Dear Commons Community,

The Huffington Post is reporting that a new Pew study is revealing that older Americans who are holding tight onto television and print in order to consume their news may be on an entirely different schedule than those younger Americans who have moved to the Internet, World Wide Web and mobile computing.

Nearly three in four young Americans ages 18-29 now cite the Internet as their main source of news, over television, newspapers and radio, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

The study, which outlined “12 trends shaping digital news,” found that 71 percent of young Americans in 2013 said the Internet was where they consumed the majority of their news. However, this was not so true of older generations. Of adults ages 30-49, 63 percent chose the Internet as their main source of news, tied with television. Among Americans older than 64, television and the newspaper remained as the top preferred news sources above the Internet.

But there is another major difference between how younger and older Americans consume the news that is even more telling. Just about eight in ten Americans (79 percent) ages 18-29 said they “graze” the news, meaning they check the news from time to time rather than at regular times throughout the day. However, this number dropped significantly among people ages 50 and above, who still said they got their news on a regular schedule every day.

In terms of content, news about Washington and politics was desired considerably less by young Americans than older adults. But there is one thing that brings younger and older generation Americans together: both follow weather news more than any other news content.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This commentary is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility.

I state to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our democratically-elected leaders in Washington have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the governing foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity and self-interest that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur–others are matching and surpassing our national attainments.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre performance of our federal government that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have squandered our political and economic gains of the latter part of the 20^th century. Moreover, we have dismantled essential systems of compromise and social interaction which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral government dysfunction.

Our elected representatives seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of governing that are for the good of all people and the disciplined effort needed to attain them. This commentary calls for a reform of our system of government to one of the people, by the people, for the people, so that it shall not perish from the earth.

Tony

NOTE:  This was posted at the height of the federal government shutdown in October 2013 as indicative of the incompetence of American governing bodies, mainly the U.S. Congress, to resolve a crisis of its own creation.   The language above is taken from the report, A Nation at Risk, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education in 1983 that blamed American public education for all the ills the country was facing at the time.

Dear Commons Community,

Online education is seen as relatively positively by Americans for giving students a wide range of curricula options and for providing good value for the money. However, Americans tend to think it provides less rigorous testing and grading, less qualified instructors, and has less credence with employers compared with traditional, classroom-based education.  In a Chronicle of Education article entitled, Traditional Education Beats Online in Key Areas, reporter Scott Carlson comments:

“We’re years into the era of online education, and yet Americans still hold a skeptical view of online learning’s quality and value to employers, according to the results of a Gallup survey released today.

In early October, Gallup asked two groups (see Survey Methods at the end of this posting), each composed of more than 1,000 adults, whether they thought “online education is better” in a series of categories. In terms of “providing a wide range of options for curriculum” and “good value for the money,” online education got slightly better scores than traditional classroom-based education.

But online education scored much worse in four areas: in delivering “instruction tailored to each individual,” in providing “high-quality instruction from well-qualified instructors,” in offering “rigorous testing and grading that can be trusted,” and—finally, worst of all—in dispensing “a degree that will be viewed positively by employers.”

Only a third of the respondents rated online programs as “excellent” or “good,” while 68 percent gave excellent or good ratings to four-year colleges and universities, and 64 percent gave such ratings to community colleges.”

I am not surprised by the results of this poll.  Online learning has consistently been viewed as a positive and important means for expanding access to an education.  On the other hand, its learning effectiveness and perceived educational benefits have always been research and debated without consistent agreement.    Issues and questions related to retention rates and whether online is successful for  certain types of well-organized and disciplined students have persisted.

Tony

Survey Methods

Results from the Oct. 3-6, 2013, Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,028 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

Results from the Oct. 5-6, 2013, Gallup poll are based telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,025 national adults, aged 18+ living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times has an article today entitled,  The Russia Left Behind:  A Journey through a Heartland on the Slow road to Ruin, about the small villages and towns on the highway between St.Petersburg and Moscow.  It tells of the people who are struggling to survive and who have not been part of the Russian economic resurgence of the past decade.  Here is an excerpt:

“At the edges of Russia’s two great cities, another Russia begins.

This will not be apparent at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi, nor is it visible from the German-engineered high-speed train. It is along the highway between Moscow and St. Petersburg — a narrow 430-mile stretch of road that is a 12-hour trip by car — that one sees the great stretches of Russia so neglected by the state that they seem drawn backward in time.

As the state’s hand recedes from the hinterlands, people are struggling with choices that belong to past centuries: to heat their homes with a wood stove, which must be fed by hand every three hours, or burn diesel fuel, which costs half a month’s salary? When the road has so deteriorated that ambulances cannot reach their home, is it safe to stay? When their home can’t be sold, can they leave?”

The photographs accompanying the story are stunning images of the people who live in these areas.  When I visited St. Petersburg in 2012, the depictions of these images were evident once you left the main city limits.

Tony

Click to enlarge.

Dear Commons Community,

The American people are frustrated with their government officials in Washington and their inability to pass legislation or get anything done especially with regard to the shutdown and the looming debt ceiling crisis.  Mark Ulriksen, an artist for The New Yorker magazine, has captured this feeling well on the cover of the current edition where he likens the Capital to a haunted house.  When asked about it, he commented:

“I’m really frustrated with the inability of Congress to do its job…Boehner and Cruz—these politicians are only after the perpetuation of their own power. There are spider webs growing in the Capitol, bats haunting it, and all this legislation that’s just dying because these guys can’t do anything. The main sign of life is that black cat. If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be worth laughing at.”

So true and so sad!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The American people are dismayed at the inability of our government leaders in Washington, D.C. to negotiate their way out of the fiscal morass they have created with the government shutdown.  We cannot understand how our representatives are incapable of considering the common good of the country rather than the benefit of their political parties.  Well here is a quote from Republican Congressman, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, given during an interview on the shutdown stalemate with The Washington Examiner, that says it all.

“We’re not going to be disrespected.   “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Yes, Mr. Congressman the “we” is your party first before the people of the United States, and the fact that you don’t know what it “even is” you want shows the gross incompetence of the governing process in the House of Representatives.

A congressman like Mr. Stutzman suggests that we should scrap the entire government, write a new constitution, and start all over again.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Frank Bruni examines issues such as graduation, standards, employment, and costs facing American higher education in his New York Times column today.  He approaches the issues with balance but picks and chooses his facts and surveys.

On global competitiveness:

“…one of the most important issues in American life right now is higher education’s identity crisis, its soul-searching about what it should accomplish, whom it should serve and how it must or mustn’t be tweaked. Our global competitiveness is likely to depend on how we answer these questions.

And if you think we’re suitably competitive as is, then consider another survey, published last week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It measured the skills of Americans from the ages of 16 to 65 and found that they by and large lacked the mathematical and technological know-how, along with the literacy, of their counterparts in Japan and Northern European countries.”

The OECD is a respectable organization but one with a definite bent to commerce and global business interests.  Bruni could have also quoted The (British) Times Higher Education World University Rankings for 2013-14 which were released two weeks age and gave American higher education its highest rankings.

On college affordability:

“The escalation of tuition, the crippling rise of student debt and a persistently high jobless rate over recent years have rightly prompted educators, politicians and other policy makers to float and implement methods to make college less financially onerous, in part by collapsing the time it takes for students to get their degrees.”

College affordability and student debt is mainly an issue for students who attend private and for-profit colleges.  The public higher education systems and the community colleges that enroll the majority of students, continue to be affordable and do not leave students with crushing debt.  It also needs to be mentioned that much of the increase in tuition at public colleges over the past decade have resulted from university budget cutbacks on the part of states strangled by a weak economy and not by colleges expanding facilities, programs, or services.

On MOOCs:

“Some states and educators see the spread of massive open online courses (MOOCs) as a terrific way to enroll more young people in college at a more affordable price, but there’s little if any evidence so far that this approach is optimal, especially for the students stretching the furthest to incorporate higher education into their lives.”

Bruni is right on here but he could also have mentioned that the MOOC phenomenon was generated mostly by commercial interests and the media and not by the majority of colleges and universities and certainly not those in the public sector.

Bruni’s conclusion:

“We’re in a tricky, troubling spot. At a time when our nation’s ability to tackle complicated policy problems is seriously in doubt, we must pull off a delicate balancing act. We must make college practical but not excessively so, lower its price without lowering its standards and increase the number of diplomas attained without diminishing not only their currency in the job market but also the fitness of the country’s work force in a cutthroat world.”

I agree!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Last April, as part of the professional development activities in our Ph.D. Program in Urban Education here at the CUNY Graduate Center, we held a “career night” discussion between students and faculty on the topic of teaching in the modern university.  A range of topics including teaching adults, use of technology, applying for positions, and preparing for tenure were discussed.  The editing of the video (two hours) from this discussion was just finished and is now available on youtube.  Doctoral students who are preparing to enter the job market or adjuncting for the first time, might find some of the shared experiences and insights helpful.  My appreciation to Jennifer Stoops, Kylah Torre, Amanda Matles, and Stephanie Anderson for their assistance with the production of this video.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times today, Alane Salierno Mason, laments what she has to do in order for her children to have a basic education in a New York City public school.

“I’m not talking about making cupcakes for the bake sale to pay for field trips. At the school my children attend in Upper Manhattan, the PTA pays for professional development for teachers, to help them meet the demands of the new common-core curriculum (an underfunded mandate if there ever was one). Parents have also set up a 501(c)3 nonprofit group to raise money for in-school “enhancement” programs. Without it, the elementary school would have no art (though there are just 15 weeks of instruction, once a week, for most classes). There would be no science classes for the youngest children. Nor would we have a Junior Great Books literacy program for third and fourth graders. Middle school students would miss out on any exposure to a second language, as well as the 14 days of cross-curricular writing provided by the nonprofit Teachers and Writers Collaborative. And there would be no prep course for eighth graders taking the high school admissions test.

To pay for all this, parents raised $185,000 last year.”

Mason describes a situation that exists in too many NYC public schools today.  No art, very limited science, underfunded mandates, and very little enrichment UNLESS the parents pay for them.   What happens in those schools where parents cannot afford to raise $185,000?  Their children’s educations suffer.

Those who have led the NYC Department of Education for the past twelve years will laud the smallest gains on standardized test scores, increases in graduations rates (even though there haven’t been meaningful increases in college readiness), and the fact that the schools are better managed because of data-driven instruction.  Since mayoral control, essentially what we have are too many public schools that have become humorless places focused narrowly on test preparation and management of instruction.  Fun, excitement for learning, and reflected practice have been pushed aside unless parents step up to provide for them.  It is a sad state of affairs that hopefully will come to an end under new leadership in 2014 when a new mayor is elected.  Lastly, this is not a uniquely New York City issue but is playing out in many of our great urban areas including Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

This piece was sent to me by a colleague in Canada.  Entitled, Seven Habits of the Professor of the Future, it provides practical advice for aspiring faculty.  Actually I would say that these habits are in important for present-day faculty as well.   A quick synopsis:

Habit 1: Reviewing New Research and Information

One major development that began in 2010, and has been developing with more sophistication ever since, is the intelligent magazine-like search engine. Faculty and students will use Zite-like products for project work and research, so they are always on top of current developments.

Habit 2: Continuous Course Construction

The professor of the future will continually think of new ways to improve a course and will modify same as needed.

Habit 3: Collaboration on a Massive Scale

Faculty and students will engage with colleagues throughout the world.

Habit 4: Assessing Competencies

Many courses will become more modularized and competencies established and assessed by module.

Habit 5: Creating New Resources

Course content creation software such as iBook Developer will allow faculty to create new course modules and other materials (videos, simulations, text material) in a matter of days.

Habit 6: Meeting – Anytime, Anywhere

Weekly or monthly departmental and other collegial meetings will give way to more continuous online faculty exchanges.

Habit 7: Face-to-Face Teaching and Learning Sessions

Despite predictions that face-to-face would die and be replaced by online learning, this is unlikely to happen. It’s a key role of the professor to engage directly with students, and a key role of students to engage with the professor and each other.  Face-to-face engagement will be blended/augmented by online learning activities.

Tony