0 Students' Rights: The WISPIRG Debacle

I had the privilege of serving alongside a representative from U.S. PIRG during Senate testimony yesterday, and so today, in support of the hard work they are doing on behalf of students everywhere, I want to weigh in on the situation here in Wisconsin.

UW-Madison Interim Chancellor David Ward recently released his decision on the Associated Students of Madison (ASM)'s approved segregated university fee budget following months of student decision-making. One focus of his decision was removing a majority of the budget for WISPIRG, a statewide, student-directed and funded public interest group and registered student organization, despite student approval.  

The issue of WISPIRG’s funding has received much attention lately, from students, the Associated Students of Madison, the Chancellor, and the media. And now in light of Chancellor Ward’s decision, ASM is preparing an appeal to the Regents. 

WISPIRG was founded by Madison students in 1989 in order to tackle public interest issues and provide students a vital civic engagement experience.  In order to do this, WISPIRG students hire a staff of professional organizers, advocates and researchers to train and organize students to run local and statewide campaigns, research the problems, and lobby on behalf of students in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C.  Here at UW-Madison, WISPIRG is funded by student segregated fees through ASM, and in the past has received contracts to allowed students to work with these staff. 

Over the years, UW-Madison students have reaffirmed their support for WISPIRG's funding many times, through referenda, thousands of petition signatures, and the approval of over 20 different sessions of student government.  WISPIRG's funding and contract not only honor the tradition of student control over student fees, but are also consistent with Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5), which grants students the responsibility of making decisions regarding student fees that fund campus activities.

Last year, Chancellor Ward removed a majority of the funding approved by ASM, leaving WISPIRG without full funding for the current academic year. Students and faculty have since demonstrated widespread support for ASM’s decision and called on the Chancellor to reconsider his decision with over 4,500 petitions, over 100 faculty signed on to an endorsement,  numerous letters published in the papers, and several personal e-mails sent to the Chancellor. Then this past semester WISPIRG's funding was again approved by ASM, sending a message to the Chancellor that students will not back down on their right to make decisions on segregated fees.   Yet, Chancellor Ward removed funding for all staff members from WISPIRG’s budget and has refused to grant the contract that ASM requested in order for WISPIRG to exist next year.

Aside from the fact that the Chancellor is not respecting student decisions, the timing of his decision seems to indicate a lack of good faith effort to engage in shared governance with students and to respect their rights. This recent decision was made one day after the deadline for students to appeal to the Regents and for Chancellor to present a revised budget.  He has since changed the deadline to appeal, but if students are held to the highest standard when abiding by policies, then the Chancellor should be held to the same standard. 

The Chancellor provided little detail in his memo to ASM leaders to explain his decision. In the past he has released a public “clarification” on his decision, but his reasoning is not very clear at all. He claims that Regent Financial Policy prevents ASM from funding professional staff for student organizations, like the staff that WISPIRG works with, through ASM’s processes.  Students, faculty and staff have on multiple occasions asked the Chancellor and UW-Legal where exactly in related policy it says that students are violating policy, but no one has been able to point out where exactly it says that what students are doing is wrong. (This is a behavior I have observed many, many times over the last decade here.)

What isn’t clear is why the relevant policies are being interpreted in a new way that not only prevents students from funding a group that they have funded since 1989, but also differs from the intent of the policy and the interpretation of past chancellors.

UW-Madison has a rich history of shared governance and of students standing up for their rights, but that legacy is threatened when the Chancellor selectively uses discretion to deny students of decision-making power.

Students have voted to fund WISPIRG and grant the group a contract for over 20 years, and during that time Chancellors have agreed with ASM’s decision to approve a contract.  ASM has voted for years to fund WISPIRG to work with professional staff on important advocacy campaigns to fight for the public interest, so why is this time different? 

The Chancellor’s decisions for FY13 and FY14 are a departure from the decision and reasoning of past Chancellors who have ultimately allowed students to exercise their right to allocate segregated fees.

I strongly urge President Reilly to accept the Student Services Finance Committee’s appeal on WISPIRG’s budget and respect students by re-considering Chancellor Ward’s decision. 

0 Say What About the Flex Degree?

On June 19, the University of Wisconsin System announced an initiative called the Flex Degree which was described as competency-based online instruction.  That day, I blogged about it, noting that while I certainly had some concerns, there were enough potential positive effects of the program to withhold full judgment either way.

Friends on both sides were surprised.  Colleagues who know and respect the priority I place on access and affordability for all potential students thought I should have been more strongly supportive of the "innovative" initiative that has the promise to drive down costs.  Others, of the liberal activist persuasion, noted  Governor Scott Walker's involvement, and the strong likelihood of negative repercussions for faculty job security and the quality of education delivered.  Still, I demurred, deciding to wait to hear more.

Unfortunately, information hasn't exactly been forthcoming.  I keep up to speed, reading the papers and blogs, and talking with those "in the know" and yet, I still have no clear picture what this Flex Degree really is.  Perhaps it's because where I spend most of my time, UW-Madison, isn't involved?  Maybe faculty at Parkside and Milwaukee have a clearer picture of what's happening? Maybe this initiative doesn't involve us tenured faculty at all, leaving the process to the administrators?   I've tried to check things out-- and am hoping this blog stirs discussion so I can learn more.  All I've heard thus far is that the faculty at Parkside are seriously concerned about the effort, and had a disagreement about the program with their Chancellor, resulting in the displacement of their Provost.

The media's been the only source of information-- and the coverage alone is enough to raise concerns.  (Also, there is not one investigative reporter covering higher education in Madison now.) It's undoubtedly bad press for UW System when the Wall Street Journal leads its coverage with a headline "College Degree, No Class Time," as it did this morning. Here is what we "learn" from that story:

• A degree obtained online will carry the same name on it that degrees earned on campus do.  You won't be able to tell if the degree was earned at Parkside, Madison, or Flex.
• UW System official encourage students to obtain their learning from MOOCS like "Coursera, edX and Udacity."
• The charges for the tests and related online courses haven't been set but it will be cheaper than attendance on a campus.

Wow, seriously?  Each of these aspects raise trouble.  Why try to "hide" that the degree was awarded for learning acquired elsewhere, including via under-assessed methods like MOOCs?  How could the initiative possibly get past "go" without an assessment of cost-effectiveness?

Instead of concrete planning, it seems this process relies on a set of fairly broad, vague statements. Do what's good for the workforce. Do what the Governor asks. Do something "big" (According to UW System President Reilly-- the Flex Degree is a "big new idea").  Make it "fresh."

These are platitudes that have been circulating in the education reform crowd for years.  The rhetoric is typically framed as colleges and professors are "behind" (engaged in "the monastery model") and need to catch up. Interestingly,  Jeff Selingo of the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote in his blog yesterday about the perspective held by Aaron Brower, a professor of social work at UW-Madison and the lead administrator on the Flex Degree initiative.   From Brower's point of view, "Our students have all the information that we have as professors, so there is no premium on access to information."
 
Hmm. Well, first, that sounds right-- and simple-- but it's not really.  The people actually working to get online education right (and many are in the for-profit industry-- which doesn't mean their knowledge should be disregarded) know that "access to information" is far from sufficient for students and that professors really enhance that access by sifting, coordinating, distilling and analyzing that information for students.   The best initiatives thus far do not rely on technology alone-- they involve technology and people.  This is because, as UW Extension Chancellor Ray Cross puts it, "faculty are the guardians of quality."

Brower knows this, and knows it well. And I think, therefore, that the biggest problem with the Flex Degree at the moment lies in how it's being rolled out and messaged.  There are far more details available about this initiative than what's reaching our ears, but one has to look to meeting minutes to find them.  For example, reading the minutes from a UW LaCrosse meeting about the Flex Degree I learned that "Faculty are at the heart of the endeavor:  they will determine the outcomes/competencies and the assessments that will provide the evidence of student learning—nobody else can do this...Without faculty and academic staff involvement, the program will not attain the quality we envision, programmatically or pedagogically."  And I'm pleased that apparently Governor Walker has told Ray Cross that he'll provide new funding for this initiative, rather than grab at our base. 

So maybe the Flex Degree is better than it appears, and its communications arm is simply failing to message it correctly.  One powerpoint talks about the "First to Flex," a physical metaphor that doesn't work well when it comes to education. There is also this wordy, vague video on You Tube.


Bad media is a huge problem that could sink the whole ship.  Let's see that turned around, fast, before the nation begins to associate the University of Wisconsin with degrees that stand for nothing.

0 Reform UW System, But Don't Render it Toothless

A busy first week of classes caused me to miss last week's UW System Board of Regents meeting, an event now known for its dramatic highlights and active Twitter feed. I was especially disappointed to miss it because it was the initial unveiling of the work UW System has done over the summer to re-orient itself given the recent legislative changes granting its member institutions more fiscal autonomy.

The main thrust of the documents shared at the meeting appears to be a desire to accomodate the wishes of (some of?) the UW chancellors for more decision-making authority and less oversight from the System office. There will be a downsizing of that office, and a corresponding restructuring.

I have heard a few folks suggesting that these moves look like the New Badger Partnership policy advanced by former chancellor Biddy Martin last spring. Reportedly, they think that those of us who felt the NBP was ill-advised, given its obvious leaning towards privatization, should also be upset about the System changes. Both of these arguments seem to hold little water. First and foremost because the System changes are the result of a transparent process during which time many discussions with relevant partners were held. That in no way resembles what transpired with the NBP. With regard to the System changes there is no evidence that any individuals seek to gain personally or politically from these reforms, or that they make any institution within System more vulnerable to the influence of private interests. These appear to be modifications to bureaucratic processes, rather than large-scale changes to governance structures. There is nothing here resembling the Board of Trustees proposed by Martin and her team, which would have installed a Governor Walker-dominated set of leaders overseeing UW-Madison instantaneously.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am free of concern. On the contrary, I worry that the moves at System belie an approach of appeasing institutional leaders whose natural tendencies are to have as much control as possible over their own campuses. The preservation of statewide interests in Wisconsin public higher education requires close coordination of the work on each campus, and that kind of work isn't fun. It isn't the kind of thing people volunteer to do. And so it must be led by a System whose employees are experienced and paid to do it.

I am also especially concerned with System President Kevin Reilly's statements about the future of national initiatives in System's work. While we can all point to national initiatives that have failed, there are also those that have succeeded--in getting institutional leaders to consider what their data have to say about their policies, at convening faculty and staff from across campuses and states to learn across new practices that could help Wisconsin, etc. Two of the most important aspects provided by national initiatives are vision and cover. Making common cause with colleges and universities across the state and country renews our sense of energy and purpose. And that common work can make it possible to collectively undertake efforts that individually are politically hard to do. It can be difficult, for example, for a chancellor to convince his campus they must talk about racial gaps in their college completion rates--it is often easier if instead campus leaders are invited to become part of a larger group engaged together in these conversations. Decades of organizational research indicates that the best ideas don't come from conversations occurring in silos but rather than those where we can learn from those who've tried and succeeded, and those who've tried and failed. So I hope that Reilly will continue to make System's participation in these national initiatives a priority, and keep the talented teams in place who currently lead them.

Those of us working diligently to preserve Wisconsin public higher education need to support System's right to influence the work of its campuses. Van Hise should not be diminished into a central party-planning office, or one whose workers can do little more than rubber-stamp the offerings of campus leaders. Certainly there should be more give-and-take with talented local leaders like UW Colleges Ray Cross, and Reilly should embark on a statewide tour to interact with faculty, staff, and students at all colleges and universities so as to get in touch with their needs. They all need to get a better sense of him and System writ large, lest during the next go-around they continue to believe the fallacious tales they are told. The position of System president must remain one of power and influence. A significantly weakened System makes all of Wisconsin public higher education vulnerable to further loss of legislative support. That's the last thing Wisconsin's economy and its working families need.

0 A Provocative New Report on Higher Education

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.

0 What Wisconsin Needs Now: Collective Efficacy

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.

0 First, Do Your Homework

There's growing concern with higher education's affordability problem, as well there should be. It's hard to see how college will promote social mobility if a kid's ability to access it is increasingly linked to whether or not his family has money.

So it's heartening to see college leaders attempting to provide solutions. But it'd be even better if we first saw them earnestly attempting to understand where the real sources of trouble lie. I'm afraid that step's being skipped a bit too often, running the risk of making things worse.

Here's a recent example. At this month's Regents Board Meeting, University of Wisconsin System President Kevin Reilly was explicitly asked to name some solutions to promoting affordability at his institutions. There were many ways he could respond. To his credit, Reilly acknowledged the importance of growing the state's paltry support for need-based aid and he said that multiple solutions were needed--there's no one silver bullet. Fair enough. But then he took a bit of a flying leap, saying we also needed an informational campaign aimed at helping students and families understand that it's best to finish college in four years.

Huh? This one left me scratching my head.

More specifically, Reilly said that his administration needs to do a better job communicating with students and families about their educational "choices" and the financial implications of those choices. He suggested that students and families do not know that finishing in four saves money, and if they did, they'd make "better" decisons.

Based on what, exactly?

Was Reilly in possession of some new empirical evidence indicating that Wisconsin families don't perceive the returns to a college degree, or one earned on time? Had he or his staff done homework that showed students were taking longer to finish because they lacked a "focus on 4?" I wish this was the case, but I doubt it. The only data Reilly has publicly provided for his argument is this: he compared the completion rates of in-state students to out-of-state students and noted that the latter group pays more tuition and finishes degrees faster. Given the numerous differences between the two groups, this is an especially weak argument, and one that a decent analysis of the data could easily tear apart.

On the other hand, we have a new national report from the Gates Foundation about the most common reason for college dropout: students' overwhelming need to work. There's also a rigorous study from the National Bureau of Economic Research showing that declining resources for higher education (e.g. supply-side factors) contribute more to college completion rates than do student-side factors. In an earlier paper, the same authors pointed to how the overcrowding of non-top 50 public institutions (a category into which nearly all of Reilly's institutions fit) leads to increased time-to-degree. And within Wisconsin I am co-leading a team of researchers investigating precisely how and why affordability matters for college success. None of that work provides support for the idea that students don't know that finishing a degree faster will save them money. Instead, they have a hard time figuring out how to make that happen while juggling work, family, and school.

Of course, Reilly isn't alone in thinking that he needs to share this "money-saving advice" with students and families. The problem is that his assumption and his message aren't benign. In particular, both come across as out-of-touch and insensitive to the harsh realities of some students' lives. Just think about his words on the subject, which include these quotes: "You've got to realize how much more you're going to be paying unless you focus." "...Part of the problem clearly is students choosing to say, 'I don't want to take an 8 a.m. course' or 'I want to take my courses between 10 (a.m.) and 3 (p.m.) on Tuesday and Thursday.,," "We need to be clearer about results of choices that students and families make about college...There are ways that students and families, by planning ahead a bit and making some focused intentional choices, can hold the cost of an education down."

The assumption he's making-- that the choices made by low-income families are not "intentional" or even informed--rests on shaky, volatile ground. As I've argued elsewhere, the common sport of painting working-class students and families as irrational is off-base. In fact, taken in the context of significant constraints on their lives the decisions many students make about extending their time to degree are quite rational. As a former UW undergraduate told me, ‘It's not an issue of choosing to work when classes are available, but often an issue of you don't get to choose your schedule, especially as the number of hours you work increases."

I have a feeling that when making his suggestion, Reilly was referencing those picky students who want to sleep late and be choosy about their courses, a common rep given to the Madison undergrads (for example). The problem is, those aren't the same students not completing degrees in 4 years. In essence, he's drawing on impressions of an elite group of students to shape solutions to the problems of the non-elite. Not gonna work.

In the absence of any empirical support, one has to wonder-- why does this idea have any traction at all? I think its because it fits with American ideals-those who work the hardest and "focus" the most will get ahead. It places the blame squarely on individuals rather than institutions, even when purporting to share responsibility. Constraints be damned; if you "know" what's good for you, you'll do it. Plus, communicating to students what's good for them is far less expensive than providing the financial support they need to make their actual choices pay off.

Crafting solutions to policy problems without doing sufficient homework first can incur trouble. For one, you risk insulting and alienating the very folks you wanted to help. That's certainly what happened here. As the former UW student told me, "Very few people are oblivious to the fact that adding an extra year to your education costs more money... I'm disappointed that the UW-System seems absolutely unaware of the challenges faced by its students, and its president believes that it's due to personal choice or ignorance that a student would not graduate in four years...The system misunderstands the plight of students who have similar circumstances to the ones I experienced."