Dear Commons Community,

The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article today by Cathy Davidson (Duke University and soon to be at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York), sharing her experiences in teaching a MOOC, The History and Future of (Mostly) Higher Education, developed with Coursera.  She sets aside some of the pedagogical issues for now but promises to come back to them at a later date.  Regardless, she  provides several important insights.  For example:

“I want to say, bluntly and simply here, that, as presently conceived, MOOCs are not a “solution” to the problem of rising costs at American universities today. The Coursera data indicate the primary audience of MOOCs isn’t the traditional college-bound student. The typical MOOC participant is a 30-year-old with a college or even a postbaccalaureate degree. Two-thirds live outside the United States.

…Nor are MOOCs the cause of all problems facing American universities today. MOOCs did not create our adjunct crisis, our overstuffed lecture halls, or our crushing faculty workloads. The distress in higher education is a product of 50 years of neoliberalism, both the actual defunding of public higher education by state legislatures and the magical thinking that corporate administrators can run universities more cost-effectively than faculty members. They don’t. The major push to “corporatize” higher education has coincided with a rise, not a decrease, in costs.

…We wanted to see if the 18,000-plus participants who ended up registering for the course could help galvanize a movement on behalf of educational changes that any professor, department, or school could begin to carry out today. The short answer (surprise, surprise!) is that it takes infrastructure, planning, and human labor to make real change. I believe parts of this could be replicated by anyone wishing to create a real-world movement from a MOOC.”

Davidson goes on to describe the students and the nature of the active participation in her MOOC course.  She concludes:

“As one participant noted, “The learners who signed up for this course obviously have a passion for learning and changing education. I only hope that each of us will try to do something to change our learning culture; perhaps as a movement or perhaps as an individual. The rewards would be worth it.” Or, in the inspiring words of another: “If every student in this class did only one thing to change the tide of education, we’d have a tidal wave!”

I think more faculty who teach MOOCs need to do this type of sharing  so that we can understand more of the nuance of teaching with this technology.  There are a number of knowledge kernels in Cathy’s piece and it adds important insight into how higher education might integrate MOOC technology into its future.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Christopher Myers has an opinion piece in today’s New York Times drawing attention to the paucity of books being published that depict people of color.  Appropriately titled, The Apartheid of Children’s Literature, he cites a study by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center at the University of Wisconsin, that concluded that  of 3,200 children’s books published in 2013, just 93 were about black people. Myers comments:

“The mission statements of major publishers are littered with intentions, with their commitments to diversity, to imagination, to multiculturalism, ostensibly to create opportunities for children to learn about and understand their importance in their respective worlds. During my years of making children’s books, I’ve heard editors and publishers bemoan the dismal statistics, and promote this or that program that demonstrates their company’s “commitment to diversity.” With so much reassurance, it is hard to point fingers, but there are numbers and truths that stand in stark contrast to the reassurances. ..

[However] …This apartheid of literature — in which characters of color are limited to the townships of occasional historical books that concern themselves with the legacies of civil rights and slavery but are never given a pass card to traverse the lands of adventure, curiosity, imagination or personal growth …creates a gap in the much-written-about sense of self-love that comes from recognizing oneself in a text, from the understanding that your life and lives of people like you are worthy of being told, thought about, discussed and even celebrated.

Academics and educators talk about self-esteem and self-worth when they think of books in this way, as mirrors that affirm readers’ own identities. I believe that this is important, but I wonder if this idea is too adult and self-concerned, imagining young readers as legions of wicked queens asking magic mirrors to affirm that they are indeed “the fairest of them all.”

He concludes:

“… the work lies in the imagination of everyone along the way, the publishers, librarians, teachers, parents, and all of us” to put books depicting people of color into the hands of children.

There is much to be done!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times has an article describing how private funding is taking over science research in this country.  Referring to billionaires such as Paul G. Allen and Michael Bloomberg, the article comments:

“American science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly becoming a private enterprise.

In Washington, budget cuts have left the nation’s research complex reeling. Labs are closing. Scientists are being laid off. Projects are being put on the shelf, especially in the risky, freewheeling realm of basic research. Yet from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, science philanthropy is hot, as many of the richest Americans seek to reinvent themselves as patrons of social progress through science research.

The result is a new calculus of influence and priorities that the scientific community views with a mix of gratitude and trepidation.

“For better or worse,” said Steven A. Edwards, a policy analyst at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the practice of science in the 21st century is becoming shaped less by national priorities or by peer-review groups and more by the particular preferences of individuals with huge amounts of money.”

They have mounted a private war on disease, with new protocols that break down walls between academia and industry to turn basic discoveries into effective treatments. They have rekindled traditions of scientific exploration by financing hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures. They are even beginning to challenge Washington in the costly game of big science, with innovative ships, undersea craft and giant telescopes — as well as the first private mission to deep space.

The new philanthropists represent the breadth of American business, people like Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor (and founder of the media company that bears his name), James Simons (hedge funds) …

This is philanthropy in the age of the new economy — financed with its outsize riches, practiced according to its individualistic, entrepreneurial creed. The donors are impatient with the deliberate, and often politicized, pace of public science, they say, and willing to take risks that government cannot or simply will not consider.

Yet that personal setting of priorities is precisely what troubles some in the science establishment. Many of the patrons, they say, are ignoring basic research — the kind that investigates the riddles of nature and has produced centuries of breakthroughs, even whole industries — for a jumble of popular, feel-good fields like environmental studies and space exploration.

As the power of philanthropic science has grown, so has the pitch, and the edge, of the debate. Nature, a family of leading science journals, has published a number of wary editorials, one warning that while “we applaud and fully support the injection of more private money into science,” the financing could also “skew research” toward fields more trendy than central.

“Physics isn’t sexy,” William H. Press, a White House science adviser, said in an interview. “But everybody looks at the sky.”

Fundamentally at stake, the critics say, is the social contract that cultivates science for the common good. They worry that the philanthropic billions tend to enrich elite universities at the expense of poor ones, while undermining political support for federally sponsored research and its efforts to foster a greater diversity of opportunity — geographic, economic, racial — among the nation’s scientific investigators.”

This is part of the privatization trend that we have seen in other areas where the common good is set aside for private interests.  As the article alludes, no one denies that billionaires have a right to invest and fund their private resources as they wish but this should not be the reason why government reduces its investment in basic research.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Chris Emdin, a graduate of our PhD Program here at the CUNY Graduate Center, was recently named a White House STEM Diversity and Access “Champion of Change”.    While in our program, Chris was mentored by Professor Ken Tobin.  Congratulations to both Chris and Ken for this honor.  The full text of The White House press release is below.

Well-done!

Tony

=========================

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of Communications

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 24, 2014

White House to Honor STEM Diversity and Access “Champions of Change”

WASHINGTON, DC – On Wednesday, February 26, 2014, the White House will honor ten local heroes who are “Champions of Change” for their innovation in creating diversity and access in STEM fields.  These champions are creating opportunities for young people typically underrepresented in STEM industries by using unconventional approaches to enhance student exposure ranging from photography and film, to Hip Hop music, to coding competitions and community-based workshops.

President Obama issued an executive order creating the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans to help restore the United States to its role as the global leader in education; strengthen the Nation by improving educational outcomes for African Americans of all ages; and ensure that American child receives a complete and competitive education that prepares them for college, a successful career, and productive citizenship.  As part of National African American History Month, the White House Initiative  is proud to honor these leaders for the work they do to make these goals a reality and to ensure even our youngest children become not only consumers in our global economy, but also creative innovators themselves.

The Champions of Change program was created as an opportunity for the White House to feature individuals, businesses, and organizations doing extraordinary things to empower and inspire members of their communities.

Christopher Emdin, Director of Science Education at the Center for Health Equity and Urban Science Education, Columbia University

Christopher Emdin, Ph.D is an Associate Professor of Science Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he also serves as Director of Science Education at the Center for Health Equity and Urban Science Education. He is also a fellow at the W.E.B. DuBois Research Institute at Harvard University. In these roles, he prepares teachers for STEM classrooms, conducts research in urban science education, and coordinates both the Science Genius B.A.T.T.L.E.S. and the #HipHopEd social media movement. The Science Genius B.A.T.T.L.E.S. are focused on bringing attention to transforming teaching, learning, and engagement in science by using hip-hop culture to create science competitions among youth in New York City Public schools. The #HipHopEd movement focuses on engaging the public in conversations about the intersections of hip-hop and education. Dr. Emdin writes the provocative “Emdin 5” series for the Huffington Post. He is also author of the award winning book, Urban Science Education for the Hip-hop Generation.

Dear Commons Community,

The New York City Department of Education seems incapable of developing a system that insures more racial diversity in its elite high schools.  Only 11 percent of the new freshmen class for Fall 2014 at New York City specialized high schools will be black or Latino students.  Only seven black students and twenty-four Latino students were accepted for the highly competitive Stuyvesant High School.  As reported in The Huffington Post:

“According to city’s Department of Education data released this week, of the 5,096 eighth graders offered a spot to one of New York City’s eight exam-based specialized high schools for the 2014-2015 school year, only 11 percent are black or Hispanic, per education outlet Chalkbeat New York. At the same time, more than 70 percent of the city’s eighth graders are black or Hispanic, the outlet reports.

While these numbers do not differ drastically from last year, the numbers of minority students accepted did drop in specific schools. For example, of the 952 students admitted to the highly competitive Stuyvesant High School this year, only 7 students are black and 21 are Hispanic, data show. Last year, nine black students and 24 Hispanic students were accepted to Stuyvesant, Chalkbeat New York notes.

With the exception of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts — which accepts students based on auditions and academics — spots in New York City’s other eight specialized schools are based on a single entrance exam.

As a result of the lack of minority enrollment in the city’s magnet schools, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has said the city needs to find a different system.

“These schools are the jewels in the crown for our public school system,” de Blasio said at a press conference Tuesday, according to the New York Times. “This is a city blessed with such diversity. Our schools, especially our particularly exceptional schools, need to reflect that diversity.”

Amen Mayor de Blasio!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

A colleague of mine, Eric Fredericksen,  at the University of Rochester, has an article in Bloomberg Businessweek today, in which he shares his institution’s experience in developing MOOC courses with Coursera.  He provides a balanced assessment of the possibilities with MOOC technology.  His conclusion:

“Improvements do need to be made. To meet the demand of online learners who desire more face-to-face interaction, universities will need to develop hybrid models that combine online and in-person learning. We may also need more flexible schedules—say, three two-day, in-person sessions at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester, coupled with an online learning component along the way.

If they take such an approach, universities will have to decide how and whether to pre- and/or post-screen students, and if hybrid courses should count toward a non-degree certificate or a traditional degree.

Institutions of higher learning that fail to explore online opportunities do so at their own risk. Twenty-first century institutions of higher education cannot afford to leave 21st century learners behind.”

Well-done and good advice!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

College student loan borrowers have had very little to be grateful for from the policies of the present administration in the U.S. Department of Education.  However, a small step in the right direction was made when officials announced that borrowers may now access the U.S. government’s latest rankings of loan specialists.  As reported in The Huffington Post:

“… the Department of Education on Tuesday abruptly reversed its temporary ban on providing customer service scores.

Among the department’s four major loan servicers, SLM Corp., the nation’s largest student loan company (better known as Sallie Mae), finished or tied for last in the three customer satisfaction surveys for the three-month period ending Sept. 30. Respondents to the surveys included school personnel, Education Department employees and borrowers. The company also placed last for the year ending June 30. Nelnet Inc., the Nebraska-based student loan specialist, recorded the fewest borrowers and loan amounts entering default.

The quarterly rankings, which combine survey results with data on loan defaults, are closely watched by Wall Street and others, as they determine how much new business the Education Department will send annually to loan servicers such as Sallie Mae. Borrowers and consumer advocates keep tabs on the rankings to measure how well loan specialists are treating households whose debt payments they collect. Policymakers outside the Education Department also use the scores as part of their efforts to improve servicing of federal student debt, which is now carried by some 40 million Americans who collectively owe $1.1 trillion…

For a department under fire from student advocates over its allegedly lackluster efforts to supervise student loan servicers, the move to reduce disclosure was viewed by some consumer groups and other higher education experts as an attempt to shield companies such as Sallie Mae from additional scrutiny. Barmak Nassirian, director of federal relations and policy analysis for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said last month that the Education Department was not “sufficiently focused on its primary clients: students.”

Sallie Mae, among the department’s biggest contractors and the former employer of many of the department’s employees, faces investigations into allegedly anti-borrower practices from the Department of Justice, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and about a half-dozen state attorneys general. The Education Department recently told Sallie Mae it intends to renew its lucrative federal contract, drawing criticism from groups representing students, teachers and public colleges.”

In sum, this new move will help students decide the better loan provieders.  However, the bigger problem is that we are still saddling tens of millions of students with debt.  Rather than tinkering year after year with federal regulations and questionable student loan providers, we have the wealth in this country to start thinking about moving to a free higher education system.

Tony

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF5-6AcohQw[/youtube]

Dear Commons Community,

In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee, a software engineer, sat in his small office at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva and started work on a new system called the World Wide Web.

Today that project, now simply called the web, celebrates its 25th anniversary. In the above video, Mr. Berners-Lee talks about being in the right place at the right time.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times editorial today blasts the Koch brothers as oligarchs who are perverting the electoral system in this country by funding campaigns srictly designed to promote their economic interests.  The editorial makes the point that Democrats such as Senators Harry Reid, Mark Begich, and Kay Hagan are starting to fight back and take on the distortions that characterize the Koch political operations. The entire editorial is at the end of this posting.  Here is a sample:

“The leader of this effort has been Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, who has delivered a series of blistering attacks against the Kochs and their ads on the Senate floor over the last few weeks. In addition, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has set up a website, www.kochaddiction.com, to remind voters of just what the Kochs stand for, and why they raised $407 million in the 2012 election. And individual candidates are making sure voters know who is paying for the ad blitz.

“The billionaire Koch brothers,” says one of the people quoted in an ad released Monday by Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, who has been the object of one of their blatantly false television barrages. “They come into our town, fire a refinery, just running it into the ground, leaving a mess.” Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina reminds voters that the Kochs and their allies have pressed for high-end tax breaks that burden the middle class.

Mr. Reid’s comments have gone to the heart of the matter. In his most recent speech, he pointed out that the fundamental purpose of the Kochs’ spending is to rig the economic system for their benefit and for that of other oligarchs. They own an industrial network that ranks No. 14 on the list of the most toxic American air polluters, and got their money’s worth in 2010 by helping elect a Republican House majority that has resisted environmental regulation.”

The Koch Brothers are disgraces to the democratic principles and I am glad that Reid and company are calling them out for who they are.

Tony

================================================================

The Democrats Stand Up to the Kochs!

New York Times Editorial – March 11, 2014

Democrats have for too long been passive in the face of the vast amounts of corporate money, most of it secret, that are being spent to evict them from office and dismantle their policies. By far the largest voice in many of this year’s political races, for example, has been that of the Koch brothers, who have spent tens of millions of dollars peddling phony stories about the impact of health care reform, all in order to put Republicans in control of the Senate after the November elections.

Now Democrats are starting to fight back, deciding they should at least try to counter the tycoons with some low-cost speech of their own. Democrats may never have the same resources at their disposal — no party should — but they can use their political pulpits to stand up for a few basic principles, including the importance of widespread health-insurance coverage, environmental protection and safety-net programs.

The leader of this effort has been Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, who has delivered a series of blistering attacks against the Kochs and their ads on the Senate floor over the last few weeks. In addition, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has set up a website, www.kochaddiction.com, to remind voters of just what the Kochs stand for, and why they raised $407 million in the 2012 election. And individual candidates are making sure voters know who is paying for the ad blitz.

“The billionaire Koch brothers,” says one of the people quoted in an ad released Monday by Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, who has been the object of one of their blatantly false television barrages. “They come into our town, fire a refinery, just running it into the ground, leaving a mess.” Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina reminds voters that the Kochs and their allies have pressed for high-end tax breaks that burden the middle class.

Mr. Reid’s comments have gone to the heart of the matter. In his most recent speech, he pointed out that the fundamental purpose of the Kochs’ spending is to rig the economic system for their benefit and for that of other oligarchs. They own an industrial network that ranks No. 14 on the list of the most toxic American air polluters, and got their money’s worth in 2010 by helping elect a Republican House majority that has resisted environmental regulation.

“That Republican majority is, in fact, working to gut the most important safeguards to keep cancer-causing toxins and pollution that cause sickness and death out of the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Mr. Reid said. “Without those safeguards, the Koch brothers would pass on the higher health care costs to middle-class Americans while padding their own pocketbooks.” He called it “un-American” to spend lavishly to preserve tax breaks and end workplace safety standards.

Republicans quickly rushed to the cameras to demand an apology on behalf of their benefactors, furious that anyone would dare interrupt an industrialist in the process of writing a check. But Mr. Reid made it clear no apology would be forthcoming.

What the Kochs want — and polls show they have a strong chance of getting it — is a Senate led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now the minority leader, who promises in his latest campaign ad to “be the leader of the forces that take on the war on coal,” the most polluting power-plant fuel. Nothing could be better for the owners of Koch Carbon, and they are willing to spend whatever it takes to make it happen. But they are finally encountering some resistance.

Dear Commons Community,

Burks Oakley, a colleague of mine at the University of Illinois, alerted me to this Inside Higher Education article on the recent Online Learning Summit organized by U. of California, Berkeley, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.  As commented in the article, speakers “seemed to follow an everything-but-MOOCs approach to online education on campus”.  The article goes on to mention:

“There was Ellen Junn, the former provost of San Jose State University and now at California State University at Dominguez Hills, pointing out that “technically speaking, what San Jose State did [in its partnership with Udacity] was not actually create MOOCs.” The university instead tried to use online courses for remedial education, but later abandoned the project…

While Coursera and edX officials were once again on the guest list, they appeared this year only in the audience — not on stage.

“Look at the program for this year,” said John C. Mitchell, Stanford’s vice provost for online learning. “What a difference a year makes.”

This year’s speakers were asked to consider “How Technology Impacts the Pedagogy and Economics of Residential Higher Education” — the summit’s subtitle — yet it took until halfway through the summit for one speaker to point out that the majority of students pursuing higher education don’t fit into that shrinking slice of the market.”

It seems to me that the organizers of this “summit” needed to brush up on the research and  best-practices literature on online learning much of which emanated in the mid-1990s at public universities, community colleges, and for-profit institutions.

Tony