Tuesday, December 18, 2012

College leaders consider making Florida’s next public university online-only


College leaders consider making Florida’s next public university online-only
By Tia Mitchell
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
 
Florida’s 12th university became a reality earlier this year, and there is already discussion about whether the state needs a 13th.
 
House Speaker Will Weatherford challenged the board governing state universities to look into creating an online-only school in order to increase access to distance education. And Monday, the Board of Governors received the results of an independent study on the topic and discussed next steps.
 
Conducted by The Parthenon Group, the report outlines four options for Florida’s universities and colleges, both public and private.
 
The first allows each school to continue operating its own distance education program, represented the status quo, and it got the least amount of support from the Board of Governors’ Strategic Planning Committee.
 
The second and third options — systemwide collaboration or allowing one or more institutions to serve as the lead drivers of new programs — got a more positive response.
 
The committee asked staff to research a hybrid of these two choices ahead of next month’s full board meeting.
 
Board of Governors Chairman Dean Colson said he would like to have the state colleges and universities submit proposals to serve as lead institutions in order to create a sense of innovation and competition. “We want to give them a prod,” he said.
 
The board also decided to keep option four, a standalone online institution, on the table.
 
But in a written response to the Parthenon report, state university provosts said they have “serious concerns” about creating a new university, such as the cost, competition with existing programs, establishing accreditation and creating another bureaucracy.
 
Forty percent of students attending a state university or state college took at least one online course during the 2010-2011 academic year. That is above the national average, 31 percent.
 
Members agreed that there needs to be more data on existing programs and their outcomes to determine which types of online-based courses create the most student success and which programs are most efficient.
 
And they agree that more should be done to market the distance education already taking place in Florida, especially because out-of-state schools are recruiting students for online programs.
 
“I believe if we market together and develop the right marketing plan, it will far surpass any individual institution’s marketing plan,” said Randy Hanna, chancellor of the Florida College System.
Board members made it clear that they want to control their own destiny when it comes to whether the state needs another state university.
 
State University System Chancellor Frank Brogan said the board should take its time. But board member Manoj Chopra, a faculty representative, said lawmakers could step in and force their hand.
 
“I’m a little worried if the choice will be made for us by then,” Chopra said, possibly referring to how Florida Polytechnic, the state’s 12th university, was fast-tracked into existence this year by the Legislature.
 
Tia Mitchell can be reached at tmitchell@tampabay.com.
 

Monday, December 17, 2012

Texas university supporters release data on outcomes to counter Perry's reforms


Texas university supporters release data on outcomes to counter Perry's reforms
Submitted by Kevin Kiley on December 6, 2012 - 3:00am
Texas Governor Rick Perry has a lot going for him in his efforts to rework higher education in his state.
His appeals, particularly around cutting the cost of degrees for the state and families and churning out graduates with more “marketable” skills, tap into an emerging vein of populist sentiment that’s fed up with tuition increases and concerned about post-graduate employment.
On top of that, over the course of almost 12 years in office, he has appointed every member of the governing boards of the state’s higher education systems, with recent appointments being particularly amenable to his brand of change. Those board members in turn have named [1] system and campus leaders with personal ties to Perry, many of whom have backgrounds in politics themselves.
But the Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education [2], a volunteer group of supporters for the state’s universities agitating against the kinds of changes pushed by Perry and others, have long argued that the available data do not support his criticisms. Now they have something to show to back that up.
In preparation for legislative battles that are likely to arise when the 83rd Texas Legislature convenes next month, the coalition commissioned a third-party report to look at the relative strengths of the state’s two flagship public research universities, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University – data the commission hopes will help ward off criticism and potential reforms its members view as corrosive to these institutions’ quality.
The report, which focuses primarily on the quality of entering students, student retention and graduation rates, the price of education to Texas families, degree productivity, and student success, is an attempt to shift the conversation about public higher education in Texas from the governor’s turf – focused on reducing costs to the state and families, questioning research expenditures and criticizing the flagships – to one more favorable to the institutions.
“We feel like maybe there’s not a real understanding among our leaders and in the public about what the unique mission of the public research institution is,” said Pam Willeford, a member of the coalition’s governing committee and a former member of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. “There hasn’t been a lot of talk about where our institutions do well and where they need to be supported.”
Commission members are hoping the data, released today, help bolster their case for limiting cuts in appropriations or even for potentially increasing support for the universities, and keep lawmakers from dictating policies about what the universities should be focused on. Even if the statistics do not persuade the governor, commission members hope the information will be influential with state lawmakers and the general public.
Whether the data have any appreciable effect on warding off criticism or shifting the debate is still to be seen. Perry has remained adamant about seeing the changes enacted, even in the face of pushback by university faculty members and administrators and national higher education leaders. On top of that, Perry’s arguments – which have not been tested in other states – rely more on a philosophical belief that the business-like reforms he is pushing have the potential to effect change such as lower prices, taxpayer savings, increased student access, and improved workforce readiness, rather than evidence that such changes actually will have the desired result.
Texas has been referred to by many as “ground zero” of the twin trends of decreased state appropriations for higher education with increasing government intervention and accountability. It is the site of an emerging philosophy [3] about higher education reform that is starting to be embraced by governors in other states.
Hunter Rawlings, president of the Association of American Universities – an association that represents the top research universities in the U.S. and Canada, including UT-Austin and Texas A&M – has identified Perry by name as a political leader who ”does not believe in public support for public higher education, and who does not understand what an education at a research university means.”
The coalition, which launched in the summer of 2011 in response to various proposals viewed by many within and outside the academy as inimical to quality, is a group of about 400 prominent Texans, many of who are alumni of the two universities and have been involved in the state’s higher-education systems.
The group has been involved in almost all the major policy proposals and disputes since then, including helping rally support[4] for UT-Austin President William Powers Jr. when it appeared that his job might have been on the line.
One of their main concerns, Willeford said, is that policy makers are viewing the state’s universities through one lens without recognizing the variety within the systems themselves. “In our own discussions it was obvious to some of us that the unique mission of these kinds of institutions was not being appreciated,” she said.
Much of the report, authored by Michael McLendon, a professor of higher education policy at Southern Methodist University in Dallas (he worked at Vanderbilt University when the coalition commissioned him to write the report), is dedicated to exploring how mission differentiation among higher education institutions in the country and Texas specifically developed.
The report also uses data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System to evaluate the universities on a variety of metrics pertaining to undergraduate education. “The purpose of the report is to provide a baseline assessment of how well UT-Austin and Texas A&M perform in the realm of undergraduate education,” he said in a teleconference with reporters Wednesday.
Texas higher education administrators said they expect the legislature this year to debate whether or not to increase funding to the state’s universities, whether to tie that funding to outcomes, and, if so, on what outcomes to base those decisions.
The report tries to show that on many of the metrics that other states have used to – graduation rates; degree production; minority degree completion and degree production in science, technology, engineering and math disciplines – the universities perform quite well relative to their peers, other flagship research universities, and all universities classified as “very high research activity” by the Carnegie Corporation.
Incoming student quality, as judged by test scores, is higher at both institutions than at their peers. The universities are highly selective and have some of the highest percentages of Hispanic students of any universities in the country. UT-Austin and Texas A&M University degrees are less expensive to families than at their peers and have been growing at a slower pace in recent years (though that’s not for lack of trying [5] on the universities’ part).
The universities also rank high on outcome measure relative to its peers. On six-year graduation rates, both institutions hover right around the average of their peer groups. On four-year rates, the universities lag their peers, but both have made headlines in recent years for new efforts trying to raise those rates [6].
On other measures of graduate quality, such as the number of graduates who pass specific professional licensing exams and surveys of satisfaction, the university also ranks high.
Administrators from the two universities and their systems praised the report in a release issued Thursday. “This report validates what the data and many external rankings have indicated for some time — that Texas A&M University is extremely effective and efficient in serving the needs of our students and the state of Texas,” said Texas A&M University President R. Bowen Loftin.
“I was particularly pleased that the report reaffirmed the extraordinary educational and economic value that UT and A&M offer to the state and nation, as well as the dedication of university leaders, faculty and staff to continuously engage in qualitative improvement of the undergraduate experience," said Francisco G. Cigarroa, chancellor of the University of Texas System.
The report does not get at one of the major concerns of Texas policy makers: the cost of producing a degree, to both the state and families, which has formed the heart of Perry’s efforts, particularly his call for a $10,000 degree.
Part of the reason for not including such information, McLendon said, is because such a breakdown is hard to obtain. Given all the things institutions spend money on, variation in the programs and expenses across different institutions and the varying costs of producing different types of degrees.
One group that has tried to quantify the cost of producing a degree, the Delta Cost Project, found that Texas institutions actually stack up comparatively well to their peers in that respect, too.
In 2009, UT-Austin and Texas A&M University spent $18,003 and $16,405 per student, respectively, on education and related expenses, a category that includes spending on instruction, student services and a portion of academic and institutional support for maintenance and operations. Most schools in their peer group spent more than $22,000 per student. Part of that might be attributable to the fact that neither A&M nor UT-Austin has a medical school, which often cost more to operate on a per-student basis.
 
 

Friday, December 14, 2012

A $10,000 Platform


A $10,000 Platform
November 30, 2012 - 3:00am
By
When Florida Governor Rick Scott announced earlier this week the creation of two four-year, $10,000 bachelor’s degree programs in Florida, he could have easily been mistaken for another Republican governor named Rick.
Less than two years ago Texas Governor Rick Perry called on his state’s colleges and universities to create bachelor’s-degree programs that cost families no more than $10,000. The call set off a firestorm of debate about whether it was possible to control or lower the cost of offering a degree through the use of technology and competency-based assessment, or whether it was possible to find alternative subsidies that would drop the price for students and their families.
Perry and Scott appear to agree on much more than an ideal price tag. The two -- along with another Scott, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who unveiled his own higher education agenda earlier this month -- appear to be at the forefront of what could be an emerging Republican approach to higher education policy, built largely around cost-cutting, which seems to appeal to some voters, if not to the academy itself.
The three governors have much in common when it comes to their approach to higher education, such as mandating low-cost options like the $10,000 degree; holding down tuition prices, particularly at flagship institutions; tying funding to degree completion, particularly in fields deemed to be in “high demand”; paying faculty on the basis of performance, including how they fare on student evaluations; and likely asking the institutions to do it all with less state money.
With state budgets still constrained, college costs are a growing concern for the electorate, Republicans holding 30 governor’s offices, and many of these lawmakers poised for higher profile in the next four years as they contemplate higher office, it seems likely that the proposals seen in places such as Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin will spread, and could even form the backbone of a Republican agenda for higher education from the states up through the national government.
“Up until now, the argument over college affordability has been dominated by calls to action on two fronts: lower interest rates on student loans and asking taxpayers to pay more so state legislatures can increase funding to higher education a greater amount,” said Thomas K. Lindsay, director of the Center for Higher Education at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank with ties to Perry and associated with the reforms the Texas governor and others are pushing. “What this does, this changes the debate to reducing the cost to students and parents, raising expectations about what the public expects from higher education.”
But the approach taken by these governors has not endeared them to individuals in the academy. Actions taken by all three have been sharply criticized not only by faculty members and higher education leaders in their states, but also by national leaders, who view the erosion of state funding and increased restrictions on what institutions can do a breach of the traditional relationship between state lawmakers and public colleges and universities. “There are state leaders who do not believe in public support of public higher education, and who do not understand what an education at a research university means,” said Hunter Rawlings, president of the Association of American Universities in a speech at the University of Virginia in October. Rawlings specifically called out Perry and Scott in that speech and in others.
Tea for Three
Perry, who was elected to his third term as governor in 2010, and Scott and Walker, who were both elected for the first time that year, all ran on “Tea Party” platforms of cutting government expenditures, lowering taxes and creating jobs.
Like all governors serving over the past few years, all three had to reconcile decreased revenues stemming from the great recession with increased entitlement costs. Higher education appropriations, which make up a large chunk of discretionary expenditures at the state level, became a target.
“There isn’t that much of the operating budget to play with, so education routinely becomes a piece of the budget that ends up on the chopping block,” said Christopher P. Loss, a professor of history and public policy at Vanderbilt University.
Loss said it would be a mistake to call cutting higher education budgets a purely Republican strategy, as it seems to be a bipartisan activity these days.  States such as California, Washington and New York, where Democrats control governors’ offices and legislatures, have also cut budgets for higher education over the past few years, although recent budgets in New York have been more favorable to colleges, and California Governor Jerry Brown recently led a campaign for a tax increase that will reduce cuts to higher education.
Loss did note, however, that tying budget cuts to calls for increased productivity, something that Perry and Scott have done repeatedly, is something with the potential to appeal to voters. “I would hesitate to call it part of a ‘Republican agenda,’ " Loss said. “In essence, this is part of what governors do when they confront financial constraints. And it’s a politically savvy direction in which to go.”
While lawmakers have traditionally granted institutions the freedom to find new sources of revenues through tuition or elsewhere when they cuts budgets or promised to restore budgets in better times, Perry, Scott, Walker, and other Republican governors have made it clear that tuition will hold steady in their states. In 2011, Perry and Scott pushed against efforts by their states’ flagship institutions to raise tuition prices, a move that many in Texas say almost cost William Powers, president of the University of Texas at Austin, his job.
All three have made calls for reducing the cost of producing a degree through online courses and competency-based assessment. Walkerintroduced a competency-based online program earlier this year. Last year Perry created a Texas subsidiary of Western Governors University, a nonprofit competency-based online institution. This week he announced a competency-based technical training.
Scott and Walker have called for reducing faculty protections, either in the form of unions or tenure, which they say could potentially lower labor costs.
The calls for efficiency are embodied in the $10,000 degree, which sets a goal for institutions but doesn’t require lawmakers to get their hands dirty with working out the policy details. “When the person who holds political office uses his bully pulpit to call for this, it has the same effect that a market innovation would have in the free market,” Lindsay said. “Now you see all these institutions scurrying around to try to match it.”
Who’s in the Black?
While “efficiency” measures have been a major part of their agendas, Perry, Scott, and Walker also have plans for reforming what happens in the classroom, which makes them stand out among Republican lawmakers.
Perry, who has been in office since 2000, was the first of the trio to push a slate of reforms, many of which originated at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank to which he has close ties. The most prominent group of those reforms is known as the “Seven Breakthrough Solutions,” a group of reforms focused on improving undergraduate instruction by more closely trying faculty rewards – pay, promotion, and tenure – to excellence in teaching. They also call for new measurements of teaching effectiveness and splitting research and teaching budgets.
E-mails obtained by state media outlets show that Perry personally pushed board members to move forward on adopting some of the reforms.
Both the University of Texas and the Texas A&M University systems produced reports that measured faculty salaries against the number of students they taught and the amount of money they brought in through research, labeling some as profitable and some as unprofitable. The listing generated a backlash from faculty members.
Faculty members in humanities departments, which tend to have smaller classes and generate less revenue from research, were more likely to end up "in the red," with the lists saying they did not generate revenue worthy of their salaries.
When Scott took office in 2011, he reportedly spoke with some of the thought leaders behind the Texas policies. According to media reports, Scott sends all potential higher education board appointees a copy of the Foundation’s “Seven Breakthrough Solutions for Higher Education” and interviews them all personally to see if they would be willing to put such reforms in place in Florida.
The measures to improve undergraduate learning and institutional accountability were met with both praise and scorn by higher education thought leaders.
The ‘Right’ Degrees
Many governors from all across the spectrum have adopted funding metrics based on outcomes rather than enrollment, but a major component of Walker's and Scott's efforts has been to more directly tie degree production to the perceived needs of the states’ employers, a push that has also led to antagonism toward faculty members in arts and humanities disciplines.
In an interview with The Herald-Tribune last year, Scott notoriouslyquestioned whether it was in the state’s interest to graduate students with degrees in anthropology. He doubled down on the sentiment in a radio interview, saying, "It's a great degree if people want to get it. But we don't need them here."
These governors have emphasized degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, as well as more professional degrees, such as teaching and business, rather than humanities. A gubernatorial task force in Florida recently proposed charging students who major in humanities disciplines more to discourage them from entering those fields.
In his speech last week, Walker embraced a similar sentiment, saying that the state should reward institutions for producing some types of degrees over others. "We’re going to tie our funding in our technical colleges and our University of Wisconsin System into performance and say if you want money, we need you to perform, and particularly in higher education, we need you to perform not just in how many people you have in the classroom,” Walker said in a speech in California on Nov. 19. "In higher education, that means not only degrees, but are young people getting degrees in jobs that are open and needed today, not just the jobs that the universities want to give us, or degrees that people want to give us?"
Spread of Ideas
The policies pushed by Perry, Scott, and Walker have already generated significant local and national debate, and Scott’s adoption of some of Perry’s ideas show that there is likely room for them to spread.
Lindsay said lawmakers from several other states, both Democrats and Republicans, have approached him and the Texas Public Policy Foundation about their ideas.
Higher education policy researchers said the push for $10,000 degrees and other reforms pushed by the three governors appeal to voters because they’re simple and comprehensible, and don’t require lawmakers themselves to figure out the details.
Countless reports over the past two years have pointed to a decreased wiliness to pay high tuition prices and increased questioning of the value of a college degree.
“What I like about Rick Perry’s [$10,000-degree] idea is that it at least is a conversation starter,” said Joni Finney, a professor of higher education at the University of Pennsylvania. “It gets people thinking about what it takes to provide a four-year degree, for enriching and proving students with that they need. I think any conversation about the cost of higher education is valuable, because we don’t stand on solid ground on that issue. Right now, the cost is whatever amount of money the institution has. We need to start talking about what are reasonable costs. Whether the number is $10,000 or $12,000 or a lot more, putting a number out there at least forced people to think about it."
Tying degree production to the states’ perceived needs is also an appealing prospect, since ensuring a well-paid job upon graduation is a major concern for families. The move also appeals to state businesses.  
The 2012 Republican platform showed how greatly these ideas had penetrated the Republican policy mainstream “It is time to get back to basics and to higher education programs directly related to job opportunities,” the platform states. “Public policy should advance the affordability, innovation, and transparency needed to address all these challenges and to make accessible to everyone the emerging alternatives, with their lower-cost degrees, to traditional college attendance."
That’s not to say such ideas are already dominating the Republican conversation. There are competing Republican visions about higher education reform. States such as North Dakota and Wyoming – long controlled by Republicans – were some of the only states to see an increase in per-student state expenditures over the past five years. Both were buoyed by large influxes of revenues from natural resources.
And the discussion about many of these issues is not limited to one side of the aisle. Democrats, particularly President Barack Obama and his administration, have also pushed to contain costs to families at public universities, improve accountability for outcomes and ensure that students graduate with degree that lead to good jobs.
Making an Enemy
While the reforms pushed by Perry, Scott, and Walker have received praise from some pundits and members of the general public, faculty members and others in higher education have generally resisted their efforts.
The general sentiment among faculty members is that the reforms being pushed in states like Texas and Florida – lower expenditures on higher education, more vocational degrees at the expense of liberal arts education, less emphasis on research and more online courses – will not resulted in a better-educated workforce.
In Florida and Wisconsin, academics say that the proposals to discourage enrollment in humanities programs reflect a poor understanding of academe and the kinds of communication and creative skills that are prized in the working world. They point to studies showing that students with liberal arts backgrounds who can draw connections between disciplines and ideas are more likely to create new companies, take risks and earn promotions.
A major faculty criticism of the $10,000 degree programs is a concern that institutions will sacrifice quality, relying on technology, large classes, competency-based credit, and other tools that they say water down the educational experience. Close analyses of the $10,000 degree programs that have been created in Texas find that they are not truly getting at many of the issues for which pundits celebrate them. Most are not broadly available; students must spend time in high school taking dual-enrollment college courses, something many students are not prepared to do.They are all only available in specific programs. Some tinker with pricing more than cost, subsidizing students in the $10,000 degree programs at the expense of other students who pay full tuition, rather like offering non-need-based scholarships.
The Florida programs for Scott's announcement use similar tools to achieve the price reduction.
Proponents of the $10,000 degree say that this is the kind of experimentation the proposal was designed to induce. Eventually, they say, the goal is to help get at broader cost-cutting solutions.
In a column Monday, Orlando Sentinel columnist Beth Kassab noted the use of such strategies at Daytona State College, which offers a $10,000 degree for students who finish in three years. "Students are actually receiving less for less — a year less instruction and experience on a college campus in exchange for less money," she wrote. "That seems fair, but not some innovative deal the state should be crowing over."
Other critics point out that with greater state investment colleges could very well offer bachelor's degree programs for $10,000 or less. In-state tuition at the University of Florida in 2000, when state contributions made up a larger share of the budget, was less than $2,500. But as the state decreased its appropriations to the university, administrators say, it had to increase tuition to maintain quality.
“What you have is the legislature wanting to bail on the priority of higher education,” said Tom Auxter, a professor of philosophy at the University of Florida and president of the United Faculty of Florida. “You’re going to be awarding degrees that are worthless to people. They’ll have bachelor’s degrees, but they won’t know what they’ve missed until three or four years out of school.”
He said faculty members have been particularly active in pushing against the reforms advocated by Scott, and expects many to be active in the campaign against his re-election in 2014.
“I’m not pessimistic about winning this argument,” Auxter said. “I’m just uneasy about how much we might lose before we ultimately win.”
Roberto Martinez, vice chairman of the Florida Board of Education, who was appointed by Scott’s predecessor, wrote Scott urging him to abandon the $10,000-degree idea. "Asking the colleges at this time to issue a ‘$10,000 bachelor's degree' without commensurately increasing state funding is, I am certain, well-intentioned, but a very bad idea."
A group of prominent Texans, many of them Republicans, organized the Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education, a group in opposition of many of the reforms pushed by Perry and others.
And on a national scale, Rawlings and others have begun publicly advocating against the reforms advocated by governors like Perry and Scott.
But even if higher education leaders reject these governors’ ideas, Lindsay said the move by Walker, Perry, Scott, and others to put the cost of a degree – not just to families by to the institution and taxpayers -- front-and-center in the debate, has forced Democrats to talk more broadly about the price of college, which he says has irreversibly changed the course of the debate.
“It would very much be in Democrats’ interest not to let the Republicans be seen as party of college affordability,” Lindsay said. “I don’t think that will last for long. I think before too long we’ll see both sides embracing this.”

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Higher rates for non-STEM students bound to backfire


Higher rates for non-STEM students bound to backfire
By Tom Auxter | Guest columnist
November 30, 2012
Gov. Rick Scott says he wants more majors in science, technology, engineering and mathematics — the STEM fields. His Blue Ribbon Task Force on Higher Education Reform recently recommended achieving this goal by charging non-STEM students more. The task force report called this "differentiated tuition."
This proposal opens the door to charging much higher tuition for non-STEM students, who are now almost two-thirds of students. Although this new tuition scheme has little chance of producing additional STEM majors, it could easily damage the quality of the core curriculum.
The Legislature has already undercut Florida's essential degree programs in several ways:
1. Budget reductions: Over the past five years, the Legislature cut about a third of the universities' budgets. Before these cuts, Florida was already among the bottom five states for higher education funding per capita. Many university departments were already operating with a skeleton staff. Now almost all departments have barely enough faculty to teach core degree-requirement courses.
2. Pushing toward privatization: The universities are now under pressure to seek private funding for programs. But while private funds are available for the professional schools, such funds are scarce for the rest of the university. So while law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, etc. can find some private money, the core curriculum that undergraduates depend on goes begging. And over-reliance on privatization can undermine the mission of the universities to create and share knowledge for the public good.
3. Ignoring the loss of faculty: Departing faculty are not replaced, and departments shrink to half the size of programs in comparable universities elsewhere. Courses are packed. Adjuncts come and go, and students lose the relationships with faculty members that provide advice and guidance in college and recommendations for graduate studies or employment upon graduation.
Against this background, what is the effect of jacking up the tuition of non-STEM students? What happens when we give politicians the license to back away from funding non-STEM programs?
1. Cherry-picking victims: Differentiated tuition will enable politicians to falsely claim they support the universities while actually eviscerating them. Now the governor, who wants to stop funding anthropology, and the new Senate president, who wants to stop funding psychology, have a way to stop funding these "frivolous" degrees.
2. Student exodus: Students are already questioning why they ever started a degree in Florida, even with Bright Futures covering some tuition. What good is having a degree from a gutted program? Where can they go with it? Are they ready for a future with huge gaps in their preparation? Will they happily pay off much larger student loans for a program that shortchanges them? Or, will they decide to accept scholarships from other states where they will not be cheated out of a meaningful degree and a real future? Will we soon find an exodus of the best and the brightest students from Florida?
3. Faculty exodus: Faculty are already leaving Florida's universities in record numbers. In their eyes, budget cuts in teaching and research demonstrate Florida's devaluation of university education. For example, Florida State University lost 50 faculty members in each of the past two years. This plan will accelerate the loss of faculty.
The irony is that the extra money politicians think they are getting through differentiated tuition will be useless for attracting new faculty to STEM programs in the way they planned. STEM faculty are like other faculty: They are attracted to a real university, with the vitality of intellectual and cultural life that comes with it.
They will reject the new vocational/technical model of a university designed by politicians. And when they do, the universities will be hard-pressed to add the STEM majors the governor wants.
Tom Auxter is a philosophy professor at the University of Florida and statewide president of United Faculty of Florida.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Inside Higher Ed article


To UFF Senators from Tom Auxter
 

At the end of the Inside Higher Ed article on the$10000 degree is a detailed section on what UFF is doing about Gov. Scott's initiatives.
Please scroll to the end of the article where UFF and Gov. Scott are discussed.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Community college faculty blast tenure proposal


Community college faculty blast tenure proposal
By Denise-Marie Ordway, Orlando Sentinel
8:22 PM EST, November 29, 2012
 
Dozens of faculty members from across Florida gathered at Seminole State College on Thursday to oppose a state plan that would make it harder for community-college professors to earn and keep their tenure.
For more than two hours, faculty and representatives from the Association of Florida Colleges took turns pointing out what they saw as problems with the proposal, which the state Board of Education will vote on in early 2013.
Many stressed that changes are not needed because colleges already have strong procedures to determine which professors are good enough to earn and maintain tenure.
State officials, seeking more accountability for public educators, are considering making professors wait an extra two years to request tenure and requiring them to meet performance metrics that focus on such things as student success and employer feedback. Tenured professors would be reviewed at least every three years.
"This rule seeks to disrupt a high-performing college system," said Ed Mitchell, executive director of the statewide faculty union. "This rule change seeks to fix a problem that does not exist."
Some professors argued the plan would scare away talented faculty when community colleges are building their bachelor's degree programs. Some raised concern about evaluations based on student success, considering many factors affect how well students perform in classes and what jobs they get after graduating.
"It's going to be connected back to me even if it [the problem] could be the Federal Reserve Bank or they picked the wrong major," said Valencia College professor Jack Chambless.
Randy Hanna, chancellor of the Florida College System, called the discussion "productive" and said it will help officials fine-tune the plan.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

from Dana Summers at the Sentinel


Editorial cartoon of the week 
By Dana Summers
Orlando Sentinel

Monday, December 3, 2012

State may toughen rules for community-college professors


State may toughen rules for community-college professors
By Denise-Marie Ordway and Kathleen Haughney, Orlando Sentinel


Life for thousands of community-college professors in Florida could be changing drastically as the state considers making it tougher for them to earn and maintain tenure.
This afternoon, state officials will discuss the changes they plan to make to rules governing employment contracts for professors at Florida's 28 community colleges. The State Board of Education is expected to consider the changes early next year.
The public hearing will be from 1 to 4 p.m. at the Heathrow campus of Seminole State College.
Under the new rules, it would take longer for a professor to earn tenure — at least five years instead of three. The proposal also would require tenure-seeking faculty to meet a series of performance metrics that include feedback from students and employers.
And once professors earn tenure, they would undergo intensive reviews every three years. College administrators would focus on student success, looking into factors such as job placement and whether students do well in subsequent courses.
The changes, sharply criticized by faculty, are another move by state leaders who say they want to increase accountability among public educators.
Colleges and universities statewide are being pushed to boost their graduation and job-placement rates to show taxpayers that higher education is worth their investment.
Last year, a committee of Florida lawmakers sought to abolish tenure altogether in community colleges so administrators would have more control over their personnel and to make it easier to get rid of low-performing employees.
Though that effort failed, the Legislature succeeded in 2011 in eliminating tenure for new teachers in elementary, middle and high schools.
Tom Auxter, president of the statewide faculty union, United Faculty of Florida, blasted the community-college proposal, calling it an effort by Republican leaders to cheapen education by having colleges rely more on temporary instructors instead of skilled but more expensive professors.
He argued that making tenure tougher to obtain would prompt the best professors to leave.
"This is just a political way to destabilize the jobs of quite a few people in order to have replacements for them fast," Auxter said. "It's a way to have cheap labor. It has nothing to do with quality."
But state leaders said they want to ensure community colleges' standards are consistent, especially considering the rising importance of these institutions in providing the state with college graduates. Most community colleges now offer bachelor's degrees.
Randy Hanna, chancellor of the Florida College System, stressed that, although the proposal would require tenure-seeking professors to meet certain criteria, colleges would have flexibility in terms of how heavily each piece of information would weigh in an employee's evaluation.
He said the tenure rule needed to be revised. It had not been reviewed in at least 20 years.
"I think it's a way to ensure that local [trustee] boards and presidents and faculty are working together in a process that will provide for accountability and still make sure the decisions are made at that local level," Hanna said.
Today's workshop on "continuing" contracts for full-time, tenured professors — as opposed to contracts that must be renewed every few months or annually for many other faculty — is the second one held this year on the proposal.
Hanna said revisions were developed based on feedback from college presidents, lawmakers, faculty and the Governor's Office. But Michael Brawer, executive director of the Association of Florida Colleges, said he plans to voice concern about a provision in the most recent version that had not been present in another version that the association had agreed upon.
The earlier version did not include one of the most controversial provisions, which calls for creating an evaluation system that would require students and employers to reflect on the education that students received from individual instructors.
That part, Brawer said, presents substantial logistical challenges and is giving many college administrators "heartburn" — because they are not sure how it can be done fairly.
Valencia College President Sandy Shugart said he appreciates that state officials are trying to ensure rigor in all the colleges' tenure processes. But he said some changes are "too prescriptive."
For example, the plan suggests using the salaries of graduates to help gauge professor quality, Shugart said.
"You can't assign that to a particular faculty member because that student has had 20 or 30 faculty members," Shugart said.