alternatives for students who don't want to go to college right away, and he also raises good questions about institutional resistance to change.

In his latest piece, he takes on faculty. Boo-hiss, I know... The guy has the nerve to suggest that on average we don't teach enough. His analysis comes from Texas A&M (so popular these days, eh?) and finds a “sharp disparity in the teaching loads for individual faculty members” at UT. Strikingly, they find that the top 20 percent of “faculty with respect to teaching loads teaches 57% of all student credit hours” while the bottom 20 percent teach “only 2% of all student credit hours.”

His point, while overly aggressive (heck, I know something about that), is mainly that we established a way of putting students and teachers together a long, long time ago-- and since then colleges and universities have tried to save money on that approach by shifting to a part-time contingent workforce (reducing average teaching load), allowing more and more professors to buy out of teaching with grant money, and keeping class sizes about the same even while enrollments expanded dramatically and technology made other solutions possible.

When Richard says it, people freak out. A rebuttal from a Texas A&M political science professor tries to bat down the accusations. But he seems to miss the point of Vedder's approach, which is to say that every decision about staffing matters-- so we should lump together faculty in different categories given that theoretically the distributions could be changed. Case in point: "First, much of the skew in teaching duties observed by the CCAP report authors is simply a function of the fact that UT employs a large number of part-time faculty." Well, yes, but that's part of the point-- and a big problem. Universities do that NOT to serve students better but to save money on benefits. PT faculty are perfectly good at teaching but are overworked and underpaid so don't have time for out-of-classroom interaction. His second point, that there's a potential consequence for education quality is right, in theory, yet he cites not a single study showing that large class sizes are associated with diminish instructional quality in higher education. And that's because he can't-- such studies don't exist. Doug Harris and I covered this at length in our La Follette working paper released last year. I do agree that there should be adjustments by field, but this needs to be carefully done because decisions about offering fields with lower enrollments are also strategic decisions and institutions have to be accountable for them. I'm not saying don't offer them, but you can probably only do it if you high-demand fields are very productive. Finally, I see nothing about the use of our resistance to technology, especially blended learning, about faculty in the professor's rebuttal. Technology breaks the iron triangle between access, quality, and costs -- it makes it more possible to offer a high-quality lower cost accessible education. I'm on-board with that and it may be one thing that sets me apart from most other professors.

All that said, Vedder's analysis is far from perfect. It doesn't introduce the issue of impacts on students in any rigorous way. It doesn't take on strongly enough the political and economic reasons why part-time labor is being exploited across higher education. It doesn't question a business-style approach to measuring higher education "outputs." And it doesn't take seriously the need for faculty to LEAD this discussion so that reforms stand a chance of really being implemented.

I've long wondered why I teach today in approximately the same way my colleagues did a half-century ago. Why stand in front of classrooms of 30-50 undergraduates several times a week, rather than meeting with 300 of them twice a month and the rest of the time online? Some will inevitably say that will produce lower-quality instruction but they have nothing to point to-- studies of blended learning are strongly suggestive of positive impacts. Forget online-only, I'm not talking about online only and neither are most proponents of bringing technological advances into university teaching.

And let's get real: right now there are hundreds of professors who have to cancel classes in order to attend conferences, meetings, and such. They resent the requirement to be in-person all the time to teach, when nothing else in their lives requires that anymore. Some of them never reschedule, others hold makeup classes, and some use Skype to teach. The latter is a very low-tech approach and it's used because we're not given other options. What if we were? What if faculty could teach more students, more flexibly, and even with better pedagogy (for example by getting more regular feedback on student performance, rapidly, to use in our teaching) -- and this, together, helped preserve public investment in higher education because it demonstrated productivity gains? Why not?

I suspect part of the reason "why not" is because when you hear "online" you think "for-profit" or "business." When you hear "big classes" you think "community college." When you hear "improved pedagogy" you think "someone's going to tell me how to teach?" And when you hear "productivity" you think "neoliberalism, market-driven education." I know, I sometimes do too.

This is a problem-- professors are thoughtful, careful people and it's essential we not have knee-jerk reactions to ideas that aren't yet being shoved down our throats in propaganda-spun-out policy proposals. This is one we can help shape and get in front of, and make it our own. Or, we can wait until the Republicans bring it to us, and tell us what to do.

PS. One more thing. Richard's claims that faculty can do more because he's done more--juggling research and teaching--that's just plain silly. There's been a major change in the faculty workforce--it's feminized. Something I know for sure-- Richard never juggled teaching, research, breastfeeding, and taking care of small kids. We can and should do more, but there's no reason to base the model on Richard Vedder's style.

Community Colleges and Press

2011-06-09T11:45:00.000-07:00

To the editor of Education Week:

In the June 9 article by Caralee Adams titled "Popularity Offers Challenges for Community Colleges." I am quoted in a manner that implies significant disrespect for the work of community colleges. While Ms. Adams used my words verbatim, they were taken out of context and this --unintentionally--altered their meaning.

I shared in the effort to craft and pass the American Graduation Initiative intended to support the efforts of community colleges to serve students from all walks of life. When the AGI failed to become law, it meant that community colleges had been drawn into the public eye but not given the financial resources they needed to improve their outcomes. Their current outcomes became highly visible, and left some with the false impression they were attributable to a lack of will on the part of the colleges, rather than a lack of resources.

I explained this to Caralee, and in particular I said the colleges had both the "will and commitment" to succeed. I also noted that I felt partially responsible for not delivering more support to them. Those pieces were paraphrased due to space constraints, but they were essential.

My long track record of analyzing and explaining the challenges facing community colleges stands on its own. They have motivation--what they need now is money and technical assistance. I fully support efforts to deliver on the promise of the AGI.

Sara Goldrick-Rab

Biddy Martin's Next Bold Vision

2011-06-05T20:34:00.000-07:00

Chancellor Biddy Martin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison enjoys making bold moves. Here are some thoughts on what those next moves could be.

Since his election, Scott Walker has successfully divided the constituencies supporting public education across Wisconsin. Advocates for poor children who see charter schools as the best option are attacking public school teachers who struggle to feed their families while being painted as living lifestyles of the welfare "queens." Proponents of publicly-supported research universities are attempting to preserve the rights of UW-Madison by denigrating the work of other UW institutions. By distracting supporters of public higher education with a divisive "public authority" model for UW-Madison, Walker convinced most administrators, faculty, staff, and students at that school to fight against their brethren, rather than against his $250 million cut.

Regardless of her intentions, Chancellor Martin participated in Walker's charade. Great ugliness has resulted, and I think she's well-aware of that. For example, last week, even as the media declared the death of public authority, the Badger Advocates issued a press release that castigated UW System President Kevin Reilly and humiliated everyone not at UW-Madison. While the Badger Advocates consistently claim to represent the Chancellor--above and beyond the institution-- even she couldn't take it anymore, attempting to distance herself from their work.

That was a good start. Much more is needed. The past several months have illuminated some extremely elitist, ugly attitudes among Madison's employees, students, and alumni. To be clear, I am not attacking students here-- indeed, I feel we are collectively responsible for their actions. I am extremely concerned, however, by Martin's expressions of uniform support for alumni involvement in Madison when alumni express opinions like this one, written by Frank Rojas (UW, '74) in the comments of a national higher education online newspaper:

"Madison gets more outside research funding in one day than than Oshkosh gets in a year. It raises more donations in a day than Oshkosh does in a year. Madison would be happy to see the other schools grow and improve as it would take away some of the heat it now gets over admissions/rejections of instate kids. But to date none has shown much ability or vision in that area. There is no College of New Jersey or William and Mary equivalent in Wisconsin. Madison endorses similar freedoms from state regs for the other campuses. But it does not want to be held back by the limits of the lowest common denominator thinking either."

Frank has written to me and about me since this debate began, accusing me of "hateful" behavior towards UW-Madison. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have worked tirelessly to preserve the best of UW-Madison -- its unselfish leadership and opportunities it provides all of Wisconsin. I have worked to defend UW-Madison from global forces that aim to corrupt it-- a market-driven vision that is antithetical to its populist roots, a neoliberal approach that prioritizes pragmatism over values, a narrow definition of excellence that excludes others' accomplishments. I honor UW-Madison, the institution. That is why I fight efforts to distance it from the rest of UW System -- a move that would transform it from something unique and wonderful, to something common and truly mediocre.

Biddy's bold step should be to ensure that all of UW-Madison understands her lesson learned from the past six months: divided we fall. She should work to instill a sense of collective efficacy, and teach her employees and staff to empathize with the struggles facing all of Wisconsin. She should endeavor to educate UW alumni about the institution's values, lest they be away far too long and simply forget.

I know Biddy can do this. I recently watched a wonderful video of her during days at Cornell, where she spoke of rejecting the corrupting influence of college rankings that create a "winner-take-all" society, and focused on "questions of value" for the future of higher education. She talked of the "threats to meritocracy" that stem from "public resistance to paying the taxes it would require to keep pace with the costs of higher education and research." That is the Biddy Martin we needed to fight Scott Walker's cuts.

That Biddy Martin also talked about something crucial when she said, "I think that there is a kind of lack of attention to interiority generally, by which I mean the relationship we have to ourselves, and I believe that education is letting us all down when it comes to that. I am not talking about interiority in the form of naval-gazing or individualism in the sense of some sort of asocial obsession, but I am talking about the value of awareness and individuality, the development of individuality and the development of the ability to integrate, what we take in and what we establish as our own. I think we owe it to our students to model those things. They require engaging with the world and with other people, but they also require that each of us engage with the person that we are in the process of becoming, and that we give our students the tools to engage with themselves as the people that they are becoming to. It is a combination then of wired connectivity and super-fast pace on the one hand, which our students require of us and we require of ourselves, but also the ability to take space and time in the midst of the gold rush for contemplation and reflection."

The Biddy Martin of that video is capable of repairing the immense damage inflicted by the push for public authority. She is capable of standing up to alumni who wish to promote a UW-Madison that views the UW-Oshkoshes of the world as part of the "lowest common denominator." She is capable of reaching the hearts and minds of students who mistakenly believe they are at UW-Madison because they deserve it more than other people in the state.

That's the Biddy Martin I look forward to meeting this fall.

The Saddest Tweet of Them All

2011-05-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

Updated May 30, 2011--and again June 1

I've been watching as UW Madison moves into the post-NBP phase of life (wait, there is life after NBP?). In particularly, I'm finding the (re)framing of recent events by NBP proponents both fascinating, and disturbing.

Spin is, to some degree, expected. We can't blame Chancellor Martin for trying to save face, or Governor Walker for that matter.

What I didn't expect, and what upsets me most, is the self-righteousness evident in those who proclaim "we accomplished something here." Something, they claim, UW System did not. Could not. Would not.

Sad and short-sighted, perhaps, but not surprising. On the other hand, a recent tweet from a Madison student stopped me in my tracks. On Saturday he wrote, "No #UWNBP. Disappointing. Looks like we have to be tied to the poor decisions #UWSystem makes." Surprised at his statement, I responded, "Ever been to System? Ever met anyone there? Why do you follow blindly what u r told? #UWNBP #UWSystem." To which he replied "It's fun to make assumptions."

Well, that's sorta what I figured-- the majority of people claiming failure on the part of UW System and lauding the achievements of Chancellor Martin have never interacted with System. It's not that System is perfect -- far from it. But by degrading the capabilities of the governing body of our sister institutions, one casts dispersions on the quality of education received by other students. It's incredibly unproductive. It's also unfair. Of course, maybe people just don't care. I worried about that, so I wrote: "Fun, but destructive to students at other universities."

A moment later, I got a reply: "It isn't my job to be concerned with students at other universities." And a few minutes after that, he added: "It was my job to maximize my education and the value of this university, if that benefits other universities too, great!"

It was like a punch in the gut, as I suddenly realized that the whole UWNBP situation is but a microcosm of the broader threat to public education.

Too many of our fellow Americans are downright compassionless.

As David Berliner wrote in The Manufactured Crisis, "true improvements in public education will not come about unless they are based on compassion...If we structure our public school system so that large groups of students are not provided equitable education, we create a host of problems....In Lincoln's words, it has always been clear that effective reform of education must begin 'with charity for all.'"

None other than David Brooks makes a similar statement in today's New York Times, where he loudly admonishes college graduates "It's not about you." The big mistake society has made is giving undergraduates the impression the goal in life is to find themselves. Not hardly. The goal is to "lose yourself", Brooks explain, by "look[ing] outside and find[ing] a problem, which summons [your] life."

I guess we can't really blame the students. After all, they are simply following the example set by people like the alumni backing The Badger Advocates. Given that I've already publicly called them "goons" I suppose it's worth the risk to go one step further and say straight up that their latest press release reveals them as plain ol' liars. Yes, I said that. They are lying. Take a look. According to their revised version of reality, Chancellor Martin spent the last year attempting to "educate" the state about the need for the New Badger Partnership (if by educate you mean tell people the version of the facts you prefer, alrighty then), working "closely and diligently" with the Legislature while UW System "fought the proposal," worked "hastily," opposed "real reform," and basically did whatever was possible to undermine the thoughtful, hard work of Martin. "And although Martin worked tirelessly on the NBP, at the end of the year-long tour, she is respectful and considerate of the Joint Finance Committee and the Legislature’s desire to draft their own plan for UW-Madison and the system." There are no words for the extent to which this is a lie, other than COME ON! (I'm not alone in saying this.) The only truth in the whole darned thing is that Martin was on a "year-long tour."

We have been sold a bill of goods-- one that paints UW Madison into a corner as an elitist, know-it-all flagship that bears no resemblance to the rest of the state. We at UW Madison should be furious that anyone--anyone--is spending money "on our behalf" to support the kinds of work The Badger Advocates are doing. That they are doing it at the behest of our leader is even more appalling. At this point, they are more than undermining our credibility with the Legislature, in fact they threaten to further smear the good name of Madison in the hearts and minds of the rest of Wisconsin. Not only have they -- and she-- not given up on Public Authority, they are pushing harder.

This state faces massive inequities in the provision of both k-12 and higher education. If we at UW-Madison cannot teach our undergraduates compassion for their fellow undergraduates-- at all public institutions throughout the state-- then we are doomed to a competitive race to the bottom. If the only route they can see to helping others is by helping themselves, we have not done our jobs.

That was the lesson I got from Twitter that day. We have failed to educate. We must do more.

The Truth About the Proposed NBP: LFB Weighs In

2011-05-27T16:49:00.000-07:00

The New Badger Partnership is -- reportedly-- dead. In the meantime, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau has just released its analysis of what Public Authority would look like if the NBP were passed. The report is quite interesting, and in particular I think the following points are worth highlighting:

(1) Despite the Chancellor's claims that what she wanted was "part of a national trend" the governance structure Madison asked for was quite unusual, when considering arrangements in other states.

"Attachment 1 provides an overview of the governance structures of institutions that are similar to UW-Madison in terms of size and federal research and development funding. These institutions are all public or "state-related" institutions with large student populations, high six-year graduation rates, and federal research and development expenditures above $400 million in 2008-09. As shown in the Attachment, these institutions have a variety different governance structures. Of the institutions shown, the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, and the University of Pittsburgh have governance structures most similar to that proposed for UW-Madison under the bill. Each of these institutions is governed by a board that oversees that institution and a limited number of smaller regional institutions. However, in Michigan and Washington, most other public four-year institutions similarly have their own governing board. In Pennsylvania, there are separate governing boards for Pennsylvania State University, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Temple University, and Lincoln University. None of the states shown have one governing board for the flagship institution and one governing board for all other public higher education institutions as Wisconsin would under the bill."

(2) Madison's claims that it has suffered disproportionate losses over time in the race for funding and that it especially needs these flexibilities-- or at least, it should get them NOW before other schools-- seems quite off considering these facts:

"When adjusted for inflation, state funding provided for UW-Madison and for all other UW System institutions decreased from 1990-91 to 2010-11. Over that period of time, state funding for UW-Madison decreased by 2.8% while state funding for all other UW System institutions decreased by 6.8%. At the same time, enrollment at UW-Madison increased by 1.5% while enrollments at all other UW System institutions increased by 23.4%. When these increases in enrollment are controlled for, state funding for UW-Madison decreased by 4.2% while state funding for all other UW System institutions decreased by 24.4%. Given that state funding for UW System institutions other than UW-Madison have decreased by a greater amount than state funding for UW-Madison over the past twenty years, it is unclear whether UW-Madison or the other UW System institution would benefit most in terms of state funding if UW-Madison were no longer part of the UW System."

"Salaries at UW-Milwaukee and the comprehensives are significantly farther behind their peers than salaries at UW-Madison are. For this reason, the Committee may want to extend any compensation flexibilities that may be provided to UW-Madison to all UW institutions."

(3) Madison's claims about the monetary savings from NBP appear to be over-stated.

"..As an authority, UW-Madison would not be required to deposit most of its program revenues or any of its federal revenues in the state treasury. The UW-Madison Chancellor has asserted that keeping these accounts separate from other state moneys would protect these funds from being transferred to support other state programs as has occurred in the past. In the Wisconsin Idea Partnership, the UW System Board of Regents similarly proposes that most of its program revenues and all of its federal revenues similarly be kept outside of the state treasury. The UWMadison Chancellor contends that the UW System, which would remain a state agency, would not be able to deposit these revenues outside of the state treasury leaving them susceptible to transfers. However, the cash management policies proposed for the UW-Madison authority may not fully protect these funds from future transfers, either. Regardless of where UW-Madison authority funds are deposited, it appears that as a matter of law, the Legislature could compel UW-Madison, as an authority created by state statute, to transfer funds to the state at any time."

(4) There was significant potential for tuition to skyrocket in order to increase faculty salaries.

"Under current practice, many UW faculty and academic staff positions are funded through a combination of state GPR and tuition. Compensation plans approved by the Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER) therefore include a GPR portion and a tuition portion. If the UW Board of Regents or the proposed UW-Madison authority Board of Trustees were provided both unlimited tuition authority and the ability to approve pay plans for faculty, academic staff, and senior executives, the Legislature would not be able to limit the amount by which resident undergraduate tuition would be increased to fund those pay plans."

(5) Tying tuition increases to accountability for increasing financial aid was an option-- but not one Madison proposed.

"A third option could be to grant the Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents full authority to set tuition rates but to require them to report to the Legislature on certain specified measures such as the number of low-income students enrolled, retention and graduation rates for low-income students, and the amount of need-based financial aid provided through federal, state, and institutional programs. The Legislature could set goals for the UW-Madison authority or the UW System and could penalize the institution or institutions, either by reducing GPR funding or limiting tuition authority, if sufficient progress towards those goals is not met."

Good thing this bad idea has been recognized for what it truly was. A mess.

A Provocative New Report on Higher Education

2011-05-25T13:35:00.000-07:00

I know we in Wisconsin are sick and tired of hearing about Virginia....but please bear with me, because a new report out of UVA will likely resonate-- especially with my UW-Madison readers.

A new Lumina Foundation-funded report from the Miller Center and the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, based on a December 2010 meeting about "how to maximize higher education’s contributions to the American economy" makes the following provocative statement:

The past few decades have seen far too many colleges and universities engage in a rush toward elite status. The more selective an institution is, the better. The more research money it collects, the better. The higher it ranks in national and international publications, the better. But what has the race for status contributed to the public good? It is possible to build state institutions that are noted in U.S. News & World Report and national rankings of research universities but ignore the needs of many or most of a state’s people.

Among the report's recommendations:

(1) Rethink the purpose and functions of governing boards (e.g. like our Board of Regents). Give them new leadership roles, including setting clear goals for their member institutions and creating funding mechanisms linked to these goals. "The state governing and coordinating boards are still needed, both for their leadership and for the “buffer” role that they play between higher education institutions and state governments...In addition to measuring and paying for performance, state boards should encourage institutional redesign, curriculum revision, and the introduction of educational programs.. that meet the needs of new kinds of students...State boards should promote review of the missions of institutions,and create conditions in which it is in their own best interests to focus on the public mission of higher education...Reconsidering the missions of colleges and universities requires participation by faculty, institutional management, institutional governing bodies, and those who are responsible for the statewide coherence of higher education. It also requires consultation with the executive and legislative branches of government, with employers, localities, and the business community in general."

(2) Assign greater percentages of [institutional] operating budgets to instruction in order to achieve higher rates of degree completion. "The percentage of increases in student tuition over the past several years is far greater than the increases in expenditures on instruction. Where is the money going? What expenditures can be reduced or eliminated?...Many institutions have grown used to spending their money on things that may not reflect the needs of the states or regions that they are supposed to serve."

(3) Increase faculty teaching responsibilities. "Reduce the number of non-permanent and adjunct faculty -- this almost certainly will require that many regular, full-time faculty members teach more courses and be relieved of other duties for which they have volunteeredor to which they have been assigned."

(4) Restrict research efforts to a limited number of institutions. "..Say clearly that the “research” obligation of the great majority of faculty members is simply to remain current in their fields. Relatively few of them are going to make historic contributions to human knowledge."

(5) Adopt tighter, more focused curricula with key learning objectives."..The “electives” that have proliferated in the past half-century often are far less cost-effective, in part because enrollment in them is voluntary and usually smaller, and not required for particular programs of study. A core curriculum of required courses may seem less attractive than a wide array of choices, but it also may be less costly and more focused on key learning objectives. It is also likely to lead to higher levels of program completion."

(6) "Institutions should be required to assess what students learn and to measure and report their progress in clear and unambiguous terms."

Now, I don't agree with every idea in here-- but I do think this is a very useful report for framing a discussion about the future of Wisconsin public higher education, and I urge you to review it in full.

Let the Sunshine In

2011-05-25T09:36:00.000-07:00

Evidence-based decision-making requires data. We can disagree over the merits of using evidence to make decisions and we can also worry about the quality of the data collected, but if we hope to ground decisions in facts we need data.

As all higher education researchers know, there are enormous barriers that prevent the use of data in decision-making about program effectiveness. Think it's difficult to study the k-12 system? Come over to the dark side sometime, where de-centralized colleges and universities get to act independently when making decisions about granting data access, and nearly all find some convoluted way to hide behind FERPA.

Oh FERPA, that big hairy monster that claims to protect students' rights by shielding them from the benefits of evidence-based practices. Paying skyhigh tuition to your college while assuming they have ensured the way they teach actually "works"? Think again--- in all likelihood, the only people who've looked at the data are on the inside; administration-paid institutional researchers who are over-worked and underpaid, and most importantly tasked with responding to administrator whims and reporting requirements-- leaving little time for deep, thoughtful inquiry.

FERPA is very often used to deny external researchers access to student record data. Most often, we are simply told "Can't. FERPA doesn't allow it." "Oh that FERPA, that silly, silly FERPA. We WANT to give you the evidence we're doing a great job, but sorry, can't compromise student privacy."

Most of this is completely bogus, and thankfully the Data Quality Campaign has been working to reform FERPA, bringing it into the 21st century with all of its security protections. Back in April DQC had a big win, when the Department of Education released new proposed amendments to FERPA. The changes would "facilitate fuller access for research and evaluation purposes to student data contained in state longitudinal data systems (SLDSs) in order to increase accountability and transparency for educational outcomes and to contribute to a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in education, while at the same time enhancing privacy protections through expanded requirements for written agreements as the basis for disclosures of data and US ED enforcement mechanisms. They would authorize fuller, more cost effective use of state-level student data for research, evaluation, and accountability, subject to clear privacy protections, as well as effective use of data across all levels of education to evaluate and improve education programs."

Rock on! This was simply an excellent step.

Oh but wait-- here comes Dupont Circle. This morning, around 30 higher education associations released a letter objecting to the proposed regs. They are all for research, they say, but the privacy protections aren't strong enough.

Why am I not surprised? I hate to be so cynical, but if these associations really were supportive of the main reform goals, the letter could have begun with much stronger, clearer statements about the need for higher education to benefit from research-based practices, and denouncing the historical resistance to that culture. The privacy concerns could then be framed as necessary modifications to "make this work"-- instead, the letter comes off as weak whining at best, and typical platitudes about protecting student privacy at worst.

In recent years I've watched brave colleges and universities step up to facilitate external research and integrate it into their practices. The University of Wisconsin System and the Wisconsin Technical Colleges are among them. Let's hope their national associations get on board.

Worth a Look: From CampusProgress.org

2011-05-24T08:13:00.000-07:00

What Wisconsin Needs Now: Collective Efficacy

2011-05-18T14:03:00.000-07:00

When citizens seek to solve social problems, they are much more effective if they work together rather than alone. This basic, sensible idea is also known as "collective efficacy." And it is what must be inculcated in Wisconsin residents if we are to preserve our world-class public higher education systems.

Our willingness to act, when needed, for one another's benefit, generates long-lasting effects. Unfortunately, there is a strong impulse to turn inward when threatened, to focus on self-preservation rather than community preservation.

Solutions for issues like the fiscal challenges facing the University of Wisconsin System will not emerge if we follow leaders with imperious styles who seek to "win" no matter what the cost. Regardless of the specific policy agenda, the process of policy formation is essential since it dictates the terms of the debate.

This may sound exceedingly feel-good, but it is also deeply pragmatic. The savings that will accrue to individual campuses from any "flexibilities" are small (numbers provided to me by Darrell Bazzell are in the $10-20 million range for Madison) but collectively (if granted to all campuses) fairly large. The same is true for proposed efficiencies such as adjustments in faculty/student ratio. If, as a community, UW System examined that key cost driver across departments and divisions throughout all institutions, it could reasonably begin to make assessments about resource distribution. I suspect that some departments at UW-Madison would actually see that ratio decreased as a result, perhaps because of resources saved at another campus-- and vice versa.

The climate at UW Madison has eroded dramatically over the course of several recent policy debates such as the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, the Graduate School Restructuring, the Huron Engagement, and now the New Badger Partnership. Faculty, staff, and students are fearful of repercussions from both the success and/or the failure of the NBP. Rumors of the imminent departure of our friends and colleagues fly around daily. Motivation and productivity are down.

The way forward lies in refocusing on what has always made Madison -- and System -- great. That is: our commitment to a community that prioritizes fearless sifting and winnowing and shared decision-making to a degree uncommon in other institutions of higher education. That's the community and commitment that put us on the map. We have been through hard financial times before, and inevitably will go through them again. Stick to what we do best, and what we can do best no matter how many dollars we have at the moment, and we will shine.

It's All About the Faculty: Update

2011-05-17T11:08:00.000-07:00

On April 25 I blogged about the claim made by some NBP proponents that the policy change was needed in order to stem the tide of faculty turnover at UW-Madison. In that post I referred to some data from a 1999 report, which at the time was all I could locate on the web.

I have now had the opportunity to examine more recent data (UW-Madison faculty have access to it at the APA website) and here are some updates:

(1) In the prior post, I claimed that there hadn't been much change over time in turnover rates at Madison. As I said, I was looking at data up til 1999 and it showed a rate of about 5 or 6% (based on number of leavers divided by total number of faculty). The more recent data shows even lower turnover rates since that time-- no doubt due in large part to the efforts of UW Administration and the fact that the 2005-07, 2007-09 and 2009-11 biennial budgets provided High Demand Faculty Retention Funds (HDFRF) to address recruitment and retention issues. In the graph below, the blue and red lines show the number of faculty (blue is headcount and red is FTE) and green and purple show the turnover rate calculated two ways (green by dividing # leavers by headcount, and purple dividing #leavers by FTE). As you can see, there's no evidence that our turnover is climbing.

(2) The percent of our faculty receiving outside offers declined during the 1980s and 1990s (from a high of 7.7% in 1983 to a low of 2.4% in 1999) and then grew again during the 21st century to a high of 8.1% in 2009. However, after a steady decline in the 1990s, our success at retaining faculty who receive offers has increased from 60% in 2001 to 84% in 2008 and 80% in 2009.

(3) Probably due to the state support in this area, the percent of payroll devoted to these retention offers declined from up to 10% in the 1980s to barely 1% in 2009.

It certainly seems that those funds from the state helped stave off an uptick in faculty turnover rates. What isn't clear is that the NBP--and the Public Authority model in particular-- is necessary in order to continue to use funds in this manner. In 2009-2010 we spent less than $1.5 million on this effort.

Is Our Students Learning?

2011-05-15T13:45:00.000-07:00

Remarkably, one of the topic's of yesterday's blog post (and another I wrote two years ao)-- the limited learning taking place on many college campuses-- is the subject of a New York Times op-ed today. Titled, "Your So-Called Education," the piece argues that while 90% of graduates report being happy with their college experience, data suggests there's little to celebrate. I urge you read it and its companion op-ed "Major Delusions," which describes why college grads are delusional in their optimism about their future.

We don't regularly administer the Collegiate Learning Assessment at UW-Madison, the test that the authors of the first op-ed used to track changes in student learning over undergraduate careers. From talking with our vice provost for teaching and learning, Aaron Brower, I understand there are many good reasons for this. Among them are concerns that the test doesn't measure the learning we intend to transmit (for what it does measure, and how it measures it, see here), as well as concerns about the costs and heroics required to administer it well. In the meantime, Aaron is working on ways to introduce more high-impact learning practices, including freshmen interest groups and learning communities, and together with colleagues has written an assessment of students' self-reports of their learning (the Essential Learning Outcomes Questionnaire). We all have good reason to wish him well. For it's clear from what we do know about undergraduate learning on campus, we have work to do.

The reports contained in our most recent student engagement survey (the NSSE, administered in 2008) indicate the following:

1. Only 60% of seniors report that the quality of instruction in their lower division courses was good or excellent.

This is possibly linked to class size, since only 37% say that those classes are "ok" in size -- but (a) that isn't clear, since the % who says the classes are too large and the % that say they are too small are not reported, and (b) the question doesn't link class size to quality of instruction. As I've noted in prior posts, it's a popular proxy for quality but also one that is promoted by institutions since smaller classes equates with more resources (though high-quality instruction does not apparently equate with smaller classes nor high resources). There are other plausible explanations for the assessment of quality that the survey does not shed light on.

2. A substantial fraction of our students are not being asked to do the kind of challenging academic tasks associated with learning gains.

For example, 31% of seniors (and 40% of freshmen) report that they are not frequently asked to make "judgments about information, arguments, or methods, e.g., examining how others gathered/ interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions." (Sidebar-- interesting to think about how this has affected the debate over the NBP.) 28% of seniors say they are not frequently asked to synthesize and organize "ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships." On the other hand, 63% of seniors and 76% of freshmen indicate that they are frequently asked to memorize facts and repeat them. And while there are some real positives-- such as the higher-than-average percent of students who feel the university emphasizes the need to spend time on academic work-- fully 45% of seniors surveyed did not agree that "most of the time, I have been challenged to do the very best I can."

3. As students get ready to graduate from Madison, many do not experience a rigorous academic year.

In their senior year, 55% of students did not write a paper or report of 20 pages or more, 75% read fewer than 5 books, 57% didn't make a class presentation, 51% didn't discuss their assignments or grades with their instructor, and 66% didn't discuss career plans with a faculty member or adviser. Nearly one-third admitted often coming to class unprepared. Less than one-third had a culminating experience such as a capstone course or thesis project.

4. The main benefit of being an undergraduate at a research university--getting to work on a professor's research project-- does not happen for the majority of students.

While 45% of freshmen say it is something they plan to do, only 32% of seniors say they've done it.

Yet overall, just as the Times reports, 91% of UW-Madison seniors say their "entire educational experience" was good or excellent.

Well-done. Now, let's do more.

Postscript: Since I've heard directly from readers seeking more resources on the topic of student learning, here are a few to get you started.

A new report just out indicates that college presidents are loathe to measure learning as a metric of college quality! Instead, they prefer to focus on labor market outcomes.

Measuring college learning responsibly: accountability in a new era by Richard J. Shavelson is a great companion to Academically Adrift. Shavelson was among the designers of the CLA and he responds to critics concerned with its value.

The Voluntary System of Accountability, embraced by public universities who hope to provide their own data rather than have a framework imposed on them. Here is Madison's report.

On the topic of students' own reports of their learning gains, Nick Bowman's research is particularly helpful. For example, in 2009 in the American Education Research Journal Bowman reported that that in a longitudinal study of 3,000 first year students, “across several cognitive and noncognitive outcomes, the correlations between self-reported and longitudinal gains are small or virtually zero, and regression analyses using these two forms of assessment yield divergent results.” In 2011, he reported in Educational Researcher that "although some significant differences by institutional type were identified, the findings do not support the use of self-reported gains as a proxy for longitudinal growth at any institution."

As for the NSSE data, such as what I cited above from UW-Madison, Ernie Pascarella and his colleagues report that these are decent at predicting educational outcomes. Specifically, “institution-level NSSE benchmark scores had a significant overall positive association with the seven liberal arts outcomes at the end of the first year of college, independent of differences across the 19 institutions in the average score of their entering student population on each outcome. The mean value of all the partial correlations…was .34, which had a very low probability (.001) of being due to chance."

Finally, you should also check out results from the Wabash study.

Making Opportunity Affordable

2011-05-14T20:32:00.000-07:00

In recent days, an NBP proponent accused me of hoping to "McDonaldize" UW-Madison. He made this accusation because I dared suggest that the university is not operating as productively as it could be. Our per-pupil spending is lower than at many of our peers, and especially lower than privates, he says. Sure, that's true. But frankly, it's about as relevant as my son proclaiming that he should have two desserts after dinner just because other kids at preschool regularly have three or four! Mistakes made by other institutions don't justify our own. We can, and must, do better.

Lately our attention has been drawn to one particular trend in higher education-- the disinvestment of the state from higher education. Let me add to that three others: (1) time-to-degree is up at the majority of public colleges and universities, (2) socioeconomic gaps in college completion rates are stagnant, and (3) most students are not registering any learning gains over four years of college attendance.

So while students and their families are being asked to pay more for college, it seems like they aren't actually getting anything additional for their money. That means productivity is declining, pure and simple. The fact that a college degree still brings a large wage premium is nice, but that appears at least partly (or even largely) attributable to employers' willingness to accept a diploma as a proxy for learning. Too bad for many universities: researchers are blowing apart that assumption as we speak.

But fear not: improving productivity does not mean reducing quality. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the latest learning science studies. And lest you think that I'm pushing an agenda that aims to demolish the traditional institutions in favor of for-profit models, well, ask around-- nothing could be further from the truth. I focus on enhancing productivity because making gains in this domain is truly the only politically viable way of making opportunity affordable.

High-caliber institutions like Carnegie Mellon are pursuing new ways to educate and support undergraduates that are more productive-- and thus more cost-effective-- than older models. Some colleges and universities feel threatened by this, and loudly proclaim their current practices "work" and are "cheaper." But the culture of evidence in higher education administration is notoriously weak, and thus program impacts are rarely if ever measured in meaningful ways. Absent an approach that considers impacts relative to costs, there's no basis for protecting "business-as-usual."

With that in mind, I'm going to begin to quickly highlight on this blog some key initiatives that appear to be cost-effective, highly impactful ways of educating the kinds of students like those UW-Madison serves. If the basic idea of each intrigues you, I'm giving you links to read more. My intent is to get a serious conversation started-- a conversation about refocusing on our core mission: providing a high-quality affordable education to the Wisconsin residents we serve. (We'd join many other states in this important conversation, for example read about Oregon.)

Initiative #1: Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon.

Students need effective instruction that incorporates regular assessment and supplements with tutoring as needed. Technology can assist professors in accomplishing this.

"OLI courses are developed by teams composed of faculty, learning scientists, human-computer interaction experts, and software engineers in order to make the best use of multidisciplinary knowledge for designing effective learning environments. The OLI design team articulates an initial set of student-centered, measurable learning objectives and designs the instructional environment to support students in achieving them.The instructional activities in OLI courses contain small amounts of explanatory text and many activities that capitalize on the computer's capability to display digital images and simulations and to promote interaction. Many of the courses also include virtual lab environments that encourage flexible and authentic exploration. Perhaps the most salient feature of OLI course design is the embedding of quasi-intelligent tutors—or “mini-tutors”—within the learning activities throughout the course... An intelligent tutor is a computerized learning environment whose design is based on cognitive principles and whose interaction with students is like those of a human tutor—making comments when students err, answering questions about what to do next, and maintaining a low profile when they are performing well. This approach differs from traditional computer-aided instruction, which gives didactic feedback to students on their final answers; the OLI tutors provide context-specific assistance throughout the problem-solving process."

Read more about OLI in a White House commissioned paper here.

Initiative #2: Inside Track

Persisting in college does not equate with making timely progress towards a degree, or even enjoying the academic experience at all. Mentoring can help. The Inside Track student coaching model assigns an executive coach to needy students, at a cost of just $500 for 6 months. It is an increasingly popular program at public universities, including Florida State. An extensive randomized evaluation indicates a 10-15 percentage point increase in retention rates.

POSTSCRIPT:

It's worth noting that UW-Madison has begun participating in the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. This allows us to benchmark instructional spending at the department level against those at other participating institutions (e.g. Ohio State University, SUNY - University at Buffalo, University of Arizona, University of Colorado - Boulder, University of Kansas, University of Missouri - Columbia , University of Nebraska - Lincoln, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, University of Oregon ,University of Texas at Austin). (These aren't the best comparisons but they are all that's given, and at least one of my readers is demanding comparisons no matter what.) The most recent year of our data indicates that our direct instructional expenditures per student credit hour are on the high side--not appalling high, but higher than average-- and importantly that there is widespread variation by discipline and department. Of possible concern are departments where the number of student credit hours per instructional faculty (e.g. the volume) is much lower than that of the comparison group of institutions, while the expenditures per credit hour (the costs) are much higher. Those need to be examined, as I'm sure they are being, for whether the quality produced justifies those numbers. At the same time, the data indicate some very productive areas-- such as law-- where faculty are clearly doing more work at a lower cost. This is a good step for Madison, and hopefully leads to more such conversations--with significant faculty involvement.

What's the Matter with Koch U?

2011-05-10T17:38:00.000-07:00

There's much ado in Madison today about the news that the Koch Bros. made a $1.5 million gift to the economics department at Florida State University accompanied by numerous strings, including significant power over faculty hiring.

Over at Sifting and Winnowing, professors and students are debating whether or not we should be concerned about this event given the potential the New Badger Partnership creates for changing the rules of the game at Madison in ways that could increase authority of a governor-appointed board to make such decisions based on pure economics.

One writer, "Patrick," contends that the FSU incident is no big deal, because "I was under the impression this kind of thing has been going on basically forever in one form or another no matter where the funding comes from. Maybe attaching explicit strings to funding like this is a bit more open than usual, but I don’t understand how it’s any different."

To some extent, Patrick is right: donors often have conditions. In particular, they have interests in specific kinds of work, methodologies, and expertise. But faculty have conditions and obligations too. For example, at UW-Madison right now:

(1) Faculty are protected from pressure to accept every dollar offered by being paid reasonably well by their institution. That includes time for research. Sure, we still feel a desire (in some disciplines) to raise summer money and money to buy out of teaching and money for assistants and supplies-- but the fact that our base salary rarely depends on external funds helps reduce that pressure. In fact, no matter how much external money we raise our base salary is not enhanced by that money (unless it gets us a raise, which I'm told is rare) and it (supposedly) doesn't affect our chances for tenure.

(2) Faculty are further protected by obligations to disclose funders to Institutional Research Boards and on "outside activities" reports. We are asked about potential conflicts of interest.

(3) Faculty are protected by shared governance. No donor can interfere in hiring or tenure as long as that stands.

(4) Faculty are further obligated by a community which (currently) has a strong norms that uphold consideration of ethics and values in decisions about funding. As the professors said in the Campus Connection piece, this wouldn't happen at UW-Madison-- at least right now.

Those protections are crucial, for what they do is minimize the potential consequences of "academic capitalism." That term, according to UW-Madison alum and scholar Sheila Slaughter and her co-authors, means "market and market-like behaviors on the part of universities and faculty.”

The risks of academic capitalism at public research universities include a move "away from “access” (for students who are not employed and do not have easy access to good jobs) towards “accessibility” (benefiting the already employed)....this reverse[s] a pattern established over most of the 20th century: a push to increase access for low-income and minority student populations. Interestingly, academic capitalism in the new economy involves the pursuit not of mass markets, but of various privileged, niche student markets, with the effect being to change one of the basic functions of most higher education institutions in the U.S."

UW-Madison seems increasingly vulnerable to academic capitalism: despite its high rankings it is clearly still on a quest for legitimacy, strongly inclined to try and enhance revenue flows rather than reduce dependency on resources, and seemingly quite open to embracing the influence of globalization. Frankly, it's a prime target for donors with agendas-- but right now, there is a substantial palace guard protecting us. Dismantle that guard-- as I think the NBP with its new Walker-appointed board and focus on private fundraising will-- and watch the chips fall.

Think I'm exaggerating? Here's the report on a top Walker cabinet member, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, on the NBP (hey thanks Vince Sweeney for pointing this one out!):

"Speaking in Brookfield Wednesday at a gathering of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, he [Huebsch] told the group it would bring a free-market approach to the university system similar to that of a corporate business..."

UW-Madison -- the new Koch U?
********

This is depressing, so let me end instead on an alterative vision proffered by Slaughter and Rhodes:

"We believe that in place of these policies, faculty and their associations and unions should reprioritize the democratic and educational functions of the academy, in addition to the local economic roles in community development that colleges and universities can play. They should systematically challenge the privilege and success of the private-sector economy that is being mirrored in higher education today, subjecting the increased investment in entrepreneurial ventures to more public discussion and more public accountability. After all, as with the dot.coms in the private sector, much academic capitalism ends up losing revenue and cost shifting to the consumer—in higher education in the form of higher tuitions. We believe that faculty and their associations and unions should redirect attention to just who exactly is benefiting from certain forms and patterns of higher education provision, and in doing so emphasize the importance—particularly during a time in which some states are realizing a new majority population—of expanding educational opportunity for those who have historically encountered social, economic and cultural barriers to entry. In the face of academic capitalism in the new economy, academics and their associations and unions should consider their own participation in this process and begin to articulate new, viable, alternative, paths for colleges, universities and academics to pursue."

Reforming Wisconsin Public Higher Education: Part 2

2011-05-10T08:27:00.000-07:00

Here's perhaps the only thing I like about the New Badger Partnership: it's got people talking about reforming public higher education in Wisconsin.

The downside is that the terms of the conversation are constrained by its leadership: right now it's a conversation about how a single, expensive institution can continue to have lots of money to do its work. The state needs to transform this into a broader conversation about creating a more sustainable model with which to provide public higher education to all state residents.

That requires far more than a few "flexibilities" or the creation of yet another governing board. There are fundamental issues we have neglected to tackle for far too long. And these issues make university administrators and faculty members very uncomfortable, for they strike at the core of the enterprise. The trick is how to "strike" at the core in a way that transforms it into something better, rather than something awful.

Here are big questions we must begin to consider and address if the overarching goal of sustaining a public higher education model in the state will be met:

(1) How can we best increase institutional performance on several metrics related to undergraduate and graduate education?

(2) How can we tie some of the funding for higher education to performance? (Right now we pay for "butts in seats" not completed credentials)

(3) How can we best assess duplicate or similar programs that could be meaningfully consolidated?

(4) Are there too many public higher education institutions in the state?

(5) Are all senior administrator positions adding value? What about all professors?

(6) Are all degree programs at each institution adding value?

What the NBP Really Costs

2011-05-10T05:29:00.000-07:00

UW-Madison is a rock star. Look at how we stack up in nearly every ranking imaginable! It is a public Ivy, and there is no objective indication that the model that built this institution has stopped working, causing a consistent downward slide. Indeed, its own press office notes that it "continues to be lauded" and the Badger Herald reports the same from key members of the Administration.

Now consider this: For the last 18+ months, University Administration has spent an enormous amount of time trying to change the way UW-Madison is governed and financed. They've pushed a plan that includes no specific, demonstrable cost savings. And their efforts have consumed enormous resources, including but not limited to a preponderance of the time and attention of all Bascom Hall leaders (at least 10-12 people, if not more), their staff, deans and other administrators, faculty from across campus, and graduate and undergraduate students. Plus all of those media resources (town hall meetings, flyering, computing time, etc). Not to mention the resources spent by our alumni on the Badger Advocates and the WAA's robocalls promoting the NBP.

And for what? All that money spent to promote a plan without a single demonstrable $ savings attached to it? And now, rumors that instead of "money-saving" flexibilities we are going to get not one but two new governing boards?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- a hard look at this plan indicates that it's not about money, it's about power.

My crystal ball says the first thing to go is shared governance. It is undoubtedly inefficient. And many of those in charge give us every reason to think they don't truly believe in it.

The big question is this: Do you? What are you willing to do to protect it?

Or perhaps, instead, you'll welcome a shift to professor accountability, such as that being implemented at public universities which lack shared governance.

UW-Madison is Elite, But it Doesn't Have to be Elitist

2011-05-09T09:15:00.000-07:00

Several critics of the New Badger Partnership contend that the policy will accelerate the development of UW-Madison as an elitist institution. In response, proponents of the policy ask "what's wrong with being elite? Madison is elite."

Both are right. The words "elite" and "elitist" mean different things.

Many people are clearly confused about the difference. In a discussing a column by a UW-Madison alum concerned about his alma mater's latest moves,"badgertom" writes "You call UW-Madison elitist. But clearly they are the very best."'

As recent events have starkly highlighted, Madison is both elite and elitist. The first is a good thing--it means that Madison is a objectively a top performer, excellent in many ways. The second is not-so-good, since it means that Madison is exclusionary, focusing on preserving its own privileges at the expense of others.

I think evidence of both abounds, but unfortunately much of the rhetoric coming from Madison's leaders these days emphasizes the elitist approach the flagship is taking to deliver an elite education.

To wit:

(1) Multiple administrators have claimed that the flagship is hindered by its relations to other universities, even "shackled," and instead must be "freed." More importantly, while some claim that no harm will be done to other universities, others claim "Not our fault if they are hurt." They seem to have no capacity to imagine ways to remain strong and excellent without outcompeting others (see the graphic...)

(2) Chancellor Martin has claimed that those who oppose the plan have not done their homework ("You need to get your data and you need to get it right"); else they would get on board. She has also dismissed students' concerns that the debate has engaged some and not others, disenfranchising the less powerful members of Madison's community. Other proponents of the NBP do the same, putting down critics as "not so able." Making people look or feel silly for highlighting power dynamics is a common tactic of elitists.

(3) In their most honest moments, some NBP proponents have admitted that if access and quality must be traded off, they will pick a "higher quality" institution that is less accessible -- supposedly necessitating the exclusion of some. The third option-- improving productivity, thus making high quality opportunities affordable--is ignored.

(4) Administrators have insisted on using elitist language--specifically, short repetitive words and phrases like "tools" and "flexibilities" and simple syntax-- as a form of controlling the terms of debate. This is not language that encourages an inclusive policy debate but rather one that serves to protect the powerful. Don't believe me? A recent email from Bascom told some members of the UW community: "When I spoke briefly with all of you... on April 27, I asked that one of your key talking points moving forward should be a consistent mention of momentum. With each passing day, support for NBP is growing stronger on and off campus, and we need to make sure we make note of that." And lo and behold, Chancellor Martin's most recent missive to her constituents says, "Lawmakers are just beginning to focus on the higher-education portion of the budget and as we continue to make our case at the Capitol and in the community, we are gaining momentum."

To sum: those that are claiming Madison is acting elitist are not claiming it should not be an elite institution (contrary to what "mikeylikesit" says). But sadly, those pushing the NBP have employed a highly elitist process and elitist rhetoric in an effort to keep UW-Madison elite.

Who Should Pay for Public Higher Education? Who Will?

2011-05-06T18:11:00.000-07:00

On the subject of public higher education, with whom do you agree?

Person A: "Since most of the financial benefits of college go to the student, he or she should pay a large portion of college costs. Even with the large tuition increase, [our tuition is] well below those of many other prestigious flagship public universities. The ... bureaucracy is bloated, teaching loads are low, and most of the budget goes for noninstructional expenses. Most attendees come from moderately to very prosperous families that can shoulder this extra burden. Lower income students are largely protected by ...financial aid policies and by an increasingly generous federal student assistance program."

Person B: "The budget situation facing the university... is truly dire. It’s been a long time coming, and while they could have done more to restructure costs to reduce what they now will get from students, no amount of resource planning could have forestalled a crisis at this level. That said, retroactive finger-pointing at the Regents and the administrators isn’t going to solve anything. Strong public universities can survive bad government for a while, but eventually the wheels start to come off. They’re the people who’ve got the job to right this ship, and I hope they will. The bigger problem is with state government, as the lion’s share of the responsibility has to lie with the legislature and Governor, who for decades have been presiding over the erosion of public investments in higher education, while they’re jacking up spending on prisons and the state share of Medicaid. Like it or not, government officials are the investment managers of the portfolio that will pay for our collective future. Too many people seem to think it’s possible to insulate public institutions from the consequences of dysfunctional government. It doesn’t work that way: strong institutions can survive bad government for a while, but eventually the wheels start to come off."

Person C: "For decades states have been unable to provide public research universities with the levels of financial support they need to prosper, and our nation’s current economic problems have dug the holes that they face even deeper...The real danger is that higher tuition levels may lead to decreased public support. Increasingly tuition increases must provide the resources to offset limited increases, or decreases, in state support. To maintain their accessibility to students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, the great public research universities have developed institutional financial aid programs, and they need to annually demonstrate to state government that these programs are working...The real danger from [a tuition] increase is that unless the public can be educated about the great bargain that attending the university...remains, its higher tuition levels may lead to decreased public support for enhanced state funding in the future and thus to a continuous cycle of large tuition increases. Furthermore, absent the large endowments and flows of annual giving that many public research universities have, public comprehensive universities and two-year colleges will not have the institutional financial aid resources to move to a high tuition-high aid policy. Large tuition increases at the public comprehensives and the two-year colleges have the real potential to reduce access, and state governments need to understand the importance of state support to prevent this from happening."

Sound familiar?

Surprise: none of these folks was talking about UW-Madison. All three were speaking of the University of California's crisis back in 2009.

One of the dominant trends in higher education over the last 30-40 years is the rapid shifting of the costs of public higher education from the shoulders of the government onto the backs of students and their families. Many but not all see this as a problem (those that do not tend to underestimate the public returns to higher education and overemphasize the private). And people disagree over the solution.

Is the New Badger Partnership a solution?

Let's ponder some possible scenarios, given the wisdom of the three folks whose perspectives are noted above:

(1) Status quo: UW-Madison has been dealt a large cut in Governor Walker's proposed budget, so the status quo involves a reduction in state funding. Right now the state puts in slightly more than half of the costs of our core mission, with tuition covering the rest. This cut will be offset with increased tuition at a rate determined by the Legislature and the Regents--which will shift the burden onto families, who will then cover slightly more than half the costs. The hike will be restrained by those entities, who must balance the needs of the state and the collective with the needs of individual institutions. To compensate for the remainder of the cut, UW-Madison will be required to either reduce "quality" or find more productive ways to deliver education. After an economic recovery, Madison will remain with UW System and could theoretically become part of a unified effort to gain increased support for public higher education in Wisconsin, holding tuition down. In the meantime, the best case scenario is that the strong incentive to improve productivity will crack the "iron triangle," forcing UW-Madison to maintain quality and access with fewer resources-- in other words, by finding more efficient ways to serve students.

(2) Full NBP, Scenario A: If UW-Madison administrators get what they are asking for, and their numbers are correct, then the cut will be offset with a tuition hike comparable to the one described above, together with savings from the various efficiencies they've proposed. As Darrell Bazzel's projections clearly indicate, the gap between the contribution of families vs. the state in terms of footing the bill will grow over time (see the green and blue lines in the Projected Budget slide). Again, if Admin's numbers are correct, then no additional sacrifices to quality will be required-- and at the same time no increases in productivity will be demanded. After an economic recovery, Madison's tuition will be managed by its new Board of Trustees--if Bazzell's projections are right, and the state continues its modest support and does not divest, then over time the relative burden placed onto families should grow each year. Actually, let's be clear-- the burden will be shifted further and further onto families making more than $80,000 -- those with the most powerful parents, who most often vote. What can we expect that to do for political support for UW-Madison?

(3) Full NBP, Scenario B: However, should Bazzell's numbers be off-- if Foundation or the state doesn't perform as promised-- then there is nothing to stop the BOT from hiking tuition in a few years (especially if Chancellor Martin doesn't stick around). What are the chances that the state will continue to support UW-Madison at the same rate, rather than decrease its support? Over the past decade, state support per student at UVA has declined by one-third! At Virginia's other universities, who don't have UVA's deal but suffer from UVA's decisions, it's declined by 40 percent. Even if you believe the state will continue to kick in, the BOT will have a clear incentive to hike tuition to generate more and more revenue, rather than to demand productivity enhancements-- and given the ability of the Board to demand that, the state has little reason to put in more support---and thus the burden of this public higher education will shift further onto families. It's a vicious cycle.

(4) Partial NBP: Let's say UW-Madison administrators get only part of what they describe -- for example, public authority with a new governance structure and tuition flexibilities, but no flexibilities in any other area. I can easily imagine this happening once DOA does the math on the money it could be giving up by agreeing to flexibilities. In this case, the cut will be offset with a tuition hike of whatever size UW-Madison wants. Madison won't have any of the savings from flexibilities, and there won't be any System oversight to protect the rest of the state from skyrocketing tuition at the flagship. So, boom! The BOT can dramatically shift the burden of costs for public higher education onto families. And once it demonstrates that Madison can still fill seats even at those higher prices (with out-of-state students) it has no reason to lower tuition ever again, and the state has no reason to put in more money (even when it can).

Given these scenarios, if you believe that the Wisconsin families should not foot the majority of the bill for public higher education (beyond paying their taxes), then the only option currently on the table is to reject all forms of the NBP. The status quo is temporary-- once the NBP is off-the-table, a new campaign should begin to get all UW System institutions to identify more cost-effective ways to deliver high quality undergraduate education. In other words, to make opportunity affordable.

The NBP debate has divided people into camps, some perhaps quite unfamiliar to them. And yes they make for strange bedfellows.

So now, consider who of the three people above you agreed with-- and read who they are:

Person A: Richard Vedder, a notoriously conservative economist who once wrote that low-income students are wasting financial aid by partying too much.

Person B: Jane Wellman of the Delta Cost Project, one of the nation's leaders in efforts to improve how colleges and universities spend the money they do have-- to provide a quality higher education

Person C: Ron Ehrenberg, Cornell economist and highly respected scholar. As I understand it, our Chancellor thinks quite well of Ron. Go back and reread his cautions--and those of others. Do you think we are heeding them all?

Just the Facts on UW System (Part 1)

2011-05-05T19:40:00.000-07:00

It seems that the advocates for the New Badger Partnership have a new strategy-- attack UW System Administration. That attack's been inherent in many comments over the past few months, but now the language is downright offensive.

What's most startling is the lack of knowledge these critics of System Administration seem to have about the organization itself. It's typically described as expensive and bloated--common critiques of all those opposed to centralized government.

So let's get educated about UW System, shall we? This is part 1 of a new series....

Fact #1: The total budget in 2010-2011 for all of UW System was about $5.6 billion. Of that, nearly half (48%) was allocated to UW Madison. Just 2.7% went to UW System Administration ($15 million).

Fact #2: In 2010-2011 40% of all state monies for UWSA went to UW-Madison, and just 8.3% ($9.8 M) went to System Administration.

Fact #3: While in Ohio Senators are expressing concern about real potential bloat-- $3 billion in unrestricted net assets (e.g. CASH) held by the Ohio system of public colleges and universities, here in Wisconsin, UW System only has about $500 million. This is not a bloated system.

So...let me get this straight. UW Madison with its $2.7 BILLION budget is attacking and fighting its way out of an Administration that has a total budget of just $15 million per year? What a super-human bureaucracy System Admin must be to be imposing such power over such a WEALTHY counterpart!

"I haven't done my homework, and that's why I support the Biddy Martin/Scott Walker New Badger Partnership"

2011-05-01T21:35:00.000-07:00

THE FOLLOWING IS A GUEST POST SUBMITTED BY GRANT PETTY, PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

I'm angry.

I'm angry with Biddy Martin for using her bully pulpit to short-circuit a serious, informed, and balanced discussion of the choices -- and hazards -- we face as an institution.

I'm angry with many of my fellow faculty for uncritically accepting a one-sided sales pitch that promotes a very specific, pre-determined outcome while failing to acknowledge the numerous profound risks and unknowns and failing to allow for consideration of possible alternative strategies.

Damnable myth: "The choice is between public authority and the status quo. If you oppose splitting UW-Madison from the UW System, then you oppose gaining the flexibility to deal with shrinking state support."

Fact: Supporters of the NBP keep trumpeting "flexibility" as the reason why we need to support the public authority, and they refuse to acknowledge that many of the most important flexibilities can be achieved without separating UW-Madison from the UW System. It is way past time for alternative pathways to flexibility to be given equal time in the discussion.

Indeed, Biddy Martin's original NBP proposal, as discussed extensively in the Fall of 2010, was all about flexibility but contained no mention whatsoever of the contentious issues of public authority or the separation of UW-Madison from the System. Moreover, there was little serious opposition to the NBP until these radical new ideas emerged in Governor Scott Walker's budget bill.

How short are people's memories?

With that point out of the way, I throw down the following challenges to those who aggressively promote the public authority as the silver bullet that will save UW-Madison from the worst effects of coming cuts in State support:

READ the recent post Of deals, devils and details: Budget reality check. Decide whether you can really live with a future in which the only realistic possibility for faculty/staff pay raises is via tuition increases. And if you disagree with the article's main conclusion, then do us all a favor by pointing out the fallacy. With facts, not wishful thinking.

READ the recent post This is what the public authority looks like and it isn’t pretty. Again, find the flaw in the math, if you can.

READ former UW-Madison administrator Harry Peterson's extensive remarks about public authority and flexibility. In particular, consider his simple six-step decision tree for supporting the public authority. Can you really answer "yes" to ALL SIX of the following statements?

1. You are not concerned that the competition for funding from the other UW institutions will result in smaller block grants for the UW-Madison.

2. You are not concerned about the burden this will place on private fund raising.

3. You are not concerned that statutory authority given to the new board, to increase tuition to any level will, over time, put the UW-Madison out of reach of many middle class and working class families in Wisconsin.

4. You are not concerned about the loss of our current Board of Regents, replaced by a brand new board with 3 year terms, the shortest terms in the United States, appointed directly by this and future governors without senate confirmation, unlike our present board.

5. You are not concerned that the decisions about funding allocations for the UW-Madison and the other universities will move from Van Hise Hall, with the Chancellors, Kevin Reilly and the Board of Regents, to the Capitol and the legislature.

6. You are not concerned about the possibility that the loss of the UW-Madison to the UW System will have a destabilizing effect on public higher education and result in a loss for our State and its citizens, especially its young people.

If you don't understand the background behind any of the above statements, then go back and READ Dr. Peterson's full remarks. Yes, they're long. Sorry. And no, here in Wisconsin we don't base irrevocable decisions about the future of our flagship public University on content-less sound bites about "flexibility." It makes me angry that so many visible figures in this fight are willing to do just that.

As a rank-and-file UW-Madison faculty member, I have been watching the "debate" for months and trying to understand the facts as well as I can. I admit it's a struggle. And given my outsider status, at least relative to those who frequent Bascom Hall, I readily accept that my own grasp of the facts is far from infallible.

But what I'm NOT willing to accept or excuse is that those promoting the NBP in its current form, including Chancellor Biddy Martin, stubbornly refuse to directly and factually respond to the very specific concerns that have been raised over months by quite a few very knowledgeable individuals.

These are individuals who, as far as I can tell, have far more extensive experience with University of Wisconsin affairs and University-State relations, and are far more dedicated to public education and to the Wisconsin Idea, than the vast majority of those trumpeting the loudest for splitting UW-Madison from the System.

Yes, I mean you, Wisconsin Alumni Association. I mean you, Badger Advocates. I mean you, Students for the NBP.
So here's my final challenge to these NBP advocates: If you're really not willing to take the trouble to familiarize yourself with, and factually respond to, the very real concerns of informed NBP opponents, then for God's sake please preface all future public comments on the subject with the following disclaimer:

"I really haven't done my homework, and that's why I enthusiastically endorse the Biddy Martin/Scott Walker New Badger Partnership."

If Not the NBP, Then What?

2011-04-30T20:43:00.000-07:00

As I wrote in a post yesterday, it is standard practice for both public and private colleges and universities to use tuition revenue to provide financial aid. The typical challenge for public institutions is that they don't generate nearly as much revenue as private institutions, and thus don't have as much to contribute to aid. Among public institutions, the other significant challenge to ensuring affordability is convincing administrators to focus aid on financial need, rather than academic merit.

One of the strong points of Chancellor Martin's arguments for the NBP is that UW-Madison ought to be able to use tuition to support need-based aid, if it so chooses. It has chosen to do so recently, under the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. I base that last statement on the clear upward trajectory of resources for institutional need-based aid (what she says is a 226% increase), shown in a graph provided by the director of financial aid, Susan Fischer, at a recent meeting of the University-wide Committee on Undergraduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Financial Aid-- a committee that I've chaired for three years. I hesitate on the statement just a bit, though, because the use of tuition to support need-based aid does not equate with enhanced affordability unless the approach reduced net price for students and no sticker shock occurred-- two conditions for which I've been shown no evidence.

In any case, let's say this: Martin and I agree that UW-Madison ought to be allowed to use tuition to fund need-based aid if it chooses. The question is how to make that happen. Her proposed approach is the NBP. Here's an alternative:

The Wisconsin Legislature ought to simply change the rules, freeing the Board of Regents to approve the use of tuition in this manner. Individual institutions should submit their requests for using tuition in this way to the Board.

Why this model? And is it feasible?

The Board of Regents needs to set tuition holistically, across all public universities, in order balance students' needs with institutional interests. Sadly, sometime universities act like "Cookie Monster" -- they gobble every dollar then can, and then ask for more. Since funding doesn't equate with quality education, students can get hurt.

Based on the January 2011 report on University of Wisconsin tuition, published by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it certainly seems that the Legislature can act to change this rule without the NBP. As author Emily Pope writes, "tuition typically supports only the "instructional" portion of the UW budget. Instructional costs include faculty salaries and fringe benefits, which comprise the largest portion of instructional costs, supplies and services, administration, libraries, student services, and support costs. Exceptions to this occurred in the 1997-99, 1999-01, and 2001-03 state budgets, when the University was allowed to use tuition revenues to support the unfunded portion of the compensation plan for faculty and academic staff, which included compensation increases for faculty and academic staff whose time was spent on activities other than instruction."

The italics are mine. If exceptions have been granted to allow tuition revenue to be used for compensation, why couldn't it be used for financial aid?

Now, I admit-- I am not an expert on these kinds of rules. I am simply hoping someone will read this and explain it to all of us.

***************

On a different but related issue:

Why is it that the NBP does not include language comparable to this language in the Board of Regents current tuition policy?

GPR financial aid and graduate assistant support should "increase at a rate no less than that of tuition" while staying "commensurate with the increased student budget needs of students attending the UW System." In addition, support should
also reflect "increases in the number of aid eligible students."

That's called tying aid to tuition...

UW-Madison's Average Family Income is $90,000?

2011-04-29T18:35:00.000-07:00

Based on the tweets from today's student conversation with Chancellor Martin, there's a big myth running around campus:

No, the average family income of UW-Madison students isn't $90,000.

That number came from reports like these that were discontinued back in 2008. Why were they discontinued? Because the data they are based on is a train wreck. The information comes from students' self-reporting of their parents' income when they were in high school (reporting is done on the ACT questionnaire) and according to UW-Madison's office of academic planning and analysis 30% of UW-Madison students left the question blank (and that percent has been rising over time).

Is it a high estimate? A low one? Well, what we know is that a study done by two La Follette professors using Census blocks to estimate income (better than student self-report most likely) finds that family income at UW-Madison for Wisconsin residents isn't very out-of-whack with Wisconsin family incomes as a whole. For example, families of Wisconsin applicants to Madison have incomes that are 1.2 to 1.3% higher than the state average.

Why don't we have a really accurate measure of family income? Because UW-Madison doesn't ask students to report their family income on their application (for obvious reasons) nor does it require them to complete a financial aid application (otherwise known as a FAFSA). So we only know family income--according to parents--for those who apply for aid. And less than 50% of UW-Madison students apply. That doesn't mean less than 50% are needy; many needy kids don't apply every year because the application is insanely onerous and difficult to complete correctly. In fact, upper-income folks are more likely to complete it, and to do it correctly, because they're hoping to get a loan.

If we really want to promote affordability at UW-Madison we should make FAFSA completion an "opt out" rather than "opt in." This is the kind of nudge behavioral economists love, since it makes the default option less painful (people tend to resort to inaction over action).

Why aren't we doing it now? This did, after all, come up during debates over the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates and I made the proposal directly to Chancellor Martin over lunch in spring 2009.

I can think of a few possible reasons, see which one you think fits:

(1) We are worried about privacy. But remember, you can opt out.

(2) We are worried about deterring students who don't want to complete the form. But remember, we'd only require it after you applied and were accepted, and were able to enroll. Even then, you could opt out.

(3) We are worried about undocumented students. But remember, you can opt out.

(4) We are worried about the increased paperwork and staff time. But think about all of the financial aid $ our students would get at no cost to us (e.g. federal $)

(5) We are worried about our institutional aid costs. The more you identify as needy, the more you have to "hold harmless."

I'm willing to bet that requiring all entrants to complete the FAFSA or opt out would increase the percent receiving Pell by a fair bit, and increase retention rates by getting more students the financial aid they deserve. And once we have more accurate family income information for more than 90% of our population, we'll likely find out that right now our average Wisconsin family income is much lower than $90,000. Under NBP, I'm willing to bet that will change drastically because of (a) an increased perception of elitism, (b) disjuncture from the System, (c) sticker shock, and (d) insufficient discounting over time.

But of course, who am I to make such judgments? We are told, after all, we have nothing to worry about.

The Power of the Line Item Veto

2011-04-29T14:05:00.000-07:00

Check it out-- what the NBP looks like after Governor Walker exercises his line-item veto.

How bad is it? Here's the remaining role of the faculty: "The faculty, subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board and the chancellor, shall participate in academic and educational activities."

Period.

The students? "shall be participants in the university."

Is this the University of Wisconsin-Madison of YOUR dreams?

UPDATE: Apparently Chancellor Martin is "not worried the Governor will line item veto his own bill." Ok then, Scott Walker-- a man to be trusted. Hm....

Trends at the University of Virginia

2011-04-29T13:44:00.000-07:00

I've been getting a lot of questions about what's happened at other states and other institutions. Trying to balance my "regular" work with this blog is tough, but here's a bit of info to keep the conversation going.

University of Virginia

(1) The proportion of students applying for financial aid and having demonstrable need is appalling low-- just 25%--and it has declined substantially over time (it was 38% in 2002). This despite a general increase in awareness of aid, more help filling out the FAFSA, and "Access UVA." The failure of needy students to apply to expensive institutions and to apply for financial aid after they enroll is one reason why financial aid isn't nearly as effective as it could be at promoting college attainment among low-income students. Academic preparation is another, but it's not as if that's gotten so much worse over time. The big change-- the sticker price of tuition.

(2) Among students in the bottom 25% of the income distribution at UVA (avg income ~$52K), the cost of attendance (tuition, fees, room and board) eats up 40% of their annual family income. For wealthy students, it eats up only about 14%.

Response to Students for NBP

2011-04-29T09:27:00.000-07:00

I applaud Jon Alfuth of the Students for the New Badger Partnership for attempting to do something the UW-Madison Administration has not bothered to do -- share some models of affordability under the NBP.

Jon asked me for my critique, so here are some big picture questions to ponder while I try and secure the numbers required for an alternative model (don't hold your breath, this requires figures beyond what Jon seems to have here and I don't see a UW source willing to provide them):

(1) Why assume that tuition will increase at the same rate for resident and non-resident students? That seems very unlikely-- typically rates for nonresidents increase at twice the rate for residents (Don Hossler, 2005, "Students and Families as Revenue, p. 116).

(2) Why assume the % of non-residents remains the same? Assuming the differential in tuition grows, this will likely tip the proportion of residents downwards, since the BOT will begin to find nonresidents even more attractive. Doubt this? Job descriptions for enrollment managers at public research universities have included a preference for candidates with successful strategies to attract out-of-state students (Hossler, p. 117).

(3) A discount rate is the average institutional grant divided by average tuition and fees-- for example, a 15% discount rate would mean that for every $1,000 increase in tuition and fees UW-Madison would award a $150 institutional grant. What is the assumed discount rate for in-state and out-of-state students? At private institutions it's around 40 percent. At publics it is on average 14%. First, what is it right now at UW-Madison? We need to know. We must know to do this modeling appropriately. If we intend to raise tuition and compete with privare institutions, the discount rate will have to climb-- and thus much of that additional projected revenue won't be realized as gains at all. (Don't believe me? AASCU writes, "part of the reason why institutions are able to keep their discount rates low is due to the fact that they are able to keep their tuition rates relatively low, making the overall cost of attendance relatively low.")

(4) Discounting cannibalizes revenue. What are your calculations as to the likelihood that under a new model UW will be able to afford to devote 30+ % of new tuition revenue to aid?

(5) What is the assumed discount rate for in-state versus out-of-state students? National data indicate that non-residents are 1.7 times more likely to get a discount and that discount costs a lot. "For example, a one-percent increase to the non-resident tuition discount rate would cost an institution $100.13, while an equivalent percentage increase for resident students would only cost $35.80." Is the UW-Madison community comfortable with giving more of our institutional aid as a discount to non-Wisconsin folks?

(6) What is the assumed discount rate for low-income versus high-income students? Biddy has made a big deal about how much she has grown need-based aid under MIU, but the fact remains that UW-Madison spends much more on merit-based aid than on need-based aid. Nationally, institutions have increased the proportion of institutional aid devoted to merit-based aid faster over time. Moreover, national data indicate that while low-income students are more likely to get a discount, theirs is typically smaller than those given to high-income students. In a recent study of public universities, "students whose families earn between $70,000 and $100,000 receive an average discount of 15.1 percent, while the lowest income students only receive a 14.7 percent discount rate."

(7) Why assume the BOT and Chancellor of today keep their promises (well actually we don't even know who the BOT is) for tomorrow, the day after and the day after? What grounds do you have to disagree with all of the scholarly proponents of this approach to financing, who clearly state that the link between aid and tuition should be legislated, not left up to faith?

(8) We already use differential tuition to finance aid. Can you explain why continuing to do that during the near future wouldn't be as effective as NBP?

Big picture: Jon and I shouldn't have to do this modeling ourselves. If UW Madison wants to argue for tuition flexibility it should have produce these kinds of figures a long time ago and made them publicly available.

More to come...

A Challenge to the UW Board of Regents

2011-04-28T17:23:00.000-07:00

While the last several months have been contentious ones, I think that the road ahead needs to include many more uncomfortable discussions. In particular, we need to have fierce conversations about two key issues that have received insufficient attention in the debate over the New Badger Partnership:

(1) The public purpose of our flagship university
(2) The way we spend our money

Much has been said by UW-Madison administration about the need to compete on a global scale, not only with American universities but with those in Shanghai. We have also heard that the best way for UW-Madison to meet the needs of Wisconsin is for it to be the most competitive it possibly can be. Furthermore, we have been told that such a goal does not exclude other objectives, including the desire to be at least modestly accessible to all of the state's residents. (Just google "Biddy" and NBP and you'll get more than a dozen examples of each of these statements. Or simply get the transcript from Tuesday's student Q&A in Bascom.)

These claims are deeply problematic.

As Gordon Davies, long-time scholar of higher education (and head of Virginia's State Council for Higher Education from 1977 to 1997) puts it, public higher education should "maximize service, not status." Colleges and universities, Davies says, need to "wake up"-- and UW-Madison is no exception. To regular readers of this blog, his advice should sound familiar. "Here's the new definition of prestige: an institution that serves the people of its state or region carefully at a price all of them can afford. Now, make that part of the definition of 'elite'."

Madison's leadership has it all wrong: public universities should not be "encouraged to emulate highly selective private universities, not because there is something wrong with highly selective private universities but because the two have different missions...In their scramble to get more applications so they can reject more applicants, to win more recognition for selected academic programs, and to 4 be among the top 30 (or even 100!) research universities, universities tend to lose sight of their importance to the regions in which they live."

Being from Virginia, Davies knows this landscape well. I listened to UW's student radio this morning as a pro-NBP student (Tyler?) tried to make the case that UW-Madison really needed the NBP because it only has one flagship--whereas places like Virginia and New York are lucky to have multiple top universities. What he didn't seem to realize is that he was undermining his own argument, for as Davies points out, in Virginia "having two institutions (UVa and William and Mary) designated as “public Ivies” a few decades ago was an honor because they were part of a balanced system of institutions within which there were places for everyone. Having many, if not most, public universities aspire to elite private institution levels of selectivity is a serious error and a sign of a reward system gone wrong." Lest you think that isn't happening in Wisconsin, just take a look at the recent statements made by the chancellors of other UW universities.

All available evidence is that our reward system has gone wrong in Wisconsin when so many public universities are acting like "wannabes" seeking to "emulate the elite and highly selective." Wisconsin higher education is not doing a good job at serving all of its citizens and it therefore cannot afford to engage in "meaningless ambition." Again, Davies: It is "wrong to assume that what is good for individual universities is good for a state...we are betting that we can compete in this global economy by educating a technological elite and ignoring the masses. China is making this bet. So is India. But they are much larger populations than ours. For the United States, and for individual states, is this an economically responsible bet? Is it a morally responsible choice?"

UW-Madison's current effort to push for a new approach to help it gain more revenue misses the boat on another important dimension as well: our financial woes are at least as attributable to how we spend our money as to how we obtain it. Or, as Jane Wellman of the Delta Cost Project once put it, “the funding problem in American higher education is as much about focus and priority as it is about revenue."

The NBP skipped several key steps in what's become a widely accepted approach to higher education reform, one promoted by national initiatives such as Making Opportunity Affordable. Before looking for ways to bring in more cash, universities first need to work with the state to (a) set goals (with regard to the above discussion in particular), (b) align spending with those goals, (c) improve degree productivity, and (d) enhance public accountability. Only after those conditions are set do they really have a case for seeking more money.

Some of the strongest evidence that UW-Madison skipped these crucial steps before pursuing the NBP lies in constant repetition of the claim that we are engaged in a "balancing act" that requires sacrificing equity in order to enhance quality. This is the classic "Iron Triangle" model known to all higher education analysts-- and it is a hopelessly outdated one. The points of the triangle are funding, access, and quality-- and the claim is that any effort to improve one area is only possible at the expense of another. Put differently, as experts at a recent University of Virginia policy conference noted, "[Colleges and universities] have long equated quality with resources, which means that spending cannot be managed without sacrificing either access or quality. Although some economic theories about the unique cost structures of the non-profit sector are consistent with these views, reality simply cannot support them. The times demand greater access and equal or greater quality despite a long, difficult recession. Furthermore, the Iron Triangle assumptions are not supported by research. Research shows a very weak relationship between spending and performance, measured not only by degree attainment but also by the level of the state population obtaining access, retention and degree production, and production of graduates who remain in-state to fill high-demand jobs. To be sure, measures of reputation - such as admissions selectivity, or proportions of faculty with terminal degrees, or spending on athletics and endowment earnings - all correlate with money. But for the most part these measures have little to do with the public priority to increase degree attainment. The Iron Triangle is a set of false assumptions that contribute to the fractured dialogue among higher education constituencies."

This is exactly what has happened at UW-Madison. Leadership has insisted on an approach that, while initially claiming to enhance both quality and equality, ultimately it admits succumbs to a balancing act that tips towards sacrificing access for quality. This is a classic response of college administrators, who find every way possible to demand more money while insisting that their decisions are caught in the Iron Triangle (see Table 1 at this link).

Our future depends on creative thinking on the part of the Board of Regents. The board needs to think long and hard about how to bring the full constituency of Wisconsin public higher education together-- and soon. Wellman and Davies both offer good advice: "States need to re-assert control over their public colleges and universities, to make them once again members of coordinated systems with clearly defined missions...For public institutions, boards need to manage this discussion rather than try to avoid it...Visible public processes need to be put in place to address how university systems or institutions will accomplish these goals, including dialogue about teaching and learning, and attention to ways that costs will be managed. Higher education leaders need to use these forums as a way to stimulate institutional learning, to put information about costs and spending into context, to educate institutional leadership, faculty, students and public policy officials about where the money comes from, where it goes, and what it buys."

The time is now. The Board of Regents must lead.

The New Badger Partnership is Not About Affordability

2011-04-26T09:43:00.000-07:00

According to the Badger Advocates' new television ad promoting the New Badger Partnership, the number one reason this new policy is needed is "To keep tuition affordable and provide more financial aid."

This claim is echoed in speeches by Chancellor Martin and her Administration, and maintaining or enhancing affordability is a central goal for the NBP articulated by student advocates.

Can the NBP achieved its primary policy objective? Will it?

The strong likelihood is no. Here, again, is why.

(1) The value of financial aid depends on cost of attendance. The real cost of college attendance for students and families is the "net price" they pay -- that is, the cost of attendance minus financial aid. Since some students do not respond well to loans, many argue that net price is actually the difference between cost of attendance and grant aid.

(2) The New Badger Partnership makes statements about the need to "keep tuition affordable" but it says nothing about tying increases in financial aid to increases in tuition. This is one of the biggest myths going around right now-- please, look at the legislation-- there is not a word about increasing aid in proportion to tuition in there. In other words, the NBP says nothing about maintaining or reducing net price. While advocates for the NBP rightly note that some higher education analysts support a "high tuition high aid" model, they neglect the clear statements made by those analysts that in order to work -- e.g. in order to maintain or enhance affordability--increases in aid must always accompany increases in tuition. Furthermore, those same analysts insist that since states and institutions rarely behave in such a predictable, responsible manner, it's important that they be required to do so. Yet the NBP does not mandate this.

(3) The New Badger Partnership talks about keeping tuition affordable but says nothing about keeping room and board, or student fees affordable. The cost of attendance, and thus the net price, includes all of those things. And those non-tuition costs have been rising faster than tuition for a long time.

(4) Only if "net price" decreases substantially will affordability may be improved. I see nothing in the NBP that suggests that grant aid will grow much more rapidly than tuition or that such growth will always be sustained over time-- so I think the chances of a substantial decrease in "net price" and increase in affordability are slim to none.

(5) If "net price" does not change, affordability is at best maintained. That would be the true meaning of "hold harmless" (as in the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates). But again, I say "at best" maintained because it is also plausible that sticker price has an effect on student decision-making, apart from net price. In other words, some students and families may be "scared off" by the higher tuition, perhaps because they misunderstand discounting. In that case, affordability is eroded.

(6) Misunderstanding of discounting is widespread among all kinds of people, including those in the lower and middle-income brackets. It's a bigger problem among low-income people. Not a single "sticker shock" program has been proven effective-- including those at private institutions-- where research shows the percent of low-income students has not increased despite such campaigns.

Given these facts, why is the NBP being promoted as an effort to maintain or even enhance affordability? At best, this seems disingenuous. Instead, Advocates could talk about the other aims of the policy-- e.g. improving excellence and/or quality--and make the case that increases in those things offset sacrifices to affordability. But they are not making this case, and I suspect it's because they know the argument will not fly with much of their constituency. Instead they have adopted the rhetoric of affordability that appeals to liberals, and used it to paper over a campaign that is ultimately focused on the needs of the elite.

Finally, let's talk about the great fear: "the status quo."

It is true that UW-Madison has grown less affordable over time, that institutional need-based aid did not increase until Chancellor Martin's regime, and that we stand to get higher tuition even absent the NBP. All that is true, and affordability could erode as a result.

BUT THE NBP IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE STATUS QUO.

Instead of the NBP we could maintain or enhance affordability by doing the following:

(1) Require all undergraduates to complete a FAFSA before enrolling at UW–Madison, although an “opt out” option can be added for personal and philosophical reasons.

(2) Seek a change to the rules governing the use of tuition dollars. Right now we can't use them for financial aid-- instead of asking for the right to set tuition, why not instead ask for the right to use some of the dollars for aid? This is what we did with MIU-- and MIU is different from NBP in that it explicitly tied aid to tuition increases.

(3) Continue to fundraise for institutional need-based aid. The growth in fundraising for that cause under Chancellor Martin's regime came from new leadership at Foundation-- the NBP was not needed. Ask for more support in promoting that campaign.

(4) Gradually shift institutional merit-based aid to institutional need-based aid. Make it a priority-- take a stand.

(5) Lead hard conversations about cost-savings measures to reduce room and board and student fees, to reign in the cost of attendance.

(6) Collect the kind of data needed to measure the impact of institutional need-based aid (right now we do not do this, and we easily could). Document effects and use them for fundraising purposes.

(7) Experiment with a sticker shock campaign. Find a model that works for UW Madison and use it to gain the support for additional tuition increases.

(8) Rethink admissions criteria and their relationship to family income. Consider putting a "thumb on the scale" for family background in order to increase diversity at Madison.

Before you accuse me of putting forth good ideas too late in the game, know this: these are not new proposals. We have made them many times over many years. They have been ignored.

Whatever you think about it, the NBP is not about increasing affordability. It will not achieve that policy objective. Vote for it on other grounds if you must-- but do not do so thinking it will make UW Madison more affordable.

It's All About the Faculty?

2011-04-25T09:31:00.000-07:00

UPDATED APRIL 26: Please also review comments on this piece over at Sifting and Winnowing.

There is a critical element of the argument for the New Badger Partnership that has gone unquestioned for far too long: the faculty must get raises or else the university is going off the deep end.

We are told by Chancellor Martin that upon arriving at UW-Madison, two of the strongest concerns voiced to her came from faculty who felt that their low pay was driving the departure of their colleagues, and from students who felt they were losing their valued professors. This theme is echoed in the voices of Students for the NBP, many commentators on discussion boards, and in faculty meetings across campus.

Yes, the faculty salaries are low at Madison, relative to those at peer institutions, however you choose to define "peer." But it isn't clear that this is policy concern that ought to drive an argument for Public Authority.

Instead, I suggest that the question is "What are the most cost-effective ways to attract and retain talented professors who can fulfill UW-Madison's missions?"

Another really important question is: do we have a faculty turnover problem? The data I can find on change over time seems to imply "no" -- the proportion of faculty leaving hasn't changed much over 30 years, and if anything seems to have declined.

Assessing the wisdom of implementing the NBP in order to increase faculty salaries requires: (a) defining institutional missions, (b) defining talent, (c) identifying several recruitment and retention strategies, and (d) comparing those strategies on their costs and their impacts. High-cost low-impact strategies will not fly in this fiscal climate. We need to find those that are proven to work before investing heavily.

You're probably asking yourself, is this professor seriously questioning the need to pay people well in order to get them to work at UW-Madison? Let's be very clear: I'm NOT arguing our faculty do not deserve to be paid more -- on many metrics they clearly do. What I am questioning is whether raising faculty salaries is the most cost-effective way to achieve the goal of retaining talent and whether efforts to raise faculty salaries should be a driving force behind the New Badger Partnership. The second point is especially important since there are serious questions about whether the NBP will effectively improve salaries, or whether instead the promise of more compensation is being used to garner faculty support for the Chancellor's initiative.

Here are some of my questions:

(1) What are the criteria by which we should define talent when thinking about who we want to recruit as professors at UW-Madison? Are the criteria we are currently using serving all constituencies well? For example, what role do our standards for teaching play in our undergraduate retention rate? In the severe black/white gap in that retention rate?

(2) To what degree should commitment to the Wisconsin Idea and/or congruence with the mission of a public land-grant institution be a hiring criteria?

(3) To what degree are professors making decisions about coming to UW-Madison-- and staying at UW-Madison-- based on salary? Let's start with this: what is our current faculty retention rate, by rank? Nationally, it's around 85% for assistant professors and 92-93% for those at higher ranks (at doctoral institutions). The last report I can find at Madison indicates ours is 5 or 6% on average. (That report is old (1999), focuses mainly on gender issues in tenure, and calls for more research.) Research indicates that faculty turnover rates are higher at public institutions relative to private ones, net of compensation-- this may be due to the different practices, policies, and governance structures at private institutions.

(4) What other factors are affecting those decisions-- and how important are they, relative to absolute salary? For example, what role does the quality of life in Madison play? How about salary inequity (among UW-Madison professors)? The shared governance system? Campus climate? The tenure and promotion system? Gender and/or racial bias in that system? The presence or absence of unions? Some research suggests that compensation and teaching load interact, such that the benefits of higher compensation occur largely when teaching load is also reduced-- are we prepared to foot the bill for simultaneously raising salaries and reducing the number of courses taught?

Moreover, research on this topic suggests that compensation is a more important factor in hiring and retaining professors at other UW System institutions, compared to UW-Madison. For example, a study by Chancellor Martin's Cornell colleague economist Ron Ehrenberg found that "Compensation levels, on average, affect retention rates for associate and assistant professors [as compared to full professors]. Most striking, however, is that the magnitude of the relationship gets larger as we move from graduate institutions, to 4-year institutions, to 2-year institutions. Put another way, the responsiveness of retention rates to a given dollar change in compensation appears to be greater for 2-year colleges than it does for institutions with graduate programs; not a surprising result since average compensation levels are lower at the former and thus a given dollar change represents a greater percentage change. In addition, because of the importance to faculty involved in research in graduate level institutions of nonpecuniary conditions of employment, such as the presence of good research facilities, libraries, graduate students and colleagues, current earnings and compensation are likely to be relatively less important factors in their mobility decisions." Admittedly, the low levels of compensation at UW-Madison may make faculty more responsive to an increase, compared to those at your average research institution-- but if a dollar is a dollar, it's not clear that dollars are best spent on salaries at Madison versus elsewhere.

(5) What variation exists in the impact of salary on professors' decision-making? For example, does this vary by gender? Rank? Family background? Is it possible that the feminization of the faculty, and the increased propensity of faculty to bear young children on the tenure track, affect both our recruitment and retention efforts (Ehrenberg's data, now two decades old, suggests this matters less than we think. But this is an important issue because some colleagues continue to downplay the decisions made by their colleagues to leave for family reasons, instead insisting they lost top talent because of inadequate compensation.)

(6) What role does the market play in the decisions we want to make as an institution? Is our goal to match the actions of our peers? Or do we intend to attract niche talent, and utilize specific unique approaches to retaining them?

Consider this: "In 2000-2001, the difference between the average compensation of associate professors at private doctoral and public-independent doctoral institutions was in the range of $13,500...if public doctoral universities were to increase their average associate professor compensation level by $10,000 and substantially close this gap, they would at most increase their associate professors continuation rates by about 0.7 percentage points, which would still leave them with a lower average continuation rate than that of their private counterparts... In other words, for each 100 associate professors that an institution were to employ, it would cost more than an extra $1 million a year in faculty compensation to reduce its associate professor's turnover rate by one faculty member."

Is this a war we public land-grant institutions think we can, and should, be trying to win right now?

We at UW-Madison need to seriously consider and debate these concerns. I have not seen any empirical evidence that such questions have been thoroughly examined across units at Madison--instead, our talented institutional researchers are devoted to documenting faculty compensation (e.g. an input), and tenure and retirement rates (e.g. outcomes). These things are important but they do not illuminate the relationships between inputs and outcomes.

That said, if you have the data and have done the analysis, please share. The faculty--and indeed all of Wisconsin-- need to know.

The Rhetoric of Unity

2011-04-23T14:02:00.000-07:00

I'm supposed to be on "vacation" this weekend but when news like this comes out, it's hard to ignore....

Recently 10 UW department chairs wrote a letter in support of a policy (the NBP). They explicitly stated (at the end of paragraph one) that they did so independently: "We write on our own behalf and not as formal representatives of our departments." Yet they signed the letter with their names, titles (e.g. chair) and department names. Furthermore, the UW Administration -- and other advocates like Students for the NBP -- are promoting it as indicative of widespread support from faculty and "academic leaders" and do not clarify that those directors and chairs do not write on behalf of their departments and units.

First, I'm confused. If these chairs are writing independently, and not as department chairs, why did they use their titles when they signed? Signatures from chairs are commonly interpreted as endorsements from departments, and they must know that. Were department votes solicited before the decision was made by the chairs to act alone? I'm in Sociology, and don't think so-- or perhaps I missed an email?

Second, I'm concerned. What message does this send to members of these departments who do not agree with their chairs? Now, expressing opposition to the NBP requires not only going against your Chancellor's expressed wishes, but also those of your chair. You will have to disagree with someone your Administration is calling an "academic leader." Let me say as someone who knows well, this is very, very risky on our campus right now. I know very few professors, tenured or not, who feel it's safe to do so.

So let's be crystal clear: this letter does not mean the NBP has support from these 10 departments. This letter was ONLY signed by 10 department chairs, and that ain't much--we have at least 100. And finally, this letter is indicative of a real problem on campus right now--in an effort to "save UW" those with power are making it hard for those who lack it to express disagreement (I'm obviously an exception, and conclusions should not be drawn based on my own ill-advised actions). Worse yet, they do so with good intentions. Sadly, that doesn't matter since the effect is the same. It allows places like the SNBP to make such claims like "[we] could not find any negative press from members of our campus community in the past week." Amazing! I suppose the campus community no longer includes me? Beth Huang? Steve Horn? The professors writing on Sifting and Winnowing? Of course not --because much sifting and winnowing is suppressed, and replaced with fear.

Both Sides Now

2011-04-19T17:33:00.000-07:00

After recent reports of apathy regarding the New Badger Partnership, I've spent more time reading and analyzing the comments that are springing up like crocuses these days. While it's a darn shame that people don't regularly sign their names to web comments, or at least provide some description of their position relative to the institutions involved (e.g. are you student, staff, faculty, etc), absent a real live on-campus discourse, the virtual world is what we've got to work with.

Here is my thematic analysis of commentary from the last month-- I'm focusing on that since it's possible that opinion has changed over time as the discussion has deepened.

(1) Critics are primarily concerned about the behavior of Chancellor Martin. It seems that concern extends to what her actions foretell for a future under a public authority model that gives her additional power, as well as what her actions have done to relations between UW Madison and the state. While some have claimed the concerns are more about process than policy, my reading of the commentary is that this is not the case, since many are tying the implications of the process to the implications of the policy itself. In other words-- what does her interpretation of "shared governance" thus far mean about how she would use or protect it under PA? Terms frequently used to describe Martin include "secretive," "naive," "vague"-- and according to at least one "a rather pleasant looking lady" and "a campus celebrity."

(2) While Martin is often linked to Scott Walker in comments, people seem to have independent feelings about their leadership capabilities, styles, and intellect. For example, one person writes: "In the past 100 days, Governor Walker has shown himself to be hostile to everything the UW used to represent ...But the Chancellor has been silent as employees' rights are rescinded; their take-home pay slashed; their institutions decimated; and themselves publicly slandered as everything from the root cause of a national recession to 'violent thugs' ... while alienating her colleagues at other system schools and deeply disappointing those of us who conserve a sense of solidarity with our fellow employees."

(2) There seems to be more agreement with the need for flexibilities in hiring, procurement, and construction than with regard to flexibility in tuition-setting.

(3) There is a lot of sentiment about the need to keep UW-Madison affordable and accessible to all Wisconsin residents-- not only those who are low-income. But people disagree on how to achieve these goals. This is clearly a conversation that needs more time and thought to develop.

(4) The rhetoric of "crisis" has taken hold. Many commentators mention a crisis but very few cite specifics of what makes this is a crisis. This discussion of how the "money has been stopping" is a good example.

(5) There is a fair bit of animosity towards UW System -- or at the least a sense that the Board of Regents is not as effective as it could be. I see fairly equal evidence of this in Madison papers and those from other cities and towns across the state.

(6) That said, the most common objection to the NBP is the separation of Madison from System. That move is often termed a "disaster,"

(7) Many of those who write in favor of the NBP paint its critics as "Lefties," "liberals" or "Socialists." Those who write against the NBP describes its advocates either as "neoliberals" or "conservatives," "Repugs," or even "devils."

(8) I count as many alumni writing against the NBP as writing in favor of it-- however, I remain concerned that the negative comments that dominated the WAA page were deleted from that website, tipping the scales in favor of supporters.

What Are You Doing This Summer?

2011-04-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

Want to work with a talented group of students and faculty, helping find ways to make Wisconsin public higher education more affordable? Then please consider joining the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study as an undergraduate or graduate intern this summer!

The WSLS is seeking students who will commit to at least 10 hours/week of work for summer and fall 2011. The ideal candidates are responsible, trustworthy, and detail-oriented. Those studying sociology, psychology, economics, or political science are especially needed.

Potential tasks include: (1) piloting a study of undergraduates using text-messaging, (2) interviewing students, (3) transcribing and coding interviews, and (4) Using STATA to clean, code, and analyze survey data. Interns will be included in regular biweekly staff meetings and social events.

We offer class credit and/or pay based on experience.

If you are interested, please email Alison Bowman at ambowman@wisc.edu by May 13. Include a resume and short description of your relevant skills and time availability.

Thanks!

Scott Walker's Hokey Pokey

2011-04-18T10:51:00.000-07:00

Eliminating collective bargaining for Wisconsin public employees was all about balancing the state budget. Until it wasn't.

Expanding the Milwaukee voucher program was all about equal educational opportunities for low-income children. Until it wasn't.

Howard Fuller is absolutely right to threaten to "get off the stage" and refuse to strike a deal with the devil.

“I will never fight for giving people who already have means more resources. Because, in the end, that will disadvantage and squeeze out the possibility of poor parents having some of these options,” said Fuller.
This is not to say that Fuller won’t consider raising the income threshold to serve more of Milwaukee’s working poor. In the interview, he talks about aligning the requirements for entry into the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program with those of Wisconsin’s BadgerCare program, which provides health care to state residents who earn less than 300 percent of poverty. “That would capture over 80 percent of the households in the city,” he said. “So if your real objective is to expand the level of support, you could do that and still retain a focus on low-income and moderate-income families.”
But if Wisconsin and other states want to make their vouchers universally accessible to families of any income level, “it may very well be that it’s time for people like me to get off the stage,” he said. “Maybe it has to be a different movement going forward, but if that’s the way the movement has to be going forward, it’s not something that I can be a part of.”

While I disagree with Fuller's approach to expanding vouchers rather than focusing on reform of and investment in public education, I admire his steadfast adherence to principle and his commitment to advocacy on behalf of disadvantaged children and families.

Others in Wisconsin -- including UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin -- need to come to the same conclusion. What YOU may think or want something to be about probably isn't why this right-wing governor is your new friend. Just say "no, thank you." There are alternatives that may need to wait for more thoughtful and progressive leadership in Wisconsin.

Trampling workers' rights. Privatizing public education. THAT's what it's all about.

AP Photo: Andy Manis

Reforming Wisconsin Public Higher Education

2011-04-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

As we move into the closing months of debate over Governor Scott Walker's budget bill, it is becoming clear that there's little appetite for the New Badger Partnership outside of Madison. That's not to say that the Wisconsin Idea Partnership is likely to succeed either.

Instead, the state has begun a very important discussion about the future of public higher education. No one--whether pro or con-NBP-- seems to think what we're doing right now is working terribly well. And the metrics would seem to bear that out --our degree completion rates, access rates, affordability rates-- all are essentially mediocre. We can and must do better, and it's in that spirit that I will begin to propose some principles and prospects for reform.

My proposals are grounded in the spirit of the Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862 that helped create the University of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Idea that helped sustain it. They are also grounded in decades of empirical research on undergraduate education and the actual experiences of today's college students. Finally, please note that they are primarily meant to stimulate discussion and debate-- not to preclude it. Wisconsin needs so badly to engage in a series of frank, fearless conversations about higher education with a much wider representation of opinions and ideas than it has before. Now is the time, and here are some thoughts to get us started.

(1) In the 21st century, the two systems of Wisconsin public higher education could work together to meet the needs for undergraduate and graduate education throughout the state. Right now, they are systems divided, competing for scarce resources. While they enjoy different missions they are in many ways complementary and their work needs to be coordinated. Therefore, I call for serious discussion about creating a central, comprehensive governance board overseeing the work of all of Wisconsin's public colleges and universities. In other words, that board would be charged with the future of both the University of Wisconsin System and the Wisconsin Technical College System. The creation of this kind of governing body should be aimed at elevating the educational missions of our institutions and protecting them from the inappropriate incursion of politics (e.g. intrusions from both the governor's office and the Legislature). Given that both parties have, at various times, objected to the involvement of political actors in the work of these schools, this approach could (eventually) garner bipartisan support. That's not to say it will be without pain-- the move would nearly undoubtedly result in the discovery of some mission overlap or creep and/or redundancy in some services that could results in closures and/or job loss. These are hard truths, but not ones that should be avoided.

(2) To ensure cost-effective operations, all institutions of higher education in Wisconsin need to be treated as the schools they are. In other words, they require greater autonomy from state government in a key set of domains. They are unlike other state agencies in terms of their work, their personnel, and their ways of operating. Schools are not businesses, and will not run effectively (and therefore efficiently) as such. Serious consideration needs to be given to finding the means with which to free them from red tape with regards to (a) personnel issues including hiring and compensation, (b) procurement, and (c) construction.

(3) Just like many other not-for-profit institutions, going forward the Wisconsin higher education system should be allowed to retain the revenues it generates as long as it uses them solely for educational purposes-- in other words to satisfy its mission. The state should not be allowed to "sweep" said revenues from the System for non-educational purposes. The possible exception might be to take them for use in funding the state need-based financial aid program -- but ideally that program should be administered by a board that coordinates the work of both UW System and WTCS. Notice that I am suggesting that individual institutions may still have to give up some revenues to the System; that sort of tax facilitates redistributive activities that benefit the common good as long as the revenues are used for educational purposes.

(4) Ensuring the accessibility and affordability of Wisconsin public higher education in the 21st century requires strong oversight of tuition and financial aid policies. Left to their own devices, colleges and universities have significant impetus to act to maximize the opportunities for their employees rather than their students. To control this tendency, a central board needs to coordinate these policies across institutions-- this is an important part of what makes them part of a system. It is also what makes degree completion possible for students who--for a wide variety of reasons-- attend multiple institutions en route to a degree (today that includes more than 1 in 2 undergraduates).

There are four ideas. Let's have at 'em- and let's develop more. Please join the conversation.

Have Courage-- Act Now

2011-04-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

I have spent the last seven years afraid I'd become a cautionary tale. I have been repeatedly warned by older, wiser folks to reconsider my inclinations to do things that could threaten my chances of getting tenure: have a baby on the tenure-track (then have another), initiate a large-scale new data collection project, spend a lot of time grant-writing, write policy briefs and other non-academic papers, travel around the country for policy and practice speaking engagements, write a blog (and then two), and the list goes on and on. Of course, the most controversial decision I made was back in 2009 when I began to speak out loudly and frequently against the policies and actions of UW-Madison's Administration.

For the most part, my advisers are tenured friends who simply want me to succeed. I have a tendency to get in my own way-- by saying "yes" to too many opportunities, wanting to have it all right now, and sometimes by starting to speak before I've finished thinking. I realize that they weren't all saying I should never do the things I've done, but that perhaps I just shouldn't do them right now.

Having now stunned even myself by receiving two unanimous votes of support on my tenure-- from both my department and the UW-Madison Social Science Divisional Committee-- I have this to say. While I have some small regrets about how I've used my time during the last 7 years, I have absolutely no regrets about my decision to speak publicly and confidently about my opposition to the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates and the New Badger Partnership. Both policies threaten the great public university I've come to love as my home, and even more importantly, they threaten the key principles central to my research agenda: higher education access and affordability.

To professors at UW-Madison who share those values and principles and have not yet spoken publicly about your feelings on the NBP: please consider doing so now. To those not at UW-Madison but who recognize this is a national concern-- please also considering doing so. One of the current University of Wisconsin-Madison's greatest assets is its safeguards for academic freedom. As I celebrated last night, I became increasingly cognizant that at most of the nation's colleges and universities my tenure decision wouldn't feel nearly so certain at this point-- it has not yet been signed by my dean, provost, chancellor, or Board of Regents. They are all a critical part of the process, and my stating that I have earned tenure is not meant to disrespect or discount their role. Rather, what I know is that both my department and the divisional committee believe I have earned tenure -- and at the current UW-Madison with its shared governance structure that is what matters most.

Ours is not a top-down institution. Tenure is not decided mainly by the Administration, and this makes it possible for faculty to speak their minds without fear.

That is not how private institutions operate, and should the NBP transform UW-Madison into a public authority (what might also be called a private land-grant university) I expect that will change. While the new Chapter 37 includes the provisions of the current Chapter 36, it could be easily altered with a line-item veto to eliminate the faculty role in the tenure decision-- or simply to give much more decision-making authority to the new Board of Trustees and/or the Chancellor.

Is this an irrational fear? I don't think so. Chancellor Martin has articulated her theory of governance before and it is more a unitary model than a shared one. Moreover, she seems to have brought a strong sense of Cornell University with her. And the way in which power is allocated at Cornell seems remarkably similar to how power has been allocated under the Martin regime at UW-Madison.

As Ambrose Redmoon once wrote, "courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear." If you like the current tenure process at UW-Madison and the freedom it affords faculty to speak truth to power, now is the time to speak. Right now shared governance protects you. Soon, it may not exist.

SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE CHAIR JUDITH BURSTYN AT burstyn@chem.wisc.edu

FROM THE ARCHIVES: I (Finally) Figured Out Why I Want Tenure

2011-04-14T05:19:00.000-07:00

This is a very important day for the EduOptimists and our family. In honor of this special occasion (let's call it DDay), we offer a peek into our archives. I wrote this post on May 4, 2009. Since that time, I have grown ever more certain that the only way to ensure true sifting and winnowing is through tenure. On Wisconsin! Sara

UPDATE: This afternoon the Divisional Committee of UW-Madison unanimously confirmed my tenure, which was previously confirmed with a unanimous vote by my department. ON WISCONSIN!!!!!

Today was a big day. This morning’s paper ran a story containing quotes from me and from this blog that many of my colleagues will likely view as uncouth. Others will misinterpret it as desire for publicity and name recognition. These folks just don't know me like my family, and particularly my Poppa, does.

To my mind, I had little choice but to do what I did. My University is moving in an untenable direction, one that makes middle-class folks feel good, while at the same time trampling the long-term opportunities of the voiceless. I'm not alone- my family members have a long history of doing exactly this. I went on the record as opposed to a policy that is strongly supported not only by my administrators and supervisors, but also by most of the faculty around me. I wish I could say I felt brave and confident as hung up the phone with the reporter. I didn’t-- in fact, I ran to the bathroom and lost my lunch.

Over the course of the past many months, I’ve received a lot of advice about the Madison Initiative. Advisers have patiently explained to me that the policy is going forward with or without me, and that my time and energy spent fighting will be wasted. I’d be better off simply recommending a few minor alterations and falling in line; at the bare minimum this would help to ensure I could devote my energies to peer-reviewed publications and the kinds of thing academia typically rewards. A fight like this one, I was told, was something I had to earn the right to participate in—something I needed tenure for.

This is all undoubtedly true. The numbers of hours I’ve spent agonizing over the Initiative, pouring over its details, listening to the administration, reading what students have to say, reviewing relevant research on the topic again and again—it’s taken plenty of time and left room for very little sleep. If I were more prudent, that time could have been spent on my many R&Rs, helping put the icing on my tenure case.

Except until now, I really wasn’t sure what tenure was good for. I never set out to be a professor—I just wanted to question conventional wisdom and address it with the best available social science evidence. I'd do it in whatever setting allowed it. I never worried about unemployment; heck at times I find myself with 3 or even 4 jobs at a time. I am insanely fortunate, I know it, and so I thought how could I expect more? Tenure, I began to think, could be phased out in favor of more competitive salaries.

But today, I get it. At the end of my 5th year as an assistant professor, I just spoke out in a manner that could hurt my job prospects, possibly my research agenda, and who knows what else. I’m not saying anyone will directly throw the hammer at me- not at all. But people will be pissed, and they’ll find ways to make my life difficult. I recognize that.

So why bother? Why not wait until I had tenure- and true academic freedom? Because I’m not a professor just anywhere—this is Madison. Madison, for pete’s sake—the place where every academic in the country believes anyone can and does speak their mind, and is praised for it. I am deeply proud of this University’s tradition, and I want it upheld.

And in this case, the truth simply couldn’t wait. In my reading, the research here is unequivocal. I’ve got mountains of evidence that truly open discussions were not occurring, and could not under institutional constraints. I spend my days with students who have struggled to gain access to UW-Madison, and also with many of those who’d hope to attend but for major financial barriers. Yes, this policy increases financial aid—and that is a wonderful thing. But there were other routes to achieve the same end, and much better policy designs that were never considered or outright rejected. And so it was time to stand up for my students—and even more importantly for the Wisconsin high school graduates from poor families who will never find their way here. My own personal interests (e.g. salary, community of faculty, even tenure) be damned.

I have a two-year-old. When I leave the house every day I think about why I’m bothering. Today, the world knows why. And honestly, I’m both proud—and scared.

Guest Post: Why "New Badger Partnership" Means Loss of Independence for UW-Madison

2011-04-13T08:45:00.000-07:00

The following is a guest posting from Harry Peterson, a UW-Madison administrator from 1978-1990, Chief of Staff to Chancellor Donna Shalala from 1988-1990. Harry is also President Emeritus, Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison, Colorado

The demand for Professor Bill Cronon’s emails by the Wisconsin Republican Party prompted the UW System Board of Regents to review its support for academic freedom throughout its history. At its April board meeting the Regents again was emphatic in its interest in continuing that tradition. This received virtually no notice in the media because it was not news. The Board of Regents has been supporting academic freedom throughout its history. It is one of its most important legacies. The board has done such a good job it is taken for granted.

We know in our personal lives and in public policy that decisions can have unintended and unanticipated consequences, sometimes with tragic results. Goals that are pursued sometimes have the opposite result. The proposal by Chancellor Martin and Governor Walker to create an independent authority for the UW-Madison, in the name of autonomy, will result in outcomes that are the opposite of the independence the Chancellor seeks.

There are several reasons why our autonomy at the UW-Madison will be decreased. This post addresses one of them.

On May 1 the terms of two members of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents will expire and Governor Walker will nominate two people to serve seven year terms on the Board. (Also, two student Regents who will serve shorter terms.) Those individuals will appear before the Senate Education Committee. It will be an opportunity for Senators to ask these nominees about their understanding of higher education and support for academic freedom and tenure, research on climate change and evolution. They can also be asked about whether they support stem cell research, and if they believe that the UW Medical School should continue to train its students in abortion procedures. They will surely be asked their position on political parties soliciting emails from faculty members.

The Senate Education Committee will then make a recommendation to the full Senate about whether to confirm these individuals to serve as members of the Board of Regents.

These two new Regents will join a seasoned Board of Regents who have learned, through years of service, about the complexities of higher education and the traditions of public higher education in Wisconsin.

After July 1, if the Biddy Martin/Scott Walker proposal for the UW-Madison to leave the UW System becomes law, Governor Walker will appoint 11 members of the newly created board of trustees. This appointments will be made by the Governor knowing they will not be subject to a public hearing and subjected to the questions the Board of Regents members might have been asked. These individuals will immediately constitute a majority of the board.

The Scott Walker board will likely support significant tuition increases, consistent with the conservative philosophy of smaller government, with an emphasis on individual responsibility to pay for benefits they receive. If the next governor is a Democrat the new governor will have a majority in his or her first term. That liberal board will undoubtedly focus on access to higher education, and will very likely oppose significant tuition increases. Long terms of service are designed to prevent this kind of abrupt policy reversal. That is why the UW System Board of Regents have seven year terms. Even if the number of years per term is increased, the current language reflects an alarming lack of understanding of public higher education by the people who proposed it.

The Scott Walker board members will not become part of a governing body that has a tradition of almost 40 years of supporting academic freedom. They will establish their own traditions and will do so in a climate of unprecedented mistrust and partisanship. The UW-Madison, in its quest for greater autonomy, will have left behind a board which has defended academic freedom for almost 40 years.

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited our country in the 1830s he marveled at the democratic traditions that had already been established here. He called them “habits of the heart.” Academic freedom is a “habit of the heart” for the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. They have done it so well we take it for granted. The new board will inherit the language from Chapter 36 of the Wisconsin Statutes, but none of the tradition of the people who served before them.

If the Biddy Martin/Scott Walker proposal becomes law, the UW-Madison will have become “independent” from the other UW System universities, its legislative allies, and will have also gained “independence” from a strong and supportive Board of Regents.

It will acquire a different kind of dependence. Because of the appointment of majority of board members by Scott Walker, without Senate review and confirmation, it will have become much closer to and dependent upon the current and future Governors.

Cat and Mouse

2011-04-12T17:49:00.000-07:00

Thank you to an anonymous source for passing this along.

An Alternative Proposal

2011-04-11T10:46:00.000-07:00

In a recent post, I explained that there are viable ways to deal with significant budget cuts while providing a high-quality postsecondary education to students at UW-Madison and throughout Wisconsin. Here, I expand further on that option.

There are several things that academics in the Research I world tend to hold dear. These include a low student/faculty ratio, autonomy to decide what one teaches and when, and a reward structure that emphasizes on research accomplishments over teaching accomplishments. I want to suggest that while these are important values in many ways, they come into conflict with undergraduate learning.

To be more specific:

(1) Keeping the student/faculty ratio small is intended to make sure students get a lot of attention from faculty. It's often interpreted to mean that classes are small and advising frequent, and thus is a marker of quality. Yet as many freshmen would attest, even when the ratio is low, classes are large and faculty interaction infrequent.

(2) Decision-making authority over teaching is intended to allow faculty to teach what they are best at teaching, giving them the ability to connect their research to teaching in meaningful ways, helping them stay motivated and engaged, etc. But it also means that often students don't know who will teach what and when. It also doesn't do anything to make sure that faculty are teaching the things they're truly good at teaching.

(3) The reward structure (including tenure) places more emphasis on research than teaching. This is more true in some parts of universities than others, but overall it's accepted. Also, in public institutions it's common to emphasize scholarship rather than fundraising, partly because of concerns that scholarship shouldn't be driven by fundraising and partly because opportunities for fundraising are inequitably distributed across areas of study. This provides too little incentive for faculty to devote a lot of time to learning to teach effectively (time is a very scarce resource), and also to pursue grant funds that could provide postions for undergraduates and grad students on research studies.

So those are some of the problems. What are some possible solutions, and in particular how might they save us money without turning the UW into a place faculty don't want to be?

(1) Increase the student/faculty ratio from 13:1 to 19:1. Do this with a combination of admitting and retaining more students and over time reducing the size of the faculty a little. As I explained in my prior post, this saves a ton of money, and we can even afford to increase faculty salaries and student support services somewhat.

(2) Grow the size of classes where the students enrolled have the fewest remedial needs. Do this in a data-driven way-- try it out (experimentally-- with random assignment), collect data and evaluate the effects. Try doing this with upper-level students in particular.

(3) Give faculty the incentives and support to learn to teach more effectively and efficiently using technology (see below for how to pay for it). Reward them for doing so (e.g. make this more important to tenure decisions, and to awards given to senior faculty). This will increase capacity to teach larger classes and to do it well.

(4) Demand that all departments carefully coordinate the provision of required courses. Strike a better balance between giving faculty choices about when/what they teach, and what students need.

(5) Increase the grant buyout rate, so that the university gets more money when a professor is released from a course. Use that money to support professional development (see above). I say this knowing it will anger many, and hurt myself- but it's too cheap in many areas of the university to get out of teaching. Make this a nuanced rule however-- release people for prestigious fellowships and activities that will really support their scholarship AND teaching, but make it more expensive to be released solely to work on a single project.

(6) Give faculty incentives to fundraise. For example, change tenure guidelines so that in areas where grant opportunities abound, professors are expected to raise at least a minimal amount of money by the time they go up. Do this carefully, by first working with faculty to assess the landscape in a field and update it every few years. In areas where grant opportunities are not plentiful, consider whether fellowships and scholarships are. To be clear, the goal is to measure success relative to opportunities-- if you are a "star" is it reasonable to expect you to have earned at least one accolade (that comes with at least some funds) during your tenure period? This will help bring more money into the university, offset the cost of faculty salaries, improve rankings, and provide more opportunities for students. Another idea is to start giving a small percentage of indirects to PIs-- as many other institutions do.

(7) Assign faculty to mentor undergraduates. Praise them for doing so. In particular, I urge UW to consider assigning a faculty member to each Pell grant recipient. This would require perhaps 2 hours of work for each professor each month, and would make much better use of our Pell dollars and increase graduation rates. We could be first in the nation for doing this, and I'm betting it would also improve faculty/student relations.

There are cost savings associated with all of these steps. There are benefits to both faculty and students. Yes, there are some costs to. Every new way of doing work comes with these.

This is the kind of thinking we need to be doing to solve our current dilemmas. Flexibility and control over our existing money is not going to improve the quality of undergraduate education. That should be our focus right now. Nothing-- nothing-- is more important to Wisconsin's future.

The Consequences of Speaking Out

2011-04-11T09:53:00.000-07:00

I am under attack

Call Off Biddy and Her Goons

2011-04-08T09:54:00.000-07:00

The Badger Advocates have begun their work, and ladies and gents, it's not pretty.

Wonder what the New Badger Partnership will really do to relations throughout the state and the image of UW-Madison?

Look no further than the Badger Advocate's latest statement, slamming UW System President Kevin Reilly for misstating the size of the enormous budget cut planned for UW System. For pete's sake, Brandon calls President Reilly "intellectually dishonest" and accuses System leadership of stupidity!

Had Brandon simply asked President Reilly why he said System was taking a $340 million cut instead of a $250 million cut, he would have gotten a very reasonable answer. The $250 million is a cut to System's operating budget, but there's another $90 million cut to the UW System in the 2011-13 budget, reflecting higher health/retirement contributions. It's money removed from System's budget because it's removed from their employees paychecks. Given the challenges that all System institutions face in recruiting and retaining faculty, this second cut matters just as much as the first, as it will fuel outflow of talent and undermine the ability to educate students.

The childish name-calling Brandon engaged in is but one effort initiated by Chancellor Biddy Martin and her team in the last week, intended to alienate and shame all those who do not agree with her initiative.

Her other efforts include:

--Inappropriately urging her faculty, staff, and students to take political action if they agree with her. The clear implications of this message, sent via university email, is that enough discussion's been had and now it's time to act. Except this violates tenants of shared governance and simply isn't true-- the faculty and students are divided not united on these issues, and having the Chancellor lean on her campus isn't helpful.

--Vice-Provost Aaron Brower said at a Wednesday night forum that perhaps the reason the Regents hadn't proposed a public authority model is that they do not wish to relinquish their own powers as a board. (To clarify, Aaron is a friend and a very good person trying to deal with a tough situation- I am NOT calling Aaron a goon.)

--I've been in three different campus meetings where students indicated being told that if the NBP does not pass, Kevin Reilly will take action against Madison and its faculty and students in retribution for Biddy's actions.

This is nuts. Anyone who's ever met Kevin Reilly or a regent knows how crazy these accusations are. They hold open discussions and follow the rules, they don't sneak around or try to intimidate people, and they do not intentionally lie. Sure they are imperfect and System doesn't run as well as it could-- but that does not excuse the attacks being initiated by UW-Madison's leadership right now.

Lest you think I'm being unfair to attribute these actions to Biddy, recall that at a recent PROFS meeting, Badger Advocates Brandon and Pete said explicitly that their only mission was to act on behalf of Biddy Martin, to advocate for whatever direction she thought was best for the UW. Asked if they would continue to act on behalf of a future chancellor, both men demured, and Pete said "We were formed to do what Biddy needs done."

This is not what leadership looks like. It's one thing for independent citizens to write about their own opinions in emails, blogs, comments online, etc. That's freedom of speech. It's another thing entirely for a university leader to act to destroy relations throughout a state. Chancellor Martin should be stopped.

UPDATED on Saturday April 8 with some key budgetary details.

More on "Holding Low Income Families Harmless"

2011-04-07T12:55:00.000-07:00

One of the central claims made by proponents of the New Badger Partnership is that the policy will maintain or even enhance access to Wisconsin's public flagship by holding families making less than $80,000 harmless from tuition increases.

That claim relies on several assumptions:

(1) Families understand, or can be educated to understand, tuition discounting. In other words, you have to believe that all families in Wisconsin will come to know that the real cost of Madison will equal sticker price minus financial aid.

(2) Increases in tuition will always be tied to increases in financial aid as part of a conscious financing strategy and not occur as a stop-gap measure in response to a fiscal crisis (for example caused by an unexpected decline in state contributions or shortfall in foundation funds).

(3) Demand for a UW-Madison education is relatively inelastic.

(4) UW-Madison will continue to have a significant capacity to price discriminate (e.g. to offer much bigger discounts to some students compared to others).

Let's consider the merits of each assumption in turn.

Assumption #1: Sticker shock can be overcome. I have expressed great skepticism this is possible mainly because there isn't any evidence of a sticker shock campaign that's worked, and because a misunderstanding of discounting pervades many aspects of society (e.g. how many people know that you don't often pay MSRP for a car?).

Assumption #2: Increases in tuition will always be made thoughtfully and the UW-Madison will always increase aid as much as it increases tuition. This is key, for as University of Pennsylvania and famous political philosopher Amy Gutman has written:

"A morally troubling risk of a high-tuition, full scholarship policy is that in times of austerity, the two parts of the policy may be decoupled...The risk cannot be eliminated without doing away with democracy or the autonomy of universities, but it can be minimized by policies that tie tuition to levels of support...The commitment to economic nondiscrimination is thereby expressed by a single policy, rather than being the coincidence of two policies with independent rationales."

The statutory language of the NBP treats tuition and financial aid as separate pieces, and does not speak of them as dependent on one another. Moreover, there is nothing in the NBP that would commit the Board of Trustees to maintain a very close tie between tuition and aid over the long term. Simple statements like "modest" increases and "affordable" education do not a commitment make.

Assumption #3: Demand for a UW-Madison education will continue to grow, despite these changes. This is generally reasonable, but there isn't much evidence to suggest this will continue to be true for high-achieving residents if prices get closer to the levels charged by private, out-of-state institutions. In other words, as we become less of a good deal, they may go elsewhere. And, there's little reason to think that offering a lot more aid is going to make a big enough difference in the numbers of low-income students enrolled at Madison to offset the potential loss of other students.

Assumption #4: UW-Madison's students and their families will tolerate significant price discrimination. There is already some pushback from students who feel it's unfair that they have to pay full price while others get a deep discount. That divide will grow further. Moreover, the difference in res/nonres tuition will also expand.

To claim that the NBP will hold low-income students harmless and even increase affordability is to believe that all four assumptions hold. Do you?

"A Pearl in a Pile of Crap" -- Or Just More Crap?

2011-04-07T07:33:00.000-07:00

At a public forum on Madison's campus last night, Aaron Brower called the NBP "a pearl in a pile of crap." (Well, he said something a little stronger than "crap," but out of respect to kids everywhere, I'll use "crap.")

I have the utmost respect for Aaron, whom I've called a friend for nearly 7 years, and so I spent the night thinking about his contention that perhaps Scott Walker is offering UW-Madison the NBP because he views it as the "economic engine" of his state.

Like I said, I thought about it.

Then this morning, the answer presented itself once again-- thanks to Walker's cronies at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

In Walker's view, life is "Madison versus the rest of the state." And as a senior fellow WPRI puts it in the National Review, "Right now, government employees in Madison run Wisconsin. It’s up to Scott Walker and legislative Republicans to wrest control back."

No one said it explicitly, but it's not just government employees in Madison who run Wisconsin--it's also UW-Madison. At least that's what people believe.

Make no mistake--Walker wants control over UW-Madison. WPRI wrote the blueprint for the NBP (see the 2001 report “Chartering the University of Wisconsin-Madison”). Public authority status where Walker controls the Board of Trustees is a downright savvy way to get control. So much the better if he can work it so UW-Madison's leaders lobby for it. That strips them of any credibility later on when they realize what hell they wrought.

UPDATE: Further evidence of animosity towards UW-Madison among those who are pro-NBP: A comment from a reader of the Cap Times article, "The big chill? UW's Cronon sees 'intimidation' in GOP' records request."
"The universities indoctrinate the young minds with all the wacko liberal ideology. Never do they teach them that there is another and better way!! I'm all for spinning off UW Madison from the rest of the system. Less taxpayer dollars used to promote only liberal ideas!! Go Biddy Go!!!"

Posted on the Doors of the Sewell Social Science Building AND the Law School

2011-04-06T18:44:00.000-07:00

I have no idea whose sign this is, but on behalf of those who believe UW-Madison is a common good, thank you.

UPDATED: Maybe this guy wrote it. A former Regent.

CHANCELLOR LOBBIES STUDENTS TO LOBBY CAPITAL

2011-04-06T18:17:00.000-07:00

She must be at her wits end. Why else would Chancellor Martin take what could easily be a completely illegal action--lobbying her employees AND HER STUDENTS, using public email, to lobby politicians? I understand that in the past she has urged support of her initiatives by distributing cookies to students on Bascom Mall and scaring her deans with threats that she might be fired if her initiatives didn't pass. This, however, takes the cake.

I seriously thought it was a scam when I first got it. I deeply wish it were-- scare tactics and coercive actions do not a leader make.

And by the way, here are the rules according to UW System:

"...Certain university employees holding highly visible positions, or those who serve in a liaison capacity with state and federal legislators, should be aware of the ethical and practical consequences of political campaign involvement as well as the basic legal issues, such as the application of state and federal lobbying rules to the activities of state university employees....because of restrictions on state lobbying and personal use of state resources, individual employees should not use state work time or state resources to engage in political activities unless expressly designated with this responsibility on behalf of the institution....For example, advocating for governmental action or legislative change, at a local, state or federal level, may be political although not related to a political campaign. "

From: Chancellor Biddy Martin
Subject: Update on New Badger Partnership
Date: April 6, 2011 3:30:19 PM CDT
To: Sara Goldrick-Rab
Reply-To: Chancellor Biddy Martin
Security: Signed (Chancellor Biddy Martin)

Dear Faculty, Staff and Students,

I write with an important update on the New Badger Partnership and also with a call for action.

Last Thursday, I attended the higher-education briefing of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance at the State Capitol. UW System President Kevin Reilly asked several chancellors from other campuses to make a case for the new System plan for increased flexibilities. The co-chairs of the joint committee then asked me to answer questions about the proposal that is already in the budget bill -- a new public-authority model for UW-Madison. I was happy to do so, and I believe I was able to clarify a number of misperceptions about our proposal. Near the end of the meeting, Senator Luther Olsen urged UW System and UW-Madison to work together and find a plan that would work for both parties.

The following day, in response to Senator Olsen's request, I invited my fellow chancellors and President Reilly to meet for a discussion of a third option. The invitation included a draft amendment to the governor's bill that would provide much-needed flexibilities to the other campuses. It also included an offer to be open to their new ideas about how to move forward. The amendment would add flexibilities for the other campuses and System without subtracting from what UW-Madison would gain through the existing budget bill. Prior to issuing the invitation, I spoke with several chancellors who expressed interest in
discussing the merits of this approach.

Some have already asked why the suggested amendment did not compromise on public-authority status for UW-Madison. I believe UW-Madison needs all the flexibility that the governor's budget provides if we are to continue competing with the best research universities in the world. There is a clear nationwide trend toward differentiation in higher education. The American Association of Universities, an organization of top research universities in the country, has on its meeting agenda for next week a discussion of the urgent need to preserve the quality of public flagship universities. If we can't preserve their
strengths with innovations in our mode of operating, it will harm not only UW-Madison and other great research institutions, but also the states in which they are located and the nation as a whole.

President Reilly sent an email announcing that System would need to respond with a written analysis before discussions with other chancellors could take place. He then sent a System-wide communication promoting the Wisconsin Idea Partnership, the details of which will be presented to the Board of Regents for the first time this week. I asked for a brief period of time at this week's Regents' meeting to present the amendment to the existing budget bill. I was again denied the request on the grounds that System first needs to provide a written analysis of our tentative proposal.

System's new plan does not come close to doing for UW-Madison what public-authority status would. First, with one exception in facilities management, the plan does not delegate any new statutory authority or flexibility to UW-Madison
or to any other campus. President Reilly's explanation of the plan states that System and the Regents will "press down" the flexibilities they gain, where appropriate. Second, there is, therefore, no acknowledgement of the unique needs, competitive position or the capacities of a major research university. Third, our legal staff is skeptical about the claim that the university system could remain a state agency and get its non-tax-dollar revenue off the books. Public-authority status for UW-Madison would give us ownership of our non-state-tax-dollar funding, allowing us to use it flexibly and avoid having it swept. Fourth, the statute changes proposed by System do not allow for a redesign of our personnel system. If successful, it would introduce some helpful changes, but does not go nearly as far as public authority does.

In response to concrete concerns from other chancellors and the public about the future of transfer agreements, research collaborations, shared infrastructure and a shared brand, we have responded with Memoranda of Understanding that
pledge not only the continuation, but also the enhancement, of our collaborations. To those who say we would not maintain transfer agreements over time, we have pointed out that our most robust transfer programs are with Madison College, direct campus-to-campus agreements. We do not need yet another layer of administration to ensure that we do what is mutually beneficial and good for the citizens of Wisconsin.

To those who have claimed that we would raise tuition higher than it would be raised within the System, we have shown that the increase for next year would be the same. In response to those who worry about prestige, we have ensured, from
the outset, that we continue to share the name "University of Wisconsin" with every other campus. To those who have said that the terms of the members of the new board are too short, we have agreed and begun work on an amendment to lengthen those terms.

We have spent well over a year developing the analysis, strategy and tactics that would create what is no doubt a once-in-a-lifetime chance for UW-Madison and for the other campuses. For many years, the System and Madison chancellors have talked about the need for flexibility. Making the case in a holistic plan and getting it into the governor's budget have created an opportunity that I do not believe we should forego. The most effective approach to getting all the campuses the flexibilities they need would be to support what is already in the governor's budget -- amended to provide other System campuses the flexibilities and forms of local decision-making that make sense for their institutions -- and then to move forward together to persuade the public and the Legislature of the need for what we have fought so hard to obtain.

During the past several months, I have tried to proactively communicate as we move forward in what I believe is a critical chapter in UW-Madison history. I have continually asked for your feedback. But I am also asking you for action. If you agree with me that the New Badger Partnership and the public-authority model are crucial to the future success of UW-Madison, I urge you to express your support more openly and vigorously. There are those who do not want this to succeed, and they are reaching out to the Legislature. We need you to do the same.

Here [linked] is contact information for the Joint Committee on Finance, President Reilly, and the Board of Regents. It can also be found at budget.wisc.edu.

Time is of the essence. Ask for their support. Please note that I am asking you to speak out as individuals, citizens and taxpayers, and not on behalf of the university. With your own time and resources, tell them we need their support of the public-authority model in the current state budget, not only for the good of UW-Madison, but also for the good of the state.

Chancellor Biddy Martin

Academic Freedom-- According to Alumna Lynne Cheney

2011-04-05T19:40:00.000-07:00

Under the New Badger Partnership, Governor Walker will appoint at least 7 UW-Madison alumni to the Board of Trustees. Who might these fine folks be? What might they believe about academic freedom? We might as well get educated. Here's the first in a series.

"Academic Freedom" by Lynne Cheney

"In the last few years, people intent on using the curriculum and the classroom to advance a political agenda have become very frank about their purpose. In an article in Harvard Educational Review, a professor at the University of Wisconsin insists that professors like herself should be very open about their intention "to appropriate public resources (classrooms, school supplies, teacher/professor salaries, academic requirements and degrees) to further various 'progressive' political agendas." This professor describes a class she teaches at the University of Wisconsin called innocuously enough "Curriculum and Instruction 607," but it has an anything but innocuous purpose. Students are taught to demonstrate in Curriculum and Instruction 607—and then they actually demonstrate, as the professor describes it, "by interrupting business as usual (that is social relations of racism, sexism, classism, Eurocentrism, as usual) in the public spaces of the library mall and administrative offices." All this, and students get three hours credit, too. Which is certainly a marked change from when I was at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s. Students demonstrated then, but nobody ever thought of giving them credit for it."

She's talking about Elizabeth Ellsworth, a professor in the School of Education from 1984 to 2002, and now an Associate Dean at the New School in New York City.

"Ideas are powerful, and those that emanate from our colleges and universities carry a special authority. That is why it seems to me particularly important that we have a free and open discussion of the relationship between knowledge and politics. There are good people on our campuses trying to initiate these discussions, but they often find themselves marginalized, and they need support."

"Those of us off-campus need to make our concerns known as well. When it is time for us to help our children choose a college, we should ask hard questions about which campuses not only allow but encourage a diversity of opinion. When it comes time for us to make contributions as alumni, we should ask how well the college attended is doing at making sure all sides of controversial issues are heard. Those who serve on boards of trustees should encourage discussions of academic freedom of both faculty and students."

Agree with her, disagree with her -- do what you will. But ponder this: Lynne Cheney is an alumna who clearly feels she has a right--and indeed an obligation-- to tell faculty how and what to teach. Under the NBP Scott Walker can simply appoint her to govern this institution.

Speak now, or meet Mrs Cheney.

Someone's Not Listening...

2011-04-05T18:05:00.000-07:00

I have a four-year-old and a one-year-old so I'm used to people who don't listen. I repeat myself, say it more firmly, and find new ways to express the same message.

So let's try this one more time--

Governor Walker and the Legislature:
The State of Wisconsin is doing a very poor job of securing the future of its citizens by investing so little in public education at all levels, including higher education. However, if it has such poor judgment so as to slash education at this critical time, it is in the best interest of the state to give the institutions some additional flexibilities as outlined in the Wisconsin Idea Partnership (WIP). It is, however, not in the state's best interests to allow UW-Madison to be swept from the UW System and placed under the direction of its own Board of Trustees.

Chancellor Martin:
First, what you have proposed in your new "compromise plan" is a scary version of the WIP. Why scary? Because now it's just even more painfully clear: You seek to privatize UW-Madison, period. Why else would you seek to ensure it keeps all of its own revenue and is governed by a new board that is led by Scott Walker and his appointees as of July 1? Under the WIP you could get a nice set of flexibilities minus those that directly threaten Madison's future as an accessible public institution: tuition-setting authority, full financial management, and the Board of Regents. In order to control tuition, keep all the cash, and install people appointed by Scott Walker, you are willing to divorce System. That's it, I'm done wondering whether this could be about money. This isn't about money nearly as much as it's about power.

Second, your campus community has made it abundantly clear that we want to know what's going on. Sending a letter proposing a compromise to other chancellors and the Legislature without bringing it to us first is not ok. Finding out in the newspaper--only after a reporter has to do some sleuthing --- NOT OK.

**********

Compromise is a good thing. The Board of Regents has shown a remarkable ability to compromise by proffering the Wisconsin Idea Partnership to everyone, including Madison, while not simultaneously demanding Biddy Martin's resignation. Can such a partnership be implemented with her present? I guess that depends on whether she starts following her own request for input and starts listening.

UPDATE: Biddy Martin tweeted this at me: "Not meant to be a compromise; a third option that adds, not subtracts."

Does anyone see any value-added in this? I sure don't.

Tell Her About It

2011-04-04T19:19:00.000-07:00

After more than two hours of sitting in small hard wooden chairs on this blustery Monday afternoon, Faculty Senate at UW-Madison finally got interesting. In the midst of a discussion led by (I kid you not) "Committee of the Whole Discussion of Fiscal Models for the Proposed Public Authority, and Institutional Governance and the Proposed Board of Trustees," Chancellor Biddy Martin appeared to have had enough.

She'd taken numerous questions from faculty who seemed uncertain about the implications of her proposed New Badger Partnership (including a series of questions proferred by yours truly), and seemed to have reached the end of her rope. Red-faced, she looked at the crowd of 100 or so, and said:

"I'm out there on my own on this one...Regents and chancellors are against it...If the faculty, staff, and students of UW-Madison aren't supportive [of the NBP] then it makes no sense for me to continue. I'm tired. I don't need to be out there on my own. You need to let me know if you aren't behind it."

I almost--almost--felt bad for the lady. After all, she's just trying to do what she was hired to do. It's not her fault that she's been setup to dismantle a wonderful, public institution and to make it appear the dismantling is due to financial constraints rather than a power grab by conservatives.

But I didn't feel bad, and here's why. Her seemingly honest desire for the airing of objections is offset by her actions. This is a chancellor who excludes, at least as often as she includes. She convenes small groups of powerful folks, and keeps the vast majority on the outside. She has hired and promoted people who pledge allegiance to her for fear of doing otherwise. She has managed to make people support her agendas even when they feel incredibly uncomfortable doing so. We're in a financial crisis and they need their jobs-- and love this university.

My guess? People won't share their objections to NBP with Biddy Martin. Not because the campus agrees with this move, but because, quite frankly, people are scared of her.

I know this for a fact because over the last three months I have received several dozen emails, text messages, phone calls, and even drop-in office visits from university colleagues who have told me they feel as I do but are unable to attach their names to these sentiments. I notice the same at the public forums where the chancellor is present-- hands shake when questions are asked, no one pushes further when a question isn't directly addressed. This, more than anything else, is destroying our campus. Morale is low, and faculty and administrators are afraid to speak their minds and oppose a proposal to fundamentally alter how our state's flagship university does business.

In fact that says it all. Folks, the NBP isn't about money at all. It's about power.

The silence is deafening.

You Call Yourself a Cadillac

2011-04-02T12:39:00.000-07:00

"Chancellor Martin asked Governor Walker for a Chevrolet, and he graciously offered her a Cadillac. We [the Badger Advocates] are here to make sure she gets that Cadillac."

This is the explanation offered by Pete Christianson (Badger Advocate chairman and immediate past-president of the Wisconsin Alumni Association) for the emergence of a private lobbying group devoted to advancing Chancellor Biddy Martin's New Badger Partnership. He made the statement at a Friday afternoon meeting of PROFS.

Listening to Pete go on about the virtues of the Martin-Walker partnership, Robert Nighthawk's old blues song immediately came to mind..."You call yourself a Cadillac but you act just like a T Model Ford...You call yourself my baby but you still don't treat me right..."

What we the people of Wisconsin deserve to know is what's under the hood of that Cadillac?

Seems like a reasonable question, but all we're told is that the NBP runs on flexibilities. It provides funding to UW-Madison as a block grant, allows the university to retain all of its revenues and set policies for use of that money, lets the Board of Trustees (rather than the Regents) establish tuition, eliminates oversight from OSER, and puts us into direct contact with DOA.

What does all of that accomplish? More specifically:

What exactly are the cost-savings? For whom?

What do we gain in terms of power and control over the protection of academic freedom? Shared governance?

Who in particular will have greater say-so over Madison? Who benefits from that change?

The answers to these questions are largely unclear. We have not been given hard data to prove that we will save a substantial amount of money. We have not been shown the savings relative to other cost-saving measures. Instead we're just told that the current system doesn't work and we need flexibilities to solve problems. We have not been shown where costs will increase--e.g. who will foot the bill. We are simply told that tuition will go up and this will--somehow--save students money.

The Badger Advocates told PROFS that the NBP brings no gains in terms of protections for academic freedom or shared governance. Faculty emails will not be more secure under the new plan. Here are Pete's own words (written in response to my initial recollection of his words, relayed on the first version of this posting):

"Whoever is Governor will control the Board of Regents and will also control the board created to govern the Madison campus. Since the merger occurred in the 1970's, no Governor has done anything to further [protect] academic freedom or shared governance or make faculty emails more secure. If you have a complaint in this area it is with every Governor who has served since merger."

Well there you have it-- no gains for any of these important public university protections will come with the NBP. Next "advantage"?

In terms of who will gain more power with a public authority model, the answers are unspoken but not at all unclear. The Chancellor will have more power. So will the alumni and students and faculty named to the Board. Unsurprisingly, those are the folks lobbying for the change. I remain struck by the insistence of both Biddy Martin and Pete Christianson that we have nothing to fear from the Board of Trustees since it will be dominated by alumni. Our alumni are a vast, heterogeneous group of individuals. They include Lynne Cheney, J.B. Van Hollen, and David Keene, incoming president of the NRA and founder of CPAC. What reason do we have to believe that a few years attending Madison convinced these folks of the merits of public higher education and committed them to preserving all of its missions? If anything, it may have convinced them it needed to be radically changed. During Keene's days at Madison, he was “practically as right-wing as the Students for a Democratic Society are left-wing.” Walker could fulfill his commitments and increase his chances for conservative, political success by placing Keene on the Board of Trustees.

What's especially amazing is that the alumni who oppose the NBP are being silenced. Take a look at the array of negative comments made by alumni from all over. That page of comments has been deleted from the WAA website and whitewashed with a "thanks for your good dialogue and we support the NBP" positive statement.

The closer one looks at the NBP, the more questions arise. The most common argument made by its defenders are "If not NBP, then what?" That's the wrong question. Choosing the NBP in its Cadillac form -- the Cadillac created by Governor Scott Walker--means upending a System that has been in place for 40 years. Smart policymakers do not dismantle public policies or social programs without proof that (a) a new system has demonstrable benefits and (b) those benefits outweigh the costs of a radical change. The only substantial benefits to the NBP accrue to those who wish to see education privatized, and liberal education demolished. There are numerous such individuals throughout the United States and indeed the world, and they laid out specific plans for ending tenure and academic freedom decades ago. Those plans closely resemble the elements of this Cadillac. Why else is Walker expending his limited political capital on op-eds supporting the end of UW System and a major change in governance of UW-Madison? What we are seeing now is their manipulation of our chancellor and other leaders of public higher education, forcing them to deal with drastically unfair financial constraints and backing them into an untenable corner. It is from that highly compromised position that they are advancing a proposal that makes them feel like they are accomplishing something and protecting Madison from an untimely demise. If we do not look under the hood of this Cadillac, we are doomed.

Maybe that's a bit too dramatic. So let me end on with the words of a slightly older, much wiser colleague. "Once upon a time, the dream was to have a Chevy with a Caddy motor in it -- looks like nothing but flies like a bat out of hell. After not too long, people were dropping V8s into Vegas and things like that. That's what UW has traditionally been: Plain and modest-looking, but extremely powerful. Folks, what we've got here is a 1980s Coupe de Ville with a lawnmower engine."

Note: This post was updated at 750 pm on April 2 to reflect the input of Pete Christianson.

Governor Walker Hearts Public Higher Education

2011-04-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

I'm so happy our Governor Scott Walker loves public colleges and universities. I'm now convinced he knows what's best for us. Full speed ahead.

After all...

‎"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other."

Ayn Rand (from "Atlas Shrugged")

Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword Redux

2011-03-29T20:19:00.000-07:00

A USA Today investigation calls into question "dramatic" improvements in student test scores in select District of Columbia schools due to an "abnormal pattern" of erasures. This occurred during Michelle Rhee's tenure as DC schools chancellor.

Among the 96 DC schools that were flagged for wrong-to-right erasures by the city's testing contractor in 2008 "were eight of the 10 campuses where Rhee handed out so-called TEAM awards 'to recognize, reward and retain high-performing educators and support staff'.... Rhee bestowed more than $1.5 million in bonuses on principals, teachers and support staff on the basis of big jumps in 2007 and 2008 test scores.

In 2008, to her credit, then-DC state superintendent (now Rhode Island education commissioner) Deborah Gist recommended that large test score gains in certain schools be investigated, but as USA Today reported, "top D.C. public school officials balked and the recommendation was dropped."

Such allegations and instances of cheating are not unique to Washington DC of course. In 2010, a New York Times article chronicled erasures in Houston and noted investigations in Georgia (including a criminal probe in Atlanta), Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Virginia.

This latest development, however, adds a new wrinkle to my 2009 post, "Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword."

Michelle Rhee and other education reform advocates have publicly argued that student performance as measured by test scores is basically the be all and end all....

Student learning, school leadership and teaching cannot be measured and judged good or bad based on a single set of test scores. Test scores must be part of the consideration -- and supporting systems such as accountability, compensation and evaluation must be informed by such data -- but they should not single-handedly define success or failure.

When such huge stakes are placed on a single metric, it raises the likelihood of monkey business. Although it is highly likely this is what occurred in DC, a former employee of DC Public Schools (who tweets as @EduEscritora) makes several smart observations on her blog:

[T]he fact that the number of flagged schools decreased so precipitously from 2008 to 2009 is encouraging, even if we don’t know why that happened.

The decreasing number of schools also doesn’t support the claim that the pay-for-performance system now in place under IMPACT has resulted in cheating; 2010 was the first year that IMPACT existed, and that had the fewest number of flagged schools out of the three years in the study and the fewest number of schools with over 50% of the classrooms flagged – only two!

The problem for an advocate like Michelle Rhee is that she has chosen to largely define success based on a single metric: the test score. If many of these DC test-score gains turn out to be illusory and succumb to what some are calling the "Erase To The Top" scandal, it may spell further trouble for Rhee as a spokesperson for the school reform movement. (Rhee has claimed the largest NAEP score gains in the nation under her leadership, although other analyses have shown that increases began and were larger under Rhee's predecessors.) Her credibility already has been questioned by some as a result of alleged embellishments on her resume about her own teaching record. Without credibility, it is impossible to sell one's wares to anyone but true believers.

From a PR standpoint, this erasure story would seem to call for a measured response that carefully chronicles whatever steps, if any, were taken by DCPS at the time to address the unusual frequency of erasures. Instead, through a spokesperson, Michelle Rhee chose to 'shoot the messenger,' bombastically placing USA Today among the "enemies of school reform." [UPDATE: From the Washington Post's Jay Mathews: "Rhee calls her remarks on test erasures 'stupid'"]

Given Rhee's rhetoric, her policies in DC, and her current focus as head of StudentsFirst (which increasingly appears to be working solely with Republican governors and legislators at the state level), Michelle Rhee has largely pinned her credibility to the test score. If she had chosen to sit on a stool with more than a single leg, she might be sitting more comfortably right now and might not be engaged in a such a precarious and delicate balancing act. No doubt by taking on teacher tenure, she would have made enemies no matter what else she said or did. However, if she touted a more nuanced view of school improvement and student success and didn't poo-poo collaboration, she might not face a growing anti-Rhee cottage industry and her new organization might have had a chance to be a true non-partisan force in education reform.

Let's Develop Solutions

2011-03-29T06:47:00.000-07:00

Tired of the rhetoric? Want to take a stab at cutting costs in Wisconsin public higher education yourself-- or even try increasing productivity?

The Lumina Foundation has supported the development of an amazing interactive tool that helps you do just that.

Here's one result I generated:

Let's say we need to close the 2025 budget gap for Wisconsin public research universities to maintain current spending per FTE student. We can do that by increasing student/faculty ratio from 13:1 to 17:1. Period. Gap closed. No increases in tuition or state & local revenues necessary. And research suggests that such an increase will come at no significant cost to degree completion rates. If you want to suggest it will hurt instructional quality, you'll need to provide hard causal evidence to support that case-- I'd love to see it--email it to me!

Better yet, let's first increase faculty salaries per FTE to the 75th percentile (which means an increase of about $1,000 from a starting point of about $6,300) and do the same for student support services too. Let's further commit to no tuition increases, and assume no increase in state or local revenues either. We can do ALL that and still have no budget gap if we increase student/faculty ratio from 13:1 to 19:1.

What is required to increase student/faculty ratio? Obviously we either enroll more students, retain more students, or reduce the size of the faculty. Here are the two main challenges:

(1) There is a widely held belief that student/faculty ratio is THE measure of quality in higher education, despite an overwhelming dearth of evidence to support that belief. It's no coincidence that rankings systems rely so heavily on that measure--and that all this talk of being competitive seems to set aside any possible changes to the student/faculty ratio. In fact, since the ratio is actually interpreted to mean "commitment to teaching" that effectively precludes any real re-consideration, lest we come across as not committed to education! But come on-- what evidence is there that the number of faculty allocated to students is the best indicator of commitment? How about the number of highly-trained faculty? The amount of professional development offered? The valuation of teaching in tenure decisions? This reeks of a system that responds to the needs of faculty more than students (for more, see my next point). There are alternative ways to measure quality.

(2) Faculty. Faculty at research universities tend to strive for as little student interaction as possible. Yep, I said it. There are some exceptions, but generally we spend our time vying for smaller classes and less advising. Could we learn to teach bigger classes and do it well? Could we be required to do so at least semi-regularly? Could the advising load for undergrads be spread across a wider range of faculty (including those in departments that don't teach undergrads)? Sure. But you'll face resistance.

So let's stop pretending that there's only one way to skin this cat. We don't have to break from UW System, hike tuition, and/or become semi-private in order to solve our fiscal crisis. We have to have tough conversations about the best ways to deliver higher education in the 21st Century. Sure, that's a tall order-- but it's one that the smart communities of Wisconsin's public universities can no doubt handle.

Students Keep Hope Alive

2011-03-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

When I was in high school, I dreamed of going to UC-Berkeley. The stories of protests against social injustices conveyed by my AP History teacher got me excited. I was determined to attend a college where students fought against elitism and embraced diversity. The computerized college match programs I tried out told me that only CUNY would fit my bill (every other school was too white). And my mom told me that I was about 30 years too late for the Berkeley of my imagination.

I ended up (sadly) at William and Mary, then George Washington University, and finally at University of Pennsylvania--entirely out of financial constraints (VA was in-state, GW was tuition-free thanks to Mom's job, and Penn offered me a full ride for grad school). In all cases I was surrounded by smart but highly privileged kids who had little sense that many had been born on 3rd base.

My heart is therefore warmed by the sudden realization, brought on by recent events, that many of the undergraduates at UW-Madison and around Wisconsin are similarly committed to doing what's necessary to make this a fairer, more just world. Despite rampant rhetoric from Richard Vedder and others who claim that they are lazy, adrift, partying fools, in fact some (many?) of the college students I've been observing lately seem downright committed. It's fantastic.

Tonight we get this news from Minnesota: “Students and community supporters...are outraged over soaring tuition, budget cuts, skyrocketing administrative salaries, mounting student debt, attacks on cultural diversity groups on campus, and blatant disregard for workers’ rights across the nation. In light of recent student and worker uprisings around the world, students in the Twin Cities are no longer willing to bear the burdens of the economic crisis while the rich only get richer. Inspired by the actions of students at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Madison, and other campuses around the state, U of M students are standing up against injustices in their own state and their own university.”

The students are occupying the Social Sciences Tower of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, home to that university's sociology department.

What's next? Perhaps Bascom. Perhaps the Sewell Social Science Building -- named for William Sewell, the late sociologist who named his presidential address to the American Sociological Association "Inequality of Opportunity for Higher Education." I dare say, Bill might be proud of student efforts to prevent Wisconsin's flagship university from becoming a gated community. After all, back in 1971 he wrote of his great concerns about the future of equality of opportunity in higher education, as universities found themselves in severe financial trouble, moving to increase tuition without sufficient compensation in financial aid. "Equality of educational opportunity," Sewell wrote, "is an essential prerequisite for a well-functioning democratic society."

On Wisconsin!

Photo: Jeff Miller, UW-Madison Communications

Higher Ed Experts Weigh in on Proposed Split from UW System

2011-03-28T12:24:00.000-07:00

In a terrific piece in Inside Higher Ed, Jane Wellman and Charles Reed explain why a break from UW System is not an appropriate means with which to obtain greater flexibilities for UW-Madison.

As I've said here many times, despite Chancellor Martin's claims to the contrary, doing so would be effectively shirking our responsibilities as a public institution. A board charged with keeping UW-Madison's best interests at heart--and only UW-Madison's interests-- would destroy the state's emotional attachment to Madison as a "common good." Think about it: where else in the nation can you find citizens across a state who treasure the flagship's mascot and sports teams as their own, despite having never been a Badger?

Here's Wellman and Reed: "While system boards work imperfectly, their core purpose is more important now than ever before: to balance institutional aspirations with broader public needs, through planning, differentiation of missions, program review, and attention to student flow across institutions. Weakening the authority of higher education system boards will only serve to advantage the already privileged. The institutions will inevitably gravitate even more away from public needs, and toward institutional self-interest: selective admissions, merit rather than need-based aid, more research, and greater academic specialization. The teaching function and service to poor and working students and to underserved geographic areas lose out in this equation. This will accelerate the declines in educational attainment our country is already experiencing."

Those arguing that Madison has no choice, else it dies a slow death, are in my view "crying wolf." The lone comment on this article on the IHE website exemplifies this: "Thanks to the disastrous policies of its state legislators, U Wisconsin has zero ability to attract quality new hires at this point, and will inevitably crash and burn. It's a cautionary tale of what happens once "We the People" are in charge of higher education."

Huh? We continue to attract quality new hires all the time-- my department has searched every year for the past 6 and landed fantastic people. This year we had an enormous of of applicants and our first choice accepted the offer. This despite offering a starting salary of less than $70,000. I see the same going on in departments all around me. Sure, we've lost some good people-- but mainly because of location-- they have moved to be nearer to family, in warmer weather, to places with direct flights to major cities, etc. In less than five years, four of my most-esteemed colleagues left for elite private institutions and then returned to UW-Madison within a couple of years because they missed the academic community.

That's the thing-- at the end of the day those professors best suited to working at UW-Madison are committed to it for reasons that go far beyond compensation. We work here because we love the seamless communications across departments and schools, the lack of snobbery, the commitment to serving the general populace, the beautiful and affordable community, and a focus on substance rather than style. If we succumb to the competitive, elitist spirit that has consumed some of our peers, most of that will be lost. Sure, you'll be able to replace us with other talented folks in search of highest wages-- but you will lose in the long run, for you will have lost our soul.

A Must Read

2011-03-27T20:13:00.000-07:00

A huge public thank you to Paul Krugman for his outstanding defense of academic freedom in Monday's New York Times. As an untenured professor and regular blogger, I am eternally grateful that he -- at least -- gets it.

He is absolutely right about the risks of letting this kind of behavior go by--

"... less eminent and established researchers won’t just become reluctant to act as concerned citizens, weighing in on current debates; they’ll be deterred from even doing research on topics that might get them in trouble.

What’s at stake here, in other words, is whether we’re going to have an open national discourse in which scholars feel free to go wherever the evidence takes them, and to contribute to public understanding. Republicans, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, are trying to shut that kind of discourse down. It’s up to the rest of us to see that they don’t succeed."

Now if only UW-Madison Administration would take such a stance.

Stop the NBP: We Want Off!

2011-03-25T14:26:00.000-07:00

The news that the Wisconsin GOP has begun to investigate UW-Madison faculty should cause all members of the UW-Madison community to take a gigantic pause and ponder the reality that if the New Badger Partnership is approved, Governor Walker will get to immediately --July 1--appoint the majority of the board that will govern the public authority.

This is not an "NBP myth." The Administration does not dispute this fact-- instead, they say:

"Myth: Gov. Scott Walker will be able to control UW-Madison because he will be able to appoint a majority of the board.

Fact: Having the executive branch appoint a majority of the Board of Trustees will preserve the university’s public status and its sovereign immunity status from certain types of lawsuits. The UW System Board of Regents is fully appointed by the governor to staggered terms, where the UW-Madison Board of Trustees would include appointments by the governor and the university of members with a closer interest in the university, such as faculty, staff, students and alumni."

Regardless of whether appointing the majority of the board equates with being "able to control" the UW, this statement does not dispute the fact that the governor will immediately get to make 11 appointments. In contrast, the governor's appointments to the Board of Regents would occur over time--only as the current appointees are term-limited off.

There are 17 Regents. Only 3 have terms ending this year. Another 3 have terms ending next year. It would clearly take at least 3 years until the governor could appoint a majority of the Regents. He may not have enough time.

We are supposed to be assured that the 11 appointees would have to have a "close interest in the university"-- well, frankly, who in Wisconsin cannot make that claim? UW-Madison is unusual among state universities in that it is widely viewed as a "common good." Everyone feels a part of the place and claims to have its best interests at heart. We vary, however, in what activities we think are in those best interests. There is even variation among the alumni-- attending a university hardly makes one an expert on higher education policy and practice.

It is abundantly clear that the Wisconsin GOP thinks it's in the state's best interests to harrass and intimidate Madison faculty. If you disagree, you need to send a very clear message to Chancellor Biddy Martin right now: The NBP should not be pursued while Governor Walker is in office. Period.

The Academic Inquisition

2011-03-25T11:06:00.000-07:00

The witch hunt is on. Last night, my colleague William Cronon -- a highly respected, tenured professor of history -- revealed that the Wisconsin Republican Party made an open records request for his university email following the publication of his first-ever blog post. What was in that post? A thoughtful set of questions about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The investigation of Bill Cronon scares the crap out of me, quite frankly. And obviously, that's the intent.

We are told as university faculty that we are state employees and our writing is subject to these requests, but many of us operate (have operated) under the impression we are living in a rational, civil society that understands the importance of academic freedom. No longer.

I'm betting that a request is coming my way soon. I lack Cronon's long track record in academia, I lack his tenured status, I lack his measured way of saying things, I lack his status as a white male, I lack his apparent consummate ability to separate professional vs. personal life.

And, unfortunately, I lack the ability to say I've never blogged on ALEC. Well, actually, I didn't, but my husband did. On our blog-- which we, in the public impression, write together.

So, what can I say? I sit and wait.

This is horrible, terrible, awful time to be an untenured professor in public higher education. Am I a witch?

Increasing % Pell-- What Does it Tell Us?

2011-03-23T11:44:00.000-07:00

Over the last several years, UW-Madison has increased its tuition at a higher rate than its System peers, thanks to the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. That shift has not been accompanied by a decline in the percent of students receiving Pell Grants--in fact there's been a 5.5 percent increase in % Pell since 2000. Some are saying that this means that low-income students have been "held harmless" from the rising tuition, and that further increases would likely not lead to diminished economic diversity on campus. Furthermore, we are told, we can look to the outreach campaigns of institutions like UVA and UNC-Chapel Hill (home to Access UVA and the Carolina Covenant respectively) for models of anti-"sticker shock" programs that "work."

These claims are terrific examples of why it's a bad idea to make causal claims based on correlational data. If you want to make those statements, you can look to those examples and find support for your agenda. But you shouldn't.

In fact, the increase in the percent Pell at UW-Madison over the last few years is consistent with increases in % Pell at many colleges and universities nationwide over that time period. The cause lies not in successful outreach campaigns, or the failure of tuition increases to inhibit student behavior, but mainly in the recession. The recession had two relevant effects: First, many people were laid off-- and thus saw a temporary loss of income. Thus, students from families that in 2007 were not Pell eligible found themselves eligible for the Pell in 2008. The Pell is based on current and not long-term disadvantage. So an increase in % Pell doesn't mean you coaxed "new" low-income students into attending Madison or did a better job retaining those you already enrolled, but rather that a greater proportion of those who were already UW-bound (or already enrolled) now found themselves eligible for the additional help. Second, the Pell reduced the number of jobs available to students not enrolled in college--thus lowering the opportunity costs associated with college (e.g. foregone earnings). This could have independently increased both enrollment and persistence.

Furthermore, during the same time period, as part of the legislation that increased the maximum Pell the federal government also increased the family income (AGI) a student could have and qualify for the Pell-- from $20,000 to $30,000. Thus, a whole bunch more people became Pell-eligible during the period in which the MIU was implemented. And, the maximum Pell was increased-- possibly helping to offset the increase in tuition.

Thus, it should abundantly clear that it would be incorrect to state that the increasing % Pell at UW-Madison over the last several years is evidence that tuition increases do not inhibit enrollment of low-income students and/or that additional investments in need-based financial aid hold students harmless.

Same goes for the "success" of programs like the Carolina Covenant. Don't get me wrong-- the program seems great, and feels great, and the leadership is great. And for sure, the program's data looks nice-- they've seen an uptick in the representation of Pell recipients on campus and increased retention over time. As an evaluation they show better outcomes than prior cohorts of students. But as compelling as those numbers seem to be, they cannot be interpreted as evidence that these changes are attributable to the program itself-- and that's where the burden of proof lies. Indiana saw increases in college enrollment among the children of low-income families when its 21st Century Scholars Program was implemented, but reforms to the k-12 system were made at the same time, and the economy was booming. The program "effects" may have been little more than happy coincidence. We cannot rely on the potential for such happy coincidences when crafting new policies and making decisions about affordability.

It's time to get honest about what data can and cannot tell us. I've heard too many claims around here that it can tell us whatever we want. While that's undoubtedly partially true under the best of circumstances, it is especially true when we take no steps to collect data systematically and use sophisticated tools when analyzing it. If we were really committed to holding students harmless from tuition increases, we'd have commissioned an external evaluation (external= not done by institutional researchers) and made the data available for analysis. There are plenty of talented folks on campus who know how to do this work-- why not ask them to take a look at what happened under MIU?

We Are All Badgers: Even Stanley Fish Came to His Senses

2011-03-22T18:01:00.000-07:00

While some continue to wander in the desert, other folks are waking up to the realities of the ongoing assault on public higher education. Remarkably, this includes Stanley Fish.

Fish's blog in today's New York Times includes some insights that more folks in Madison need to be cognizant of. Most importantly: "The erosion of support for public higher education is a part of a larger strategy designed to deprive public employees of a voice and ensure the triumph of conservative/neoliberal policies."

While I adamantly oppose the corporatization of higher education, Fish is right-- universities are more corporate in spirit every day. At my own institution, the climate is increasingly one in which faculty do not feel free to express their views, for fear of reprisal from administrators (to wit: The Sifting and Winnowing blog contains anonymous entries from faculty mainly because those taking "unpopular" positions are loathe to do so publicly). While hiring and firing decisions may not be made on 'ideological' grounds per se, there certainly is a sense that they could soon be made based on allegiances.

Faculty must have a say in how research and teaching gets done and they need to be assured that their say is more than simply advisory. Recent (and pending) events threaten the shared governance system that UW-Madison holds so dear. Given that unionization of university faculty now appears no longer an option in Wisconsin, we at Madison should protect Chapter 36 at all costs -- risking its disappearance into the new public authority (as it transforms to Chapter 37 under the leadership of Scott Walker) is just plain crazy.

UW-Madison Touts NBP Endorsement by Conservative

2011-03-21T19:49:00.000-07:00

UW-Madison is touting a new endorsement of its New Badger Partnership from "Appleton resident Tim Higgins."

That's nice, dear.

Oh, except hang on a second....Who is Mr. Tim Higgins of Appleton? Not just an ol' man about town. This guy is a business owner with serious conservative Republican creds who is eager to "restore...conservative leadership" to Wisconsin! He was a Bush-Cheney '04 local Wisconsin co-chair.

Yep-- Scott Walker and his conservative cronies are all excited about the NBP. Things that make ya go hmmmm.....????

TAA Opposes NBP

2011-03-21T17:07:00.000-07:00

For immediate release
March 21, 2011

Contact:
Kevin Gibbons, TAA Co-President: 608-520-3560
Alex Hanna, TAA Co-President, 765-404-6996

TAA Opposes New Badger Partnership and the Formation of UW-Madison as a Public Authority

At a meeting Sunday, March 20, 2011, the general membership of the Teaching Assistants’ Association (TAA) approved a motion to oppose the New Badger Partnership. The TAA opposes the separation of UW-Madison from the UW System and the formation of the public authority model.

The motion reads:

The TAA opposes the New Badger Partnership, especially the separation of UW-Madison from the UW System, the formation of the public authority model, and the threat to affordability and accessibility it poses to public education and the lack of protection for labor unions on campus. The TAA also objects to the non-transparent and undemocratic process by which the New Badger Partnership was designed.

“Our members have serious reservations about the sweeping changes being proposed to UW-Madison and UW System and the process through which these proposals have been pushed through without the full engagement of the UW community,” said Kevin Gibbons, TAA Co-President. “We see these provisions in the Budget Bill as a blatant attempt to privatize public education in Wisconsin. The budget bill divides the campuses of the UW System and makes sweeping cuts to our institutions and thus higher education in the state.”

As proposed a 21 member Board of Trustees would oversee the University. According to the budget bill, UW-Madison faculty, staff and students would have just four seats on the Board. “Given this governor's antagonism toward our university system and the lack of adequate representation of the UW community on the proposed Board of Trustees, TAA members have said that they cannot accept these provisions. The TAA calls on the University to maintain its commitment to the principles of shared governance and the Wisconsin Idea,” said Gibbons.

The TAA advocates for a transparent, deliberative and democratic process that engages the university community should significant changes be made to UW-Madison and UW System. TAA members have continually expressed concern over the lack of transparency that they have witnessed over the formation, planning and legislative advocacy surrounding the New Badger Partnership.

“We are calling on the University to begin a long overdue conversation and evaluation,” said Adrienne Pagac, member of the TAA Stewards’ Council and a graduate student in Sociology. “Members of the UW community should have been consulted about the details of the plan prior to their inclusion in the Governor’s budget proposal. We should have been presented with a variety of solutions to our ‘problem’ of sustained competitiveness, but we were provided with just one, the New Badger Partnership, as the savior of UW-Madison’s reputation and mission. We should solicit alternative possibilities to address issues of competitiveness, funding sources, etc. before we move forward on a plan for which we have very few concrete details at this time,” said Pagac.

The Teaching Assistants’ Association represents nearly 3,000 graduate employees at the University of Wisconsin – Madison and is the oldest graduate employee union in the world.

What Do You Mean by "Shared Governance?"

2011-03-19T18:36:00.000-07:00

Whatever it actually means, "shared governance" seems awfully important to the faculty, staff, and students of UW-Madison. And so I want to bring to light an exchange that the Associated Students of Madison (ASM) had with Chancellor Martin about the New Badger Partnership at the end of January. I had heard about this conversation but neglected to read the text of it until now. I think it is something students should consider carefully, and discuss at great length. How do you feel about the process and how it's unfolded? How do you feel about the style of governance employed thus far, and what it means going forward?

What follows is an excerpt from the ASM "live blog" of January 24.

Beth Huang: I’ve continually heard that the partnership is not a privatization, but a way to give the university more powers. But I don’t hear much about what powers will be given to students, staff and faculty at this university. Can you give me your vision for how other players than administrators will have more flexibility?

Biddy Martin: First of all, I’ve never said we want more “powers.” We want more “tools.” Greater flexibility would allow us to rely more on our shared governance system. The shared governance system would have to do even more work and be even better. We would have more decisions to be made with shared governance groups. A lot of kind of decisions “that get made for us” right now, would be made here. I’m not against state support in any way. I’ve spent more time at the capitol advocating for state support than any other chancellor. But I’m also a realist.

Don Nelson (assistant to Chancellor): The protection of shared governance is a “bottom line” in any legislation. It gives us the student perspective that we just don’t have on a daily basis.

Huang: Right now I’m only aware of advisory committees that have to do with the partnership. When the budget comes out, will we just have advisory committees, or will students have votes on those shared governance committees?

Martin: We don’t know. Right now the advisory committee on the new partnership was just established last semester. “Everything that happens through shared governance is technically advisory.” Shared governance ensures that administrators don’t make decisions without serious consultations with shared governance groups. The only thing that would change is that there would be more opportunities for shared governance on this campus, and students would have just as much input in shared governance groups as they have now.

Huang: Would there be guaranteed votes on shared governance committees for tuition setting?

Martin: Tuition setting would not be done by a group on this campus. We would be overseen by a board, and that board would have the final authority to set tuition. They would set it based on recommendations from the campus. If we had a board specific to UW-Madison, I would want students to be on it. If I was given a voice on that matter, I would say that we want student representation.

Student: If there was a consensus across the university that we don’t want you to move forward with this, how would we be able to express rejection of this?

Martin: I think the proper way would be through shared governance. And if you do reject it, I would ask what you would suggest we do.

Nelson: I would say you should consider what principles of this plan you have issue with. Each principle will be voted on by shared governance groups.If there is widespread discontent, I think it would come through the shared governance process.

******* (A few minutes later) ******

Student: A lot of students are concerned that this is an attack on shared governance. How are your decisions really made, and how much student input was actually taken into account? I think students feel like they were alienated from the process.

Martin: I don’t see my position as a leader as sort of sorting through an agglomeration of opinions on campus. That’s not a leader; that’s a mouth piece. I feel good about what I did, which is take what I’ve learned over many decades of work in higher education, and come up with an analysis of what I think could help us, and then try it out. I wanted to see whether it would have any support before I pushed it with anybody. I published an article about it last spring, and I sent out a letter about it to the entire campus. I’ve been completely above board.When I was talking to gubernatorial candidates, I wanted to explain to them the importance of this university, using the powerpoint that is online, that everybody has seen. You need a different leader if you want someone who is just a mouthpiece for things that were voted on in advance. We would never get anywhere if we had people deciding on every detail before we could discuss anything with leaders. When I don’t seem to you to be adequately consulting, you’ll tell me and I can be responsive. I think the way the process has unfolded has been legitimate.

This is What Communication Looks Like?

2011-03-18T11:54:00.000-07:00

UW-Madison Chancellor Martin has received positive press for her willingness to use social media to communicate with her public. In 2009 she was described in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as open to feedback, and eager to engage.

"We've got a chancellor here who has been trying very hard to be open to feedback. She's done a huge number of public forums, trying to build support for the Madison Initiative," [Katy] Culver said. "Having her out there and appearing to be someone who is interested in using social media, is open to letting her personality out there, that may work very, very well for her."

I thought this was super-cool of her. So, I started talking with her over Twitter about the New Badger Partnership. As a professional, I tried hard to balance candor, curiosity and a respectful tone. I mean, heck, I'm also untenured!

Imagine my surprise when a few days ago I noticed her Tweets disappeared from my feed. I was no longer following her. Not to mention, she'd stopped responding to me. I thought, ok, I'm being ignored-- I get it, she's busy, and disagrees with my point of view.

But it's more than that- I've been officially BLOCKED. Blocked from my Chancellor's Twitter feed. Can't follow her. And I'm told by others who oppose the NBP that I'm not alone.

This is what communication looks like?

--------

UPDATE: Check out Sherman Dorn's "Note to Biddy Martin"

UPDATE: On Saturday midday I received a Twitter notification that Biddy Martin wants to follow me. Ok, so I checked: and now I'm allowed to follow her again. Needless to say, I'm glad she's changed her mind. On Wisconsin.

UPDATE: Me again. Apparently other folks are still blocked from following Chancellor Martin. This is not resolved.

Equity and Diversity Implications of the NBP

2011-03-14T13:57:00.000-07:00

Interested in how the New Badger Partnership could affect the composition and quality of the student body? Of faculty?

Please take a look at this memo I drafted for several campus committees, posted by Sifting and Winnowing.

More Hard Conversations We Need to Have

2011-03-14T12:34:00.000-07:00

As we think about ways to cope with proposed cuts to the UW System budget, here are a few more facts to ponder:

1. Costs-per-student are remarkably unequal throughout Wisconsin public higher education.

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, "The cost per student calculation is based on standard accounting procedures that identify direct and indirect student-related costs funded by GPR and student fees. The calculation includes the direct costs of instruction, student services, and academic support. Other activity costs, such as physical plant, institutional support, and fringe benefits, are included in the cost per student calculation with the costs allocated based on the teaching mission's share of those costs. In those instances where a faculty or staff member performs research as part of his or her educational responsibilities, only those costs directly related to instruction are included in the cost pool for setting tuition."

The disparities by universities are nothing short of enormous: "Systemwide, the average instructional cost per undergraduate student is $9,910. The cost of educating an undergraduate student ranges from $8,289 at La Crosse and Whitewater to $12,747 at Madison, a difference of more than 50%." Overall, there is a variance of 42% in instructional costs across campuses!

Moreover, there are enormous disparities in the proportion of their instructional costs students and their families are being asked to cover: "Students at the campuses where instructional costs are the lowest, such as Whitewater, La Crosse, and Oshkosh, are paying a greater share of their educational costs than students at campuses with the highest instructional costs, including Superior and Parkside. For example, while upper level (Junior/Senior) students at Parkside paid 36% of the cost of their education, lower level (Freshmen/Sophomore) students at La Crosse paid 90%."

Here is the real kicker: "Despite paying a higher amount of tuition, students at UW-Madison pay a lower percentage of their instructional costs than the average for students at the comprehensive campuses. By contrast, students at Milwaukee pay a greater share of their instructional costs than students at the comprehensive campuses. This is due to both lower than average instructional costs and the tuition premium students pay for attending a doctoral institution."

Students at UW-Madison are from wealthier families compared to students at the other institutions, and enter with higher test scores-- so why is it that they cost more to educate and chip in a smaller share of those costs????

2. We have two different types of two year colleges-- the UW Colleges (branch campuses of the 4-year universities) and the Wisconsin Technical College System. In some parts of the state, a UW College and a technical college exist within a mile of one another! Many students have no idea what the difference is between these schools. The UW College students benefit from established articulation agreements within the UW System, while the technical colleges are constrained to only having transfer as an explicit mission at a very few campuses. Why is this? Who benefits?

The analysis by the LFB reveals that the UW Colleges spend more per student than most of the universities spend on their freshman and sophomores. Those freshman and sophomores also contribute a lower percentage of their instructional costs. Why is this? Are the retention rates higher at UW Colleges than at universities? In other words, is this higher spending cost-effective?

This are tough questions and these difficult times demand answers. In a recent paper Doug Harris and I argued for a new approach to considering how scarce resources in higher education should be spent. The data needed to estimate the effects of different strategies (including number of campuses, spending, program coordination etc) should be made available so that the public and the administrations can begin to consider costs relative to effects.

How Bad Are Things in Wisconsin, Really?

2011-03-14T08:23:00.000-07:00

When things look terrible in your neck of the woods, it's always useful to take a look around-- it helps to put things in perspective.

I've been hearing a lot about how Wisconsin has disinvested in higher education over the past several decades, leaving Madison with no choice but to jump ship to become its own public authority.

Today Tom Mortenson issued the latest issue of Postsecondary Education Opportunity, this one on "State Fiscal Support for Higher Education."

Here are a few key highlights:

(1) In FY 2011 Wisconsin ranks 23rd in state fiscal support for operating expenses of higher education per $1,000 of personal income. The state spends $6.72, compared to a national average of $6.30. Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Ohio all spend LESS.

(2) We rank 34th in the rate of change in state fiscal support over time (FY1980-FY2011). The national average is a decrease of 39.9% -- in Wisconsin we saw a decline of 45.2%. In contrast, Minnesota saw a 55.8% decline, Virginia a 53.6% decline, and Michigan a 45.3% decline. The decline we have experienced in the last 10 years was especially mild, compared to declines felt in other states (15.3% compared to 18.1% on average). Heck, Virginia saw a 38.2% decline in the last 10 years alone, and Michigan a 32.3% decline!

So, what's really going on? How can we juxtapose this with the rampant claims that the state support for UW-Madison (and UW System generally) has become a smaller and smaller share of our revenue over time? The key word in those claims is "share." Sure, we've had some declines in state support (while we should have had some increase to keep up with the increasing per-pupil costs of education)-- but the much larger change at UW-Madison is the significant growth in our federal funding and revenue from tuition and fees. Thus, as a percentage of Madison's total budget, the state's share is smaller. That's the figure being used to say that we (Madison) are no longer a public institution "anyway" -- and thus a public authority isn't a real change.

But that seems to twist the facts-- the state has continued to invest in Wisconsin higher education (and Madison in particular), albeit at a lower rate than before (other expenses like Medicare and prison are getting in the way), and since UW-Madison has not kept costs sufficiently under control it's turned to other sources to compensate. My guess? It would've done that anyway, to grow the research function of the university. Just look at our expenditures over the last ten years-- the ratio of money spent on teaching vs. research declined from 0.65 in 1999-2000 to 0.57 in 2004-2005, and now sits at .63. Put differently, we've seen a 56% increase in spending on research over the last decade, compared to a 51% increase in spending on instruction.

Facts are important-- let's stick to them. Wisconsin would be very wise to invest more in public higher education, since the economic and social returns are substantial. But it's not the case that Madison is at particular risk of a decline in instructional quality, a problem that COULD ONLY BE SOLVED by the New Badger Partnership.

In my opinion, the University of Wisconsin System needs to lead a hard conversation about the missions of its institutions, what they can and should receive public funding to achieve, and what priority must be given to cost-containment and instruction.

A Grim Prediction

2011-03-11T20:25:00.000-08:00

Mulling over the events of the last several weeks during a trip to New York, where I met with several sociologists who specialize in social movements and politics, I have reached a rather grim conclusion:

After passing the New Badger Partnership -- or the Wisconsin Idea Partnership--the Legislature will advance the bill to Governor Walker, who will then exercise one of the strongest powers any governor in this nation holds: the line-item veto.

Writes The Nation: "It's not just a line-item veto; Walker has the power to veto individual phrases and words -- like "not" -- from sentences. If the state Senate returns to session and passes a bill with time limits on Walker's favored provisions, he can strip out the new language and sign his own decompromised version into law. If that sounds crazy, keep in mind that until 2008 governors of Wisconsin could -- and did! -- veto multi-page sections of bills, leaving in place only eight or nine words spelling out a law the governor wanted to enact. And that, in turn, was a much-narrowed version of the so-called "Vanna White veto" power enjoyed by Wisconsin governors prior to 1990, when they could veto individual letters out of words and individual digits out of numbers."

My prediction: Walker will use the line-item veto to strike down Chapter 37--shared governance.

This will leave UW-Madison (or the entire UW System) under a board to which he appoints the majority, and controls compensation, procurement, and tuition. And the right of faculty, staff, and students to participate in the university decision-making will be demolished. He will tell us that this saves our administrators time and money-- they will still "listen" to us, but will be under no obligation to act.

Putting shared governance before this governor is a surefire way to end it. This is why the NBP should have been discussed with the full campus community before our leader told the Governor this is what was best for Madison.

Of course our Chancellor disagrees. On the FAQ posted today, she responds to this concern as follows:

Q: I am concerned about the ability of the governor to make drastic changes to the budget after it has passed through the legislature. How do you address concerns about the governor’s ability to line-item veto parts of the budget, including all UW-Madison funding specifically, as well as policy, particularly when you will have little support from direct legislators?

A: A comparison between the governor’s proposed budget bill as introduced March 1, 2011, and the Feb. 18 draft revealed no significant changes. We acknowledge that Wisconsin’s governor has extensive line-item veto authority. He has supported UW-Madison’s need for flexibilities by proposing a public authority model, and we will continue to work on addressing any issues raised during the legislative process.

I see no reason to feel assured by this response. "Writing a "veto-proof" appropriations bill in Wisconsin is essentially impossible". I hope I am wrong. But I'm betting I am right.

I wrote this before I heard about the WIP

2011-03-10T21:15:00.000-08:00

From yesterday's EPS conference... my remarks. I hope they prove useful in some way.

Saving Public Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: The Case for Pragmatic Idealism

By now we are all well aware—the United States is “losing the future” by falling in international rankings of the stock of college educated labor. Here at home, we are told that “for the good of the state we cannot afford to have the quality of UW-Madison … erode because we have our hands tied behind us in a range of ways that make us uncompetitive with other public and private universities around the world."

The need to compete – with other colleges and universities across the world, across the country, and across our state – is the dominant and ever-present message stalking public higher education today. It drives our administrators to seek creative financing strategies and new governance structures, pushes our faculty to take on extensive grant-writing efforts and build in time-consuming travel, and makes students and families reach ever-deeper into their savings and lifetime earnings to try and buy the best.

The implications for the educational enterprise that we call higher education are devastating. Rather than working together towards common goals—for example of producing a thoughtful, engaged group of citizens, land-grant institutions have thrown aside their core missions and silently declared war on one another. It has become a “survival of the fittest” where the terms of success are dictated by how many of the best-prepared and most able-to-pay students you can admit. The spirit of education has been lost.

Education requires cooperation—cooperation between teachers, administrators, students, and parents. In higher education, where movement among colleges is rampant—nearly half of all undergraduates today attend more than one college—cooperation and coordination is paramount. But the fight for prestige, for resources, and for status condemns cooperation to sound almost quaint. Instead of working together to gain a bigger loaf for public higher education, we are scheming over how to squirrel away the most breadcrumbs.

What’s more, we never compete over how well we educate. Let’s be honest: higher education in this country is not primarily—and perhaps never really has been—about the students. If it were, we would be doing more to make sure that we not only enroll them but that we also educate them. We would not simply hire more faculty and staff, but ensure that those inputs translated into greater student success. We have done a remarkable job of inviting in more “customers” over the last several decades, but made absolutely no progress in helping them obtain the “product” they came for—the degree. We have done very little to ensure that we convey lessons that result in deep learning, have steadfastly refused to measure achievement, and even put up roadblocks to doing so. One of the biggest roadblocks is the claim that institutional autonomy is the key to success—that institutional leaders “know what’s best” and are hindered if not given flexibility to control their own destiny. It’s true, institutions are very good at acting on their own behalf—but in this competitive environment they cannot be trusted to act for the common good.

Contemporary higher education policies are not up to the job of reforming this broken system of public education. The Obama Administration’s agenda operates at a very shallow level, aiming at enhancing excellence by increasing graduation rates (not necessarily learning), promoting equity that helps students to pay more for college without asking them “what for”, and selling an efficiency agenda that places politics and costs first, and only includes effectiveness related to the very narrow excellence agenda (measuring completion but nothing deeper). Is it any wonder that none of these efforts have really succeeded?

The results of this unchecked competition are stark. Higher education today is a savagely unequal place. In some colleges in this country, students benefit from the resources created by enormous endowments, high tuition, and significant tax breaks. Per pupil spending is as much as eight to ten times higher at some private colleges as it is at the nonselective institutions where most of America experiences postsecondary education. But even within public education—even within a single state—enormous divides are evident. For example, here in Wisconsin, the public university educating the best prepared kids spends $2,700 more per student on instruction – not research, or services—just instruction---than the rest of the public universities. That’s right—we spend far more on the easiest to educate in this state than we do on the hardest to educate.

Competition is embedded in our history. There’s been a consistent trend in which individuals and institutions “consciously or unconsciously align…themselves into teams in an effort to protect or enhance their own team’s advantage.” There are team efforts to maximize benefits relative to costs, and team efforts to evade costs entirely. Economist Nancy Folbre recently observed that the maneuvering that has taken place among American colleges and universities over the last century, a “game of strategy,” “makes World of Warcraft truly seem like child’s play.”

We have created an aspirational elite that aims to compete in games it cannot ever win. The proliferation of power among the truly elite colleges and universities –those with billion dollar endowments and admissions rates below 10 percent--is bolstered by entire industries—the testing industry, the private counselors, the media (whose journalists themselves often attended elite institutions), and ranking systems at the national and international levels. Public higher education will never win in a competition with those folks. But it seems unable to adjust to that reality, insisting on the need to get further ahead. In a sense this is unsurprising, since the elites, as Louis Menand has noted, have “the visibility to set standards for the system as a whole.” Thus the claim that elites can and should dictate the terms of “quality” is practically hegemonic—it is, for so many, beyond question.

This is a terrible shame, since people have powerful college experiences in non-elite institutions that frequently go unnoticed. They are ashamed to admit that a community or technical college contributed to their education, or that before their graduate degree they attended State U. The elites reinforce this feeling by constraining opportunities for other institutions in ways that are often barely visible. Public support on the part of a flagship for its local community college or branch campus may be bolstered by an unacknowledged, unstated desire to preserve “quality” (aka high tuition and high admissions standards) at one’s own institution. Similarly, what appears to be a laissez faire “let all flowers bloom” attitude towards for-profits, schools that “aren’t even playing in the same game,” is at the same time a way to ensure that the working class has somewhere else to go.

The scramble to climb even just one more rung up the status ladder is all-consuming. The quest feels so necessary that it swamps realities—realities about the massive resource disparities that make achieving such “success” impossible. It makes us willing to leave behind those who cannot afford our newly jacked-up tuition, or cannot meet our newly-raised admissions standards—since after all, we have no choice but to race ahead.

Except that we do have a choice. As sociologist Peter Berger once said, “Unlike puppets we have the possibility of stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by which we have been moved. In this act lies the first steps towards freedom.”

We can no longer continue to skirt the moral and ethical justifications for the existence of public higher education by relying on the tired excuse that we are being pragmatic. The realists do not have this one in the bag. We can think bigger and better—envisioning public colleges and universities that achieve excellence not because they employ the biggest names, attract the biggest grants, or enroll the brightest students but rather because they successfully create individuals who are connected to their state and the world. With this vision, they would take students as they are and work to help them become outstanding—in other words, we’d help mold human beings into smart, ethical members of our community. Wouldn’t that be something worth being known for?

This way forward for public higher education lies in a new focus on institutional cooperation on behalf of students. We must begin to take actions based not on our shared fears, but rather on shared values. We cannot continue to act based on self-interest, but rather begin to consider that higher education generates societal goods in which we all have a stake.
This would be a very different way of doing “business.” It would require value-realignment. It would require a new approach to distributing resources. It necessities a real accountability system—one that is accountable to students. It would require those of us who work in the most elite public institutions to take on responsibility for the low graduation rates at other universities—which themselves are the consequence of systematic under-resourcing and demoralization from which we, at Madison, have benefited. We can no longer allow there to be colleges for “other peoples’ children” and attempt to leave them behind.

Mine is a vision of pragmatic idealism in higher education. We can be realistic, effective, moral and directed. The chancellor of UW-Madison recently asked a very good question: “What to do, what to do?” in the face of pending budget cuts. She offered a very common, and highly pragmatic response: “Begin with the hand we are dealt…” and seek new “flexibilities” to accommodate it. Instead, I recommend the pragmatic idealist’s response: Take the inevitable budget cuts, and use the resulting crisis to rethink goals and missions, and build a stronger, incremental case for future public investment that is consistent with our ideals. In cooperation with the full system of leaders, professors, and students ask: “Why is this the hand we are dealt? Who benefits from this hand? What are the alternative hands we could be dealt if we work together to make education the priority?”

What we do next is not merely a political or economic calculation. It is a moral calculation. Our actions reflect our beliefs and our awareness about what is really happening around us. If we confine ourselves to merely offering smart but dispassionate critiques, adapt to our new circumstances rather than actively resisting this change, and don’t begin to openly question the dominance of this competitive, elitist spirit, we will collectively fail to achieve the goal of educating students. As Diane Ravitch so eloquently put it last night, "schools operate fundamentally — or should operate — like families. The fundamental principle by which education proceeds is collaboration.” We have done a poor job of collaborating on solutions to the crisis we are now facing. The answer is not to pull further apart, but rather, to finally—on behalf of Wisconsin students—to come together.

Pick Your Poison

2011-03-10T15:46:00.000-08:00

This is a strange new horrible world we live in. I have no idea what happen to democracy, but it's clearly left the station.

So, let me try to apply a little "pragmatic idealism" to the current moment regarding the New Badger Partnership. Today the UW System put the WIP on the table-- the Wisconsin Idea Partnership. It looks a lot like the NBP except it's for the whole System and it comes with real performance accountability measures. That means the most horrific part of the NBP--the splintering of System into a million selfish little pieces-- goes away. That's good-- that split wasn't Biddy's idea, it was Walker's-- and so it's something we ought to be awfully suspicious about.

That doesn't mean the WIP is great, or even good. The question is whether it's better than the alternatives.

I think the NBP is untenable. Even if it currently includes Chapter 37, it may not when the day is finally done. You simply can't trust this guy. It sets Madison up to be hated even more than it already is by the rest of the state, and it will come with great costs to equity--if not diversity.

So here are what I see as the best alternatives to supporting the NBP right now:

(1) Fight both the NBP and the WIP in the name of protecting public higher education--meaning holding the state accountable for paying its share, and doing everything we can to keep corporate interests at bay. In the short term this means taking a godawful cut and working really hard across institutions to find efficiency gains, which could involve, for example, closing an entire campus. I'm not saying I want that to happen but it might be one of the only viable ways to go.

(2) Support the WIP and work hard to ensure that it includes the following elements: (1) One board. Not 13. 13 is insane, and if Walker appoints 11 people on each of 13 boards, lord help us. If it's a 21 person board, and the governor gets 11, make sure that of our 10 ALL of them have vested interests in the INSTRUCTIONAL FUNCTION of Wisconsin higher education-- not the research or corporate functions. (2) Maintain tuition setting authority with that board-- do not give each campus tuition flexibility. They can have flexibility in procurement, compensation and construction, but tuition setting needs to be done by a coordinating body that has the interests of ALL STUDENTS at heart. Individual institutions do not-- they protect their own.

I'm inclined to support the WIP as I've described it above. I remain deeply worried about the invasion of corporate interests and I am scared to death of a board with a majority appointed by Walker, and I understand that Chapter 37 could be revoked from WIP as well. But I hear unanimous support from all sides for the need for flexibilities, and at some point even us idealists have to be pragmatic. I want the System to work together on its common educational mission.

I'm still thinking this through, as I'm sure you all are too. I want to hear your thoughts. Please share.

Taking Democracy For Granted

2011-03-09T20:20:00.000-08:00

When citizens take democracy for granted, Wisconsin happens.

The current Republican leadership of this state -- who a majority of the people elected, sad to say -- is not worthy of a banana republic, let alone a state with a progressive reputation. If any one of them had any pride, he or she would stand up and say "This is wrong!" or even resign. But they are cowards and cheaters, the lot of them. They have trampled upon democracy, poisoned the idea of public service and brought shame upon the state of Wisconsin. Tonight, it isn't just about what they did, but how they went about doing it ... secretly, furtively, in violation of the state's public meeting laws.

Governor Walker "praised" the move, which tells you all you need to know. So, apparently, killing collective bargaining wasn't so intrinsically related to balancing the state budget after all, now was it?

This is NOT what democracy looks like!

Media Coverage:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Wisconsin State Journal
Slate
MSNBC
Crooked Timber

Statute:
Wisconsin Open Meetings Law

"Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting."

Photo credit: Jeff Pertl

Taking a Stand

2011-03-08T07:25:00.000-08:00

It is nice to see that more people at UW-Madison are waking up to the new reality-- Walker isn't the only one trying to end public institutions in this state.

We are in a tough financial situation and obviously that causes us to go into a protective crouch. We don't want to get hurt, and so we are willing to go on the offensive to protect our young. It's only natural.

The way we do this can be guided solely by our personal interests, or in conjunction with a set of morals and principles used to help us sort through decisions. The use of such things can help us to make difficult choices, but also is likely to make some choices more difficult. The world is a lot greyer when you have to grapple with the greater good, while also trying to do for yourself.

Take the rise of the Badger Advocates. Yesterday at Faculty Senate I asked Chancellor Martin who they were, and what interests they represented. Her reply, repeated in a tweet to me this morning, was this:

"Badger Advocates appear to be the kinds of people who support us with financial aid $$ and professorships. Forego it all?"

By way of explanation, our chancellor chose those two examples for me because I am a professor who studies financial aid and cares deeply about ensuring the ability of children from low-income families to attend college. In other words, a tailormade response. Much like the one I got when I asked for details on the new "sticker shock campaign" and how it would be evaluated. I'm the expert, she flattered me, and I could be involved in the design and/or evaluation. While I appreciate the compliment, the opportunity hardly offsets the risks created by implementation of a model no one across the country has ever found successful.

Of course, I want more funding for financial aid. Of course I would enjoy greater compensation. Of course it pains me to see my friends leave for other jobs (though truthfully many leave for reasons unrelated to compensation).

If I responded to Biddy based purely on self-interest, I would say "You're right. We are suffering, we need more aid and more money to pay our professors, and yes, please let Republican fat cats go get what we need from the Governor."

Sounds good.

Except, I was brought up to think about more than myself. More than my own family. More than my immediate community. I stand up for others because I know that ultimately if I do not, when I am hurting, no one will stand for me. We learned this lesson through centuries of persecution as Jews.

*******

Students across this nation have taken stands against their universities for accepting money from corporations and individuals representing interests that are antithetical to the institution's mission. Most recently UW-Madison students protested sweatshop labor and got the UW to end participation in the Fair Labor Association. Students have held sit-ins, hunger strikes, stormed chancellors' offices, etc.

Abiding by principles means doing without money rather than taking money from those who seek to hurt you and those you care about. It's rare that the harm is clear and explicit and easy to recognize-- it's often framed as an "unintended consequence" down the road and left for generations to remedy. It's incumbent upon us to be proactive.

Throughout these discussion try and engage in pragmatic idealism. You'll find it life-changing.

I'll say more about pragmatic idealism at my talk in the Wisconsin Idea Room, Education Building, EPS Conference, tomorrow, 10:45 am. See you then.

Advocates for Whom?

2011-03-08T05:23:00.000-08:00

The Badger Advocates formed this week to make sure the New Badger Partnership (NBP)--complete with split from the University of Wisconsin System--is passed in the Guv's budget this summer. Thank goodness someone is really digging into who these guys are -- this is a must read.

My question is this: I have heard plenty of folks argue this is great for the research enterprise at UW-Madison. I have no doubt that's true. I've also heard some who think it's good for faculty. And plenty who think it's good for alumni. I also hear from current students who *think* it's good for them. But how, exactly?

How does hiring 72 new faculty benefit students if teaching experience is not a requirement for hiring? If we continue to make tenure decisions based primarily on activities that don't involve students? Where is the evidence that any of the things we are dumping money into are causing improvements either in graduation rates, time-to-degree, gaps in degree completion and/or measured learning gains? Inquiring minds want to know. I've been pointed to the MIU website and told we're working on "quality." That's not enough when the case is being made that doing the one thing we ARE known for--serving as the flagship of a great public university system--is being taken away from the other 140,000 undergraduates and prospective undergraduates across Wisconsin.