In response to sweeping curriculum re-design prompted by the Common Core State Standards (CCSSO, 2010), today’s high school English teachers are in search of texts to help them shift from programs dominated by literary analysis to ones well-versed in rhetorical analysis, in which teachers instruct students to read and write arguments using a rhetorical approach. Jennifer Fletcher’s new book, Teaching Arguments: Rhetorical Comprehension, Critique, and Response, gives English teachers unfamiliar with the classical tradition of rhetorical strategies a manageable yet thorough introduction to teaching and learning for argumentation.
I often wonder if we are not living the reality of the boiling frog metaphor. Drop the frog into a pot of boiling water, and the smart fellow instantly jumps out to save himself. But throw the unsuspecting frog into cool water, he will contently swim, unaware that the water is being slowly heated over a long period. The frog eventually cooks because he is inattentive to the small, incremental changes in temperature and thus goes numb to the realities of the water he’s swimming in until it’s too late.
It has become a cliché to note the constancy of change in the environments in which we lead, but it is anything but a cliché to experience as a leader the unpredictability, contingency, and constant sense that something for which you could not have been prepared is about to blindside you. I have been in senior level leadership in higher education for 35 years, 24 as a president, and can assure you that this experience is real. Year to year shifts in funding priorities, unstable governance and rogue board members, intrusive state mandates, bizarre and embarrassing personnel issues, litigious students and employees, instant infamy on the internet, refractory organizations with deep fault lines between different constituents, unintended consequences of policy decisions made far from the college experience, and all manner of human foolishness threatens the capacity of the leader to guide the ship without foundering
Change seems to be the new constant regarding our country’s educational systems – at every level. Major changes in K-12 are, in part, a result of the new Common Core, which is intended to eliminate the need for developmental education. The standards of the new Common Core are excellent and seem to align with and exceed the “college-ready indicators” assessed on current college placement tests. However, developmental education is not going away anytime soon.
Leadership is an elusive concept. We each define it in our own terms and redefine it as we progress through life. But we are not at a loss for models and formulas of leadership. Our world provides us with many examples of leaders and prescribed routes to becoming leaders ourselves.
It has been well documented that community college presidents are getting older and a large percentage of them will be retiring over the next few years. Further, much of the community college administration and faculty are also nearing retirement. It seems like good people are getting harder to find. Where will replacements be found and who needs to find them?
As community college presidents plan their next career challenge as Wal-Mart greeters, they need to consider succession planning throughout their institutions. In this context, succession planning refers to the personal involvement of the college president in the creation, encouragement, and support for employees to seek positions of increased responsibility.
For many years the blessings of the auto and industrial economy in Michigan – where one could earn a good living without a postsecondary education degree, or other credential —created an environment where higher education was desirable, but not essential. All that has changed, with huge implications for the education, skills, and preparation most relevant for individuals to succeed in the labor market.
Among the keys to success in just about any endeavor, preparation is perhaps the most fundamental. Examples of this are plentiful: Musicians practice, athletes train, and actors rehearse long before the concert hall fills, the starting whistle sounds, or the curtain rises. Preparation is a key to success in higher education as well, and a lack of it can be a serious obstacle for students seeking a college credential. Community colleges have a long tradition of open access, but if students who come through the open door are not adequately prepared for college-level work, they have a fairly low chance of graduating. Given this reality, the current national emphasis on college completion – the Completion Agenda – would seem to necessitate an equally strong emphasis on the first step toward that goal: college readiness
While community colleges have existed more than a century, their role began to shift in the late 1940s from primarily serving as a transfer/junior college to that of supporting the greater community in addressing the need for highly skilled talent required by a 21st century economy. Community colleges remain a vehicle to transfer students to “senior” colleges and universities, but also provide an essential bridge to employment in local communities and beyond. As a result, community colleges are now major players in providing businesses with the talent they need to compete in local, regional, and national economies.
In January, President Barack Obama convened a gathering for a summit on college access. To be invited, attendees were obliged to make formal commitments to improve access for low-income and underrepresented students. For proponents of community colleges, the focus of this summit likely has a familiar ring. Historically, the defining traits of these two-year institutions have been accessibility with low tuition, open admissions, diverse programming with convenient scheduling, and relatively small class sizes.
Eighteen months ago we set off on a path that would lead Ferris State University collectively to a new university-wide strategic plan. Just a bit of background: The last strategic plan was put in place in 2008 and served the university well. Over the past five years we saw record breaking enrollment, big increases in retention and graduation rates, exceptionally high infield job placement rates, and a strong financial position for the university. We also saw the creation of fifty-seven new programs, certificates, majors and degrees, while we eliminated or redesigned thirty-two programs. By almost any measure, the 2008 strategic plan was instrumental in providing the university community with a framework for moving forward in some very exciting directions.
HIGHER EDUCATION IS IN TRANSITION – one as significant as when Gutenberg’s printing press hastened the transition from a world based on oral communication to one based on the written word. Consider the following challenges higher education faces: ፖ Public funding for higher education provides less than half of what it did at its height in the 1980s1. ፖ College tuition and fees increased 600% since 1980, much faster than real household income, inflation, and healthcare costs2. ፖ 70% of people with high school degrees (or equivalent) seek post-secondary education opportunities, up from less than 40% just a generation ago. The total number of people seeking higher education soon will hit 20 million3. ፖ 85% of higher-education seekers are older than 24, attending part time, seeking a degree other than a baccalaureate, and not living in or around a residential university4. Yet we continue to wedge the majority of students, the so-called “nontraditionals,” into inflexible educational structures that were built for 18-22 year olds and that have changed very little in almost a millennium. ፖ Students and faculty have equal access to today’s “Google world” of ubiquitous information, shifting educational needs from information access to information evaluation, information application to solve complex problems, and creation of new knowledge. Some say that higher education is dead5, the next “bubble” about to burst. At the very least, it’s an enterprise ripe for disruption6.
The mission of America’s community colleges is focused on three areas of commitment: access, responsiveness to community need, and equity. The commitment to access is exemplified by the open admissions policies of community colleges and the multiple ways colleges remove financial, physical, and academic barriers to entry. That access has resulted in entry into higher education by first generation, low-income, minorities, dropouts, working adults, and others who lacked the financial, academic, time, or location means to participate in traditional higher education systems. Looking at multiple college mission statements as well as scholarly definitions, the essential core of agreement is that community colleges provide access to the education necessary for both a productive life for individuals and healthy and successful communities they serve. Access to higher education is essential to a democratic society and a strong middle class.
Throughout this past decade, scholars and higher education practitioners have asked: Who will lead the nation’s community colleges in the future? This question is especially critical today since at no previous time in the nation’s history have community colleges confronted such an array of monumental challenges. Presidents and key leaders are departing in droves; in a recent survey by the AACC (2012), as many as 40% of presidents plan to retire within the next five years. This phenomenon occurs at a time when our colleges are faced with a variety of previously unimagined threats, many resulting from the impact of conflicting socio-economic changes. Further, colleges must address the American education and skills gap in an effort to meet the emerging needs of the new knowledge economy, while simultaneously struggling with the task of educating those students with the greatest needs during a time of dwindling funds.
Community colleges are a distinctively American contribution to higher education. While invented a century ago, these “junior colleges” were defined in modern terms after World War II in response to the Truman Doctrine’s call for developing post-secondary institutions that encourage adults to return to college. More than 70 percent of American community colleges were established between 1945 and 1970 and are still evolving today.
Higher education is experiencing more change than ever before. For those in higher education, change is coming at lightening speed and from multiple directions. On a macro level, we’re experiencing change in terms of greater accountability and regulation from our individual states, the federal government, and our accrediting bodies. At the same time, at the micro level, we are experiencing demographic shifts and changing workforce needs in our local communities and districts. The term “sea change” is used frequently to describe the events shaping higher education, particularly community colleges, today. In so many ways, this is an apt description of the swiftly changing landscape we face.
The purpose of our research project was to assess the relevance and value added of using a specific technology – video screen capture (VSC) – for instructional purposes in university-level second-language writing courses. VSC technology makes it possible to "trace" all activities visible on a computer screen. Our objective was to understand how VSC, which helps visualize the process of writing on computers, can support this process and enhance students’ autonomy as second-language writers.
The ability of postsecondary students to write and communicate proficiently is an expectation identified by many, including not only organizations such as the OECD but also other public and employer groups. There is concern, however, that students and thus employees often fail to meet expectations in these areas. To address this concern, it is necessary to understand more about the writing skills that students learn during their postsecondary education. This research project was designed to examine whether and how students are taught to write at university.
There are about 420 registered private career colleges (PCCs) in Ontario – the number is in constant flux. 60% of schools are ten years of age or younger. They serve 53,000 full time equivalent (FTE) students, or about 1 in 15 Ontario postsecondary students. Their overall vocational revenues are in the order of $360M annually. They are mostly small; 70% have total revenues under $1M and average enrolment is under 200.
Though they are private businesses operating in a competitive market, they intersect with public interests on several fronts. They must register with government and are subject to consumer protection requirements (including student contracts, tuition refund policies, contribution to a train-out fund that takes care of students in the event of a sudden closure). Their programs of study must be government-approved following an external, third-party quality review. They are subject to sanction (financial penalties, even closure) if they fail to meet these requirements.
This article examines the approach to teaching social skills in two kinds of colleges: community colleges, and private for-profit and nonprofit ‘‘occupational’’ colleges, with a focus on college credit programs that lead to applied associate’s degrees in a variety of business, health, computer, and technical occupational programs. Nearly all occupational faculty at both types of colleges believe that employers in these fields require certain social skills relevant to professional support occupations. Community college staff—with the exception of health programs—provide three reasons that they neither demand nor teach these social skills. In contrast, the ways in which private occupational colleges make these skills an explicit part of their curriculum is discussed. This study suggests that schools differ in whether they teach and cultivate social skills, which suggests a potentially important way that schools may shape students’ opportunities in the labor market and their social mobility. Contrary to Bowles and Gintis, these findings raise the disturbing possibility that community colleges may be actively contributing to the social reproduction of inequality by avoiding instruction in the cultural competencies and social skills required in today’s workplace