Common Core Standards: Ten Colossal Errors — a solid article from edweek.org by Anthony Cody

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Error #1:
The process by which the Common Core standards were developed and adopted was undemocratic.  

At the state level in the past, the process to develop standards has been a public one, led by committees of educators and content experts, who shared their drafts, invited reviews by teachers, and encouraged teachers to try out the new standards with real children in real classrooms, considered the feedback, made alterations where necessary, and held public hearings before final adoption.

 The Common Core had a very different origin. When I first learned of the process to write new national standards underway in 2009, it was a challenge to figure out who was doing the writing.  I eventually learned that a “confidential” process was under way, involving 27 people on two Work Groups, including a significant number from the testing industry. Here are the affiliations of those 27: ACT (6), the College Board (6), Achieve Inc. (8), Student Achievement Partners (2), America’s Choice (2). Only three participants were outside of these five organizations. ONLY ONE classroom teacher WAS involved – on the committee to review the math standards.

Error #2:
The Common Core Standards violate what we know about how children develop and grow.

Error #4:
The Common Core creates a rigid set of performance expectations for every grade level, and results in tightly controlled instructional timelines and curriculum.

 At the heart of the Common Core is standardization.  Every student, without exception, is expected to reach the same benchmarks at every grade level. Early childhood educators know better than this. Children develop at different rates, and we do far more harm than good when we begin labeling them “behind” at an early age.

Error #6:
Proficiency rates on the new Common Core tests have been dramatically lower — by design.

 

From DSC:
I’m trying to give the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) a fair look/review/analysis.  But the statement under #4 strikes me as being particularly relevant and extremely true:

At the heart of the Common Core is standardization.  Every student, without exception, is expected to reach the same benchmarks at every grade level. Early childhood educators know better than this. Children develop at different rates, and we do far more harm than good when we begin labeling them “behind” at an early age.

Backing up a second and to let you know the “lenses” that I’m looking through…I believe that we have been incredibly designed and created by God, and God is extremely detail-oriented For purposes of time, consider just a few examples:

  • The incredible amount of intricacy in the human body — especially in the amazingly-complex human brain and what it can do
  • The vast amount of variety in our world and beyond — of people, landscapes, animals, birds, fish, planets, stars, etc.  A handful of pictures that focus just on flowers from Mr. Bill Vriesema’s Flickr account (with his permission) quickly illustrates this point:

 

BillVriesema-flower1

 

BillVriesema-flower2

 

BillVriesema-flower4

Again, my thanks go out to Mr. Bill Vriesema for the permission to use these photos
See http://www.flickr.com/photos/vreez/

 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think those flowers look the same. I doubt they grew at exactly the same rate either. I doubt that they would grow the same ways in the exact same kind of soil.  Some would thrive…some would die (or should I say, “fall behind?”).

Likening this to each of us as individuals, we each have different gifts, abilities, interests, and passions.  We are not the same.  We don’t mature at the same rates.  And most of us don’t like to be controlled.  School is becoming too much about control and cramming students into certain man-made molds.  It seems to me that we are losing our way. Where’s the creativity, imagination, joy, wonder, excitement, and awe that should be inherent in learning about those things around us?

In fact, rewind to yesterday with me and allow me to bring this very close to home.

My son shared with me that he finds Sunday afternoons to be the most stressful, depressing days and times of the week.  Why? Because he hates school and he knows that’s coming up on Mondays.  Great. (And by the way, he’s a very smart young man.) 

I asked him what he would do differently if he were to design a new system.  He replied — without hesitation — “Allow me to choose what I want to learn and who I want to learn it from.”

So I then asked him, what if he could learn about how they negotiate contracts in the NFL…?  “YES! I’D LOVE THAT!” he said enthusiastically!

And here’s one of the very real problems that we, as a society, are facing:

  • We are no longer running a 100 yard dash; or even a 440 or an 880. We are running a marathon! That is, we need LIFELONG learners! People who constantly learn, reinvent themselves, keep growing, keep learning. 
  • We DO NOT need people who HATE to learn new things or have a really bad taste in their mouths about their educational experiences.

So my biggest concerns with the Common Core are that:

  • The Common Core State Standards are NOT helping us get to where we need to get to; if we are to use such mechanisms, then let’s add disciplines/areas of learning such as fine arts, music, drama, sports, woodworking, auto mechanics, and many other areas
  • The Common Core State Standards move us towards standardization and goes against how we were created — how we are made.
  • They do not help us run the required marathons that EACH OF US now find ourselves in!

As readers of this blog will know, I often embrace and even push change where it makes sense to do so. But when I hear that most of the public doesn’t have a clue as to what the Common Core State Standards even are — and despite where they came from and how they were developed — I get very nervous for the future of our youth and for our nation — and any other nation that follows such pathways of standardization.

I hope to have these fears assuaged — that such concerns are unfounded.  But right now, I’m having trouble seeing things that way.

 

 

Don’t go the way of the newspapers — from revolution.com by Donn Davis on August 28, 2012

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

So the fall of the great Tribune Company was not about getting blindsided. It was not about failing to understand what was going on with new technologies. It was about failing to act.

The newspaper industry’s Shakespearean fall is a lesson in inaction (like the fate of hero Hamlet). Inaction in the face of disruptive technologies took many forms. “Won’t be a major game-changer,” most said. “Won’t impact good companies like ours,” some opined. “Won’t impact the company until long after I have retired,” others demurred. The leaders of colleges and universities must not make the same mistake of sitting on their hands.

Both the newspaper industry and higher-education are risk-averse, so the strong bias will be the status quo.

 

 

From DSC:
Great call here Donn; I would also add “Board of Trustees” to your TO: line.

 

 

FacultyRow-NYTEvent-9-17-13

 

Check out the agenda:

 

7:00 a.m.

REGISTRATION


7:45 – 8:45 a.m. The Hall

BREAKFAST PANEL: BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP
Technology is giving educators and students more tools to promote the exchange of ideas and expertise.  That exchange is key to improved knowledge and empowerment, but without a level playing field, equal access and the right tools, we will never take full advantage of the opportunity to connect.  Panelists will discuss the knowledge gap and how new technologies and motivated citizens are bridging that gap to support formal education as well as lifelong learning.
Sponsored by Bank of America

Aditya Bhasin, consumer marketing, analytics and digital banking executive, Bank of America
Gov. Jack Markell, Governor of Delaware
Ted Mitchell, President and C.E.O., NewSchools Venture Fund
Jennifer Tescher, President and C.E.O., The Center for Financial Services Innovation
Joanne Weiss, Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education

Moderated by John Merrow, Education Correspondent, PBS NewsHour


9 – 9:10 a.m.

WELCOME
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher, The New York Times


9:10 – 9:45 a.m.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Sal Khan, founder of the Khan Academy

including 9:30-9:45 audience questions


9:45 – 10:30 a.m.

DEBATE: HAS THE UNIVERSITY AS AN INSTITUTION HAD ITS DAY?
Higher education has always been an array of autonomous institutions, each with their own courses, their own faculty, and their own requirements for their own degrees. But online education is starting to break down those lines in ways that are likely to lead to a lot more shared courses, consortia and credit transfers. In addition, there are a growing number of companies (not schools) providing higher education courses outside of the traditional higher education institutions. As we move towards the possibility of a multi-institution, multicredit qualification, is the traditional higher education institution in danger of losing applicants, income and identity?

Anant Agarwal, president, edX
Sal Khan, founder, The Khan Academy
Biddy Martin, president, Amherst College
Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor, SUNY

Moderated by David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief, The New York Times

including 10:15 – 10:30 audience questions


10:30 – 11 a.m.

COFFEE BREAK


11 – 11:45 a.m.

THE DEALBOOK PANEL: WHAT’S THE NEW ERA BUSINESS MODEL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION?
The traditional idea that education is something the government provides, free, for the public good, is coming under assault from an increasing assortment of new ventures offering for-profit schools, for-profit online courses, tests, curricula, interactive whiteboard, learning management systems, paid-for verified certificates of achievement, e-books, e-tutoring, e-study groups and more. Which areas have the most potential growth — and where is the smart investment going?

Donn Davis, co-founder, Revolution
Tony Florence, general partner, NEA
Deborah Quazzo, founder and managing partner, GSV Advisors

Moderated by Andrew Ross Sorkin, columnist/editor DealBook, The New York Times

Including 11:30 – 11:45 audience questions


11:45 a.m. – 12:10 p.m.

CONVERSATION: THE DISRUPTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Michael Horn, co-founder, The Clayton Christenen Institute for Disruptive Innovation
In conversation with David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief, The New York Times


12:10 – 12:45 p.m.

AUDIENCE DISCUSSION: INCREASING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Student attrition is as high as 90 percent for some of the biggest online courses, and remains a problem even
in smaller-scale courses when compared with traditional face-to-face classes. The problem is exacerbated for
community college students who enroll in online courses, or for low-performing students. How can we increase student engagement in online classes, particularly among students who lack competence or confidence?

Yvonne Chan, principal, Vaughn Next Century Learning Center
John Palfrey Jr, head of school, Phillips Academy, Andover
Diane Tavenner, founder and C.E.O., Summit Public Schools

Moderated by Bill Keller, Op-Ed columnist, The New York Times


12:45 – 1:15 p.m.

COLUMNIST CONVERSATION

Senator Bob Kerrey, executive chairman, Minerva Institute

in conversation with Bill Keller, Op-Ed columnist, The New York Times

 


1:15 – 3:00 p.m.

LUNCH PANEL A: INCREASING HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILTY AND COMPLETION THROUGH ONLINE INNOVATIONS
A thoughtful conversation about innovative online models that are lowering the cost of degrees and increasing degree completion. How do these models work – and where are they going?
Sponsored by Capella

(Held in The Hall)

Mark Becker, President, Georgia State University
Scott Kinney, President, Capella University
Jamie Merisotis, President and C.E.O., Lumina Foundation
Burck Smith, Founder and C.E.O., StraighterLine

Moderated by Melody Barnes, C.E.O., Melody Barnes Solutions (former Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council)


1:15 – 3:00 p.m.

LUNCH PANEL B: A MATHEMATICIAN, SCIENTIST, DOCTOR, AND SOCIOLOGIST WALK INTO A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE…WHO SURVIVES?
What skills give you the best shot at surviving a zombie apocalypse? Can you do anything to increase your odds of survival? Get an extended preview of UC Irvine’s MOOC “Society, Science, Survival: Lessons from AMC’s The Walking Dead” as we explore what math, science, public health, and sociology have to do with a zombie apocalypse and, in particular, survival. At the end of the panel, the audience will vote on who stands the best chance of survival: mathematician, scientist, doctor, or sociologist.
Sponsored by Instructure

(Held on 15th Floor)

Joanne Christopherson, Associate Director of the Demographic and Social Analysis M.A. Program, University of California, Irvine
Michael Dennin, Professor of physics and astronomy, University of California, Irvine
Sarah Eichhorn, Assistant Vice Chair for undergraduate studies in the mathematics department, University of California, Irvine
Melissa Loble, Associate Dean of distance learning, University of California, Irvine

Moderated by Josh Coates, CEO, Instructure


3 – 3:30 p.m.

COLUMNIST CONVERSATION
In an increasingly connected world, how do we ensure our students are being prepared to compete in a knowledge-based, global economy? What role does technology play in education, and what does the future of learning look like?

Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education

interviewed by David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief, The New York Times


3:30 – 4:15 p.m.

IS ONLINE THE GREAT EQUALIZER?
There is no doubt that we are in the middle of an online education revolution, which offers huge potential to broaden access to education and therefore, in theory, level the playing field for students from lower-income, lower-privileged backgrounds. But evidence to date shows that the increasing number of poorly designed courses could actually have the reverse effect and put vulnerable students at an even bigger disadvantage.

Karen Cator, C.E.O., Digital Promise
Dean Florez, president, 20 Million Minds Foundation
Candace Thille, director of the Open Learning Initiative (OLI) and assistant professor of education, Stanford University
David Wiley, founder, Lumen Learning

Moderated by Tina Rosenberg, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times

Including 4:00 – 4:15 p.m. audience questions


4:15 – 4:45 p.m.

COFFEE BREAK  


4:45 – 5 p.m.

COLUMNIST CONVERSATION

Daphne Koller, co-founder, Coursera

in conversation with Ethan Bronner, Deputy National Editor, The New York Times


5 – 5:45 p.m

GAMECHANGERS: HOW WILL ONLINE EDUCATION REVOLUTIONIZE WHAT WE KNOW AND UNDERSTAND ABOUT LEARNING?
Traditionally, pedagogical research has been done in tiny groups; but new-generation classes of 60,000 students make it possible to do large scale testing and provide potentially game-changing research on how students learn best. Using the Big Data from online courses, we have access to new information about what pedagogical approaches work best. MOOCs, and many more traditional online classes, can track every keystroke, every homework assignment and every test answer a student provides. This can produce a huge amount of data on how long students pay attention to a lecture, where they get stuck in a problem set, what they do to get unstuck, what format and pacing of lectures, demonstrations, labs and quizzes lead to the best outcomes, and so on. How can we use Big Data for the good of the education profession, and not for “Big Brother”?

Daphne Koller, co-founder, Coursera
Alec Ross, senior advisor on innovation and former senior advisor to Secretary Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department
Paula Singer, C.E.O. Global Products and Services, Laureate Education

Moderated by Ethan Bronner, Deputy National Editor, The New York Times

including 5:30 – 5:45 p.m. audience questions


5:45 – 6 p.m.

COLUMNIST CONVERSATION

Amol Bhave, student, MIT

in conversation with Tina Rosenberg, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times


6 p.m.

CLOSING REMARKS

Gerald Marzorati, editorial director and general manager, conferences, The New York Times

 

The New CTO: Chief Transformation Officer — from HBR.org by Daniel Burrus

Excerpt:

…the role of the CIO needs to shift from Chief Information Officer to a Chief Innovation Officer, due to the massive, rapid, multiple technology-driven transformations that are occurring today. And, just as the CIO’s role needs to change, so too does the CTO’s—from Chief Technology Officer to Chief Transformation Officer. This fundamental shift is necessary to elevate the position’s contribution and relevance.

While the CIO has historically been focused on the technology needed to run the company, the CTO has been responsible for the technology integral to products being sold to customers or clients. However, over the next five years every business process is going to undergo a major transformation. For example, IBM executives recently shared with me that over 40 percent of their profits are now coming from products and services that were impossible just a few short years ago. That reflects the transformative nature of business today as well as the speed of the transformation. This is just the beginning and someone has to lead that transformation.

 

From DSC:
What Daniel Burrus is saying here is what I’ve also been trying to get at when I say that technology needs to be used strategically. The organizations that will thrive in the future will have cultures that are willing to experiment and innovate. They realize that they will fail at times and succeed at other times. They also realize that batting a thousand is not an option — as there are too many targets moving far too quickly (and some targets appearing out of nowhere…while some disappear).

 

Also see:

 

No surprise: Accrediting agency opts to stunt innovation — from disruptingclass.mhprofessional.com by Clayton Christensen

Excerpts:

Several years ago I offered words of praise when Tiffin College partnered with Altius Education to create Ivy Bridge College, a two-year online institution dedicated to providing an affordable higher education option that boosted the transfer rate of two-year students to four-year institutions.

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the accrediting body for the North Central region and thus this partnership because Tiffin College is located in an Ohio city that was once populated with industry, agreed strongly, as in 2010 it approved continuing accreditation for Tiffin University and Ivy Bridge College through 2020. At the time, the HLC lauded the partnership.

In the last few weeks, everything changed.

 

From DSC:
What needs to be done to force accreditation bodies to change who can be on these accreditation teams?  Why is it that the people that institutions of higher education claim to serve can’t be on such boards?  i.e. one must be an “insider” to the higher education industry, but not an “outsider?”

Pursuing the current status quo may have a serious backfiring effect when alternatives present themselves.  In fact, taking steps to insure the status quo only serves to put more energy behind MOOCs and puts yet more heat in higher ed’s kitchen.  I would hope that folks inside higher ed would take the steps to allow for more experimentation and innovation and to take some heat out of the kitchen.

 

 

The key, he added, was to try to avoid mistakes like those made by the music industry on its road to iTunes. “This is a Napster moment for education,” he said. “It’s a big opportunity and an existential threat.”

— from A “Napster Moment” in Education

 

The Lesson of Commoditization: From The Washington Post to Higher Education — from LinkedIn.com by Jeff Selingo

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

You have to ask yourself whether you’re inherently a commodity business or inherently an innovation business.

— A.G. Lafley, CEO Procter & Gamble

Many colleges face the same problem The Washington Post does, and of course, they charge thousands of dollars more for their product. The owners of The Post realized that they needed to get out of the commodity business and into the innovation business, and there was no better person to lead the newspaper through that transformation than Jeff Bezos.

…figure out what is truly innovative and different about the campus experience, double down on that and let other players with less expensive models serve the commodity market. In the end, don’t be afraid of putting a piece of what you do now out of business.

From DSC:
That last sentence speaks directly to what Steve Jobs believed and lived by:

If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.

 

From DSC:
The two items mentioned below — which I recently ran across — took me back to a nagging thought: 

In the United States, we need for our businesses to pursue a higher calling and purpose. We need businesses to ask how they might best be serving society/others; and I, as an individual, need to be asking the same thing.  

It’s tough to do. It’s easy to loose our footing here.  But if culture eats strategy for breakfast — and if strategies are so key in navigating/surviving in a quickly-changing world — then why don’t we work more on our cultures?  Our hearts?  Our reasons for existing and working?

My guess is that employees would also find their work more meaningful if they saw how their companies were making significant contributions and differences in the world.  For example, when I worked at Kraft (Foods) in the 90’s, we did some things like sending food to areas in crisis; but it wasn’t highlighted that much and it certainly wasn’t our reason for being.  Can you imagine how we would have felt if it was one of our top goals to provide food to every single person in the world?  I wonder how much more energy, commitment, creativity, innovation, etc. would have been generated with that sort of aim in mind? How would such a perspective/drive have affected the company’s culture?  (Instead, Philip Morris purchased Kraft and had a negative affect on the company’s culture.)

 


 

The new marketing strategy: Company culture — from kristakotrla.com on March 17, 2013

Excerpt:

Dear Corporate Leadership
Please get back to being a business of people… serving people. Sounds a tad cheesy but seriously. Stop trying to be a big “corporatey,” over-processed, over-mechanized, over-bureaucratic, over-org-charted machine. Smoke and mirrors and perfection is out. Authentic, human, collaboration and innovation from real-time engagement is in.

If you treat your business like a machine then don’t be surprised when your employees act like passionless robots. Ever find yourself scratching your head wondering why on earth your machine-like, killer strategy isn’t thriving? Check your culture (and check your heart).

 

This one tweet reveals what’s wrong with American business — from LinkedIn.com by Henry Blodget

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

The real problem is that American corporations, which are richer and more profitable than they have ever been in history (see chart below), have become so obsessed with “maximizing short-term profits” that they are no longer investing in their future, their people, and the country.

This short-term greed can be seen in many aspects of corporate behavior, from scrimping on investment to obsessing about quarterly earnings to fretting about daily fluctuations in stock prices. But it is most visible in the general cultural attitude toward average employees.

Employees are human beings. They devote their lives to creating value for customers, shareholders, and colleagues. And, in return, at least in theory, they share in the rewards of the value created by their team.

In theory.

In practice, American business culture has become so obsessed with maximizing short-term profits that employees aren’t regarded as people who are members of a team.

Rather, they are regarded as “costs.”

 

Corporate profits and profit margins are at the highest level in history…


 

‘Shake Up’ for Higher Ed — from insidehighered.com by Scott Jaschik

Excerpt:

President Obama vowed Wednesday that he would soon unveil a plan to promote significant reform in higher education — with an emphasis on controlling what colleges charge students and families.

“[I]n the coming months, I will lay out an aggressive strategy to shake up the system, tackle rising costs, and improve value for middle-class students and their families. It is critical that we make sure that college is affordable for every single American who’s willing to work for it,” said Obama, in a speech at Knox College.

“Families and taxpayers can’t just keep paying more and more and more into an undisciplined system where costs just keep on going up and up and up. We’ll never have enough loan money, we’ll never have enough grant money, to keep up with costs that are going up 5, 6, 7 percent a year. We’ve got to get more out of what we pay for,” Obama said.

From DSC:
At a $175 billion per year support for postsecondary education, if the Federal Government starts redirecting this flow of $$$…I’ll bet we’ll see some change…and rather quickly I might add. 

The Walmart of Education (as predicted back in December 2008) is now here, but I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet. To what will we change? At least one major piece of the answer to that question is that we will see the continued — but increasing — use of teams of specialists that will be commissioned to create low-cost, highly-engaging content. Though expensive to create originally, such teams will more than make their money back because of the massive number of students such “courses” will serve.

 

From the Walmart of Education page on 4/11/09:

…I wanted to offer another idea that might help fund engaging, multimedia-based, online-based learning materials:
(NOTE: The figures I use are not accurate, but rather, they are used for illustration purposes only.)

Let’s reallocate funds towards course development, and then let’s leverage those learning materials throughout the world!

Reallocate funds to course development, and bring costs WAAAAYYYY down and ACCESS WAAAYYY  UP!

.

For students: Bring costs waaaayyyyy down and access waaayyy up!

Plus, no more defaulted loans, students could experience richer content, students wouldn’t have to wait as much on financial aid decisions. There would be fewer financial aid headaches; and the resources devoted to figuring out & processing financial aid could be reduced. The issue will be how an institution can differentiate itself in such a new world…but that issue will have to be dealt with in the future anyway.

 

 

 

Alive in the Swamp  — from nesta.org.uk by Michael Fullan and Katelyn Donnelly

Excerpt (emphasis and link below from DSC):

The authors argue that we should seek digital innovations that produce at least twice the learning outcome for half the cost of our current tools.  To achieve this, three forces need to come together. One is technology, the other pedagogy, and the third is change knowledge, or how to secure transformation across an entire school system.

The breakthrough in Alive in the Swamp is the development of an Index that will be of practical assistance to those charged with making these kinds of decisions at school, local and system level. Building on Fullan’s previous work, Stratosphere, the Index sets out the questions policymakers need to ask themselves not just about the technology at any given moment but crucially also about how it can be combined with pedagogy and knowledge about system change. Similarly, the Index should help entrepreneurs and education technology developers to consider particular features to build into their products to drive increased learning and achieve systemic impact.

The future will belong not to those who focus on the technology alone but to those who place it in this wider context and see it as one element of a wider system transformation. Fullan and Donnelly show how this can be done in a practical way.

.

 seriously-scary-graphic---daniel-christian-7-24-13

 

Also see:
.

 

 

The Coming Crossroads in Higher Education: Remarks of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association Annual Meeting, July 9, 2013 — from distance-educator.com with thanks going out to Mr. John Shank for Scooping this item.

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

But I would also make the case to you today that higher education is approaching a crossroads, where leaders will be asked to choose between incremental and transformational change.

Polls show that three out of four Americans believe—and I quote—”to get ahead in life these days, it is necessary to get a college education.” At the same time, three in four Americans also believe that college today is too expensive for most people to afford. That fundamental gap—between aspirations and opportunity—is one we must close.

I believe that higher education is at a crossroads because our current model of student and institutional aid is ultimately unsustainable. It is incapable of meeting the bipartisan goal that President Obama articulated four years ago—that America will again lead the world in college attainment by 2020.

Speaking in broad-brush terms, I believe we will see two ideas take hold in response to these threats to higher education.

The first response is that the system of state and federal institutional grants and loans will start to shift more toward a performance-based and outcomes-based system than is the case today—and one that does more to reward innovation.

The federal government currently provides more than $175 billion a year to postsecondary institutions and students through grants, loans, and direct school support. But together we must do a better job of defining and linking aid to satisfactory academic progress, meaningful institutional performance, and student learning outcomes.

We absolutely must continue to invest in higher education. But we must also use taxpayer dollars more wisely.

This shift in the direction of performance-based funding is already underway.

Further evidence of the policy shift underway is that many states—including Indiana, Tennessee, Oregon, and Missouri—are moving in bipartisan fashion to incorporate elements of performance-based funding in higher education.

Now, if the first response to the challenges of cost, completion, and accountability is likely to be more performance-based funding and new incentives for innovation, a second response is likely to be a leveraging of educational technology to increase student learning as well as institutional performance and productivity.

We still have a lot to learn and perfect about online learning, MOOCs, simulations and gaming, and other uses of educational technology. But there is no question that a digital revolution is already underway in higher education. And its vast potential has only begun to be tapped.

From DSC:
I hear a lot about resistance to change; in fact, as I come from the tech side of the academic house, I experience it on an ongoing basis. 

But I do wonder if the pace of change within higher education might accelerate when more of that $175 billion a year starts flowing elsewhere…?

 

 

 

CFO survey reveals doubts about financial sustainability — from by Doug Lederman

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

But what do those with the closest eyes on their own institutions’ bottom lines — chief college and university business officers — think? Turns out they’re not particularly upbeat, either — about their own colleges’ futures or the higher education landscape more generally.

In a new survey by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup, barely a quarter of campus chief financial officers (27 percent) express strong confidence in the viability of their institution’s financial model over five years, and that number drops in half (to 13 percent) when they are asked to look out over a 10-year horizon.

And more than 6 in 10 CFOs disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that “reports that a significant number of higher education institutions are facing existential financial crisis are overblown.”

“This is a ‘Houston, we have a  problem’ report,” says Jane Wellman, a higher education finance expert. “People who know what they’re talking about think we have a problem down the road if some things don’t get fixed.”

 

SurveyCollegeBusOfficers-July2013

 

 

From DSC:
There is danger in the status quo. What further proof do folks need!?! The monkey needs to move onto the back of those who cling to the status quo — they should defend why things shouldn’t change; and after that explanation is done, they can move on to explaining to people how students and their families will pay for college 5-10 years from now. Good luck with that.

 

Also related/see:

Struggling Thunderbird Business School Finds a For-Profit Lifeline — from wsj.org by Melissa Korn
School takes drastic step to stay afloat

Excerpt:

The Thunderbird School of Global Management, one of the world’s top-ranked business schools, is selling its campus to a for-profit college operator as part of a last-ditch effort to bolster its finances as more people question the value of an M.B.A.

The partnership with Laureate Education Inc. pushed at least two board members to resign in protest last week and angered pockets of its 40,000-person alumni community. Administrators and other insiders said Thunderbird needed to take a drastic step in order to stay afloat.

 

 

 

Shortfall in educated U.S. workers to worsen: study — — from reuters.com by Paige Gance

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON | Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:55pm EDT    (Reuters) – U.S. workers with advanced skills in areas such as math, science and healthcare are growing more scarce, with a shortfall of 20 million adequately educated workers expected by 2020, a study released on Wednesday found.

“The United States has been under-producing workers with postsecondary education since the 1980s,” researchers at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce said in the study. “Jobs will return, but not everyone will be ready for them.”

They predicted that 65 percent of the projected 165 million jobs in 2020 will require more than a high school diploma, up from 59 percent in 2010.

 

From DSC:
IF the status quo is maintained, the outlook for the U.S. is not good. 

That is, if the prices of obtaining a degree in higher ed keep going up and the middle class continues to be hollowed out, a smaller pool of people will even be able to afford getting a postsecondary education (regardless of whether it’s in healthcare, math, or science). 

How much longer do the status quo’ers think that the U.S. Federal Government will wait around, watching this situation develop?  How much longer before the Federal Government looks elsewhere for its workforce development (let alone the students out there who need to make a living)? 

There is not an infinite period of time for institutions of traditional higher education to respond.  MOOCs are a start, but they are but one option and they need to be improved.  Along those lines:

The organization who can collaborate with those perfecting IBM’s Watson, Apple’s Siri, or Google Now — and integrate those technologies into a low-cost solution for postsecondary education — will be a potent force in the future.

 

 

 

No deal on loans — from insidehighered.com by Libby Nelson

Excerpt:

On Thursday, though, the clock ran out: the Senate’s failure to reach a deal to avert an interest rate hike for federally subsidized student loans means the rate will double Monday.

The failure to vote on a plan before the Senate adjourned for its July 4 recess Thursday night means that interest rates on new, federally subsidized loans will double to 6.8 percent Monday.

 

 

Then globalization and the Internet changed everything. Customers suddenly had real choices, access to instant reliable information and the ability to communicate with each other. Power in the marketplace shifted from seller to buyer. Customers started insisting on ‘better, cheaper, quicker and smaller,’ along with ‘more convenient, reliable and personalized.’ Continuous, even transformational, innovation have become requirements for survival.”

Steve Denning, “The Management Revolution That’s Already Happening,”
Forbes Magazine, May 30, 2013.

 

 

ChangeIsOptionalDanielChristian-evolllutionDotcom-June2013

 

.

PDF of article here

 

 

Top-Ten IT Issues, 2013: Welcome to the Connected Age — from educause review online by Susan Grajek

Also see:

.

From DSC:
If we want organizations to survive/thrive in the future, we really need to drop the word “geek” from our vocabularies and get rid of the mental tapes and images that the word “geek” suggests.  It’s just not helpful.

 

 

Tagged with:  
© 2025 | Daniel Christian