FACULTY FOR THE RENEWAL OF PUBLIC EDUCATION: iCollege: The governor's solution for the problems of higher ed

Saturday, June 5, 2010

iCollege: The governor's solution for the problems of higher ed

Governor Pawlenty recently appeared on MPR's Midday show.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/05/18/midday1/

Among other things, he shared his analysis of the problems facing higher ed in Minnesota, which he compared to Blockbuster Video stores (read: out of date, behind the times). His prescription: become like an iTunes store (iCollege) and offer basic courses online. This will work, he presumes, because online courses are cheaper than brick and mortar classes, and because they don't have to be taught by tenured faculty (who apparently aren't very good at lecturing anyhow). He also claims that studies show that student learning is as good, or better, than the traditional classroom. I wonder which studies he is reading, because what I've read in the minutes from University Senate committees suggests a far more complicated picture in terms of cost and quality. Perhaps the real agenda is to get rid of all of the pesky tenured professors, since most of them probably don't vote for him anyhow.

But the online education mania is shared by some who don't have Pawlenty's conservative pedigree. Anya Kamenetz's recent book, "DIY U," (Do it Yourself) shares his enthusiasm for online education. She was recently interviewed on MPR's Midmorning show:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/04/midmorning2/

Brace yourself, this issue is not going away.

2 comments:

Mr. B.June 5, 2010 at 7:16 AM
The governor's spewing of nonsense about online education is not new.

For an earlier example of his demagoguery, please see my post of August 7, 2008, "How to cut the cost of higher education by 70, 80 or 90 percent..." [sic]

which is available at:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/2008/08/how_to_cut_the_cost_of_higher.html

Some simple - rhetorical - questions:

Why are Carleton and St. Olaf not terribly concerned about distance education?

Who is going to PAY for the set-up of these distance education courses?

Please note that I am not totally against distance education and have in fact taught (excellent, from evaluations) courses over the very useful university UNITE system. This system allows students at Medtronic, 3M, Surmodics, etc. to "attend" on campus lectures and take the same exams, etc. as in person attendees.

For large lecture courses some departments, e.g. chemistry, have done an excellent job of providing on line courses in lieu of large lecture introductory courses. However, the naive tea bag sound bites of our governor on these matters are less than helpful.

It is time for faculty to step up to the plate and engage the community in a realistic discussion about online education.

Bill Gleason, U of M faculty and alum
ReplyDelete
Replies
Mr. B.June 11, 2010 at 9:50 PM
More Demagoguery on Jon Stewarts show...

For a 45 second video demonstrating our Governor's ignorance about education in general and on-line learning in particular, please see:

http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/06/sams-club-republican-embraces-wal-mart.html

(iPandering about iCollege)
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

RECLAIM THE U!

As the administration has come to dominate instead of to serve the university, intellectual and educational values have been displaced by market ones like "efficiency" and "productivity." Faculty and students have been commensurately marginalized in the governance of the institution. We do not say that the university ought to be inefficient or unproductive, but we do demand that values central to scholarly and scientific inquiry and education be restored to the center of the university's endeavors, including (indeed, especially) the management of its finances. Our efforts have a fivefold focus:

1. Governance. The university should be governed by those who carry out its mission of teaching, research, and public service. At present faculty have little meaningful role in making decisions that are handed down from central administration. This state of affairs results from manifold causes, faculty in generations gone by having ceded governance responsibilities to an ever-growing body of administrators. We the faculty must resume our proper role in making, rather than merely reacting to, the decisions that govern our work and our workplace.

2. Transparency in budgeting. The administration should make all information about the university's finances, including expenditures as well as revenue sources, readily available to the public in comprehensible form. At present it is difficult or even impossible to find out how the university spends most of the funds at its disposal, effectively prohibiting people without privileged access and knowledge from scrutinizing the administration's allocation of financial resources. (N.B.: All these resources are public funds once they enter the land-grant institution's coffers.) We recommend an independent audit to open the university's budget to such scrutiny.

3. Accountability for the administration. Every office within central administration should be required to provide to the public an account of what it does, what relation its work bears to the university's mission, and why it costs what it does.

4. Workload. The administration demands greater "productivity" from faculty and staff at the same time that it reduces the resources we need to produce anything and increases the burdens that hamper our work. If resources are withdrawn, our workload must be reduced, not increased. We do not want to do less teaching or less research, rather, we demand that unfunded mandates handed down by the administration be eliminated. Meanwhile, adequate support must be provided to enable efficient and productive work.

5. Integrity of the university. We reject the notion that the university can somehow achieve excellence by cutting programs, faculty positions, and curriculum. All disciplines and all modes of inquiry are interrelated, whether directly or distantly; to excise one element affects others, and ultimately damages the whole. This principle of intellectual integration is encapsulated in the motto of the University of Minnesota, commune vinculum omnibus artibus, which is a phrase derived from the argument of Cicero that the study of poetry is essential to a career in law. To unbind the arts from one another, as if any form of human inquiry can stand in isolation from every other, violates not merely the motto but the principle of the University's existence.

FACULTY FOR THE RENEWAL OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

Saturday, June 5, 2010

iCollege: The governor's solution for the problems of higher ed

2 comments:

RECLAIM THE U!

Statcounter

Followers

Blog Archive

Contributors