Other Language Programs with Similar Problems

This seems to be a valuable Blog: Save Our Foreign Language

PASSHE’s Governance Structure

This is a very interesting opinion piece about PASSHE’s governance structure.  I agree in many respects with these conclusions.  The only problem is: how does the Chancellor perceive PASSHE’s supposed “global focus” and its relationship to the value of learning a second langauge?

http://tinyurl.com/yhepu9r

The Realities of Learning Another Language

Here are a couple of semi-humorous videos I hurriedly put together to help our administration perceive what real language learning is and why the instructor is so important.  They challenge a few of the exaggerations of today’s metaphors of language learning.

 

1) How much language do we learn in classrooms whose format parallels that of Dora (The great English/Educational framework)?  (Video:  “How Much Spanish”)

 

2) How important are context and situation in Language Learning (the two principal dynamic elements that only an instructor can add to the classroom)?  (Video: “Language without Cultural Context”)

Thinking Vertical and Local in PASSHE Articulation

In the world of education, more than frequently we run into politicians, administrators, colleagues, and parents discussing “articulation”. Of course, they don’t discuss this concept using this nomenclature and more often than not limit themselves to strictly “horizontal articulation”. This, you see, is the backbone of US educational reform at the K-12 level. We discuss the nation’s performance in regards to other industrial nations, comparing institution to institution at cross-sectional levels (horizontal articulation), and push for standardized tests and assessment in an attempt to shore up vertical articulation, that is, insure that the nation defends itself at specified local or international benchmarks.

Despite the fact that we have been discussing horizontal articulation and proposing measures to improve vertical articulation for years at the K-12 level, this pedagogical concern is frequently absent from the Higher Education playing field. The very existence of prestigious/private schools and academic scholarships, underscores accepted differences in vertical articulation in Higher Education. Said or done, students who place higher on the playing field initially start their careers at different institutions.

Vertical articulation, nonetheless, is important and needs to be discussed in Higher Education, especially within the public domain. It should not remain unspoken in a period of budget reductions that tend to move towards centralized decision making.

In the PASSHE system, we need to confront questions steeped in the principles of vertical articulation. Does state-wide centralization take into account vertical articulation? Can one state-wide decision regarding a program’s articulation, for instance, language studies, be considered justifiable if applied system-wide? Are the students from each PASSHE school qualifiably the same in terms of proficiency and preparedness? Can one centralized inter-campus program, which depends on distance-Ed delivery, meet each institution’s needs in terms of appropriate local vertical articulation? How does PASSHE take into account discrepancies in vertical articulation (local differences)?

For years, discrepancies in vertical articulation between the K-12 and university level have plague programs of study. If a program is not articulated well, then it either fails to retain or attract students. If this is so, then why doesn’t low enrollment or low graduation rates raise more of a concern about articulation than a call for technology enhanced centralization within the PASSHE administration?

Can Foreign Languages be taught anytime and anywhere?

Here is an eye opening interview with Chancellor Cavanaugh and Pres. Grunenwald. It reveals some important facets of the PASSHE mission that may not actually be form part of PASSHE's "official" mission statement:

Interview with Cavanaugh and Grunewald

A few questions that should be made after watching this video segment are:

1. Are Foreign Languages being considered as part of this effort to extend education to communities not previously reached?
2. Has PASSHE considered the viability of teaching Foreign Languages "anytime" and "anywhere"?
3. Will this new delivery method (one that is dependent of Distance Education) sacrifice existing educational quality?
4. Does a significant body of untapped students exist to substantiate the development or modification of language programs already in existence?
5. What is the cost of making these programmatic modifications (modifying the system for this delivery method)?
6. How will these modifications affect programs already in existence (BSE, for example)?
7. What are community colleges already doing in this area?
8. Will it be profitable or how long will it be profitable to compete for this traditional community college market?

Is PASSHE's financial situation really influencing program cuts?

Here are some interesting posts regarding the current “glum”
financial picture for PASSHE:

1.  Edinboro U
newspaper, The Spectator, reports record level of student enrollment for the
PASSHE system as a whole (http://media.www.eupspectator.com/media/storage/paper1345/news/2009/10/15/News/Passhe.Sets.Enrollment.Record-3803180.shtml
)

2.  WUDQ News of
Pittsburgh reports upcoming tuition hike (http://wduqnews.blogspot.com/2009/11/passhe-plans-for-tuition-hike.html
)

PASSHE Governance: Implications of its New Techno Savvy Corporate Style.

Market-oriented management styles in Higher Education aim to increase enrollment, create “brand names” (image identification), and incorporate for-profit sub-entities.  Inevitably, these efforts can affect the organizational structure of governance in the systems of Higher Education and alter its core values (pursuit of knowledge, social good, public benefit).  This is especially true when shared governance and community based models of education are replaced by trustees and administrators who seek to circumvent traditional channels of governance and implement new criteria of program evaluation using two proven socio-political strategies: 1) divide and conquer and 2) power lies in the control of information or the “spin”. 

Any Education Program under an administrative scrutiny based on “enforced accountability” will find itself frequently “out of the loop” and defending its educational value in terms of economic criteria or standards of popularity. 

Ironically, corporate leadership is not selected using the same standards of popularity, nor are political leaders held to such high standards of approval ratings as those of student evaluations that are supposed to top 70%. 

Moreover, what measures exist for the administrative accountability?  What standards are they being held to?  When and how will administrators be evaluated by student and faculty bodies?  Will this evaluation be as timely as the administrative record keeping that underlines the new measures of “enforced accountability”? 

Furthermore, where and how are the educational “profits” being reinvested?  When are low-profit-returning educational enterprises justifiable? 

Can educational for-profit strategies anticipate the real business sector’s needs and create new expanding educational markets? 

Can educational-skill-delivery and faculty regrouping / recruitment keep up with the pace of changes while maintaining the same levels of quality?  Will the pace and nature of these changes be cost effective? 

Will the push for entrepreneurial educational institutions ultimately clash with corporate-like educational centralization? Can any subsidiary institution remain culturally autonomous?

Finally, it seems that the key to corporate-like educational centralization is Distance Education.  Because of this reliance on technology, the Distance Education administrator assumes an important role as arbitrator of institutional culture/s.  More importantly, the success of this administrative role is dependent on clear articulation, description, and explanation of the Distance Education learning model and its ability to include faculty input in terms of program design.  This means from start to finish and includes upper and middle level administrative management.  Legitimizing such an initiative means guaranteeing  some residual form of shared governance and subsidiary autonomy.