Sunday, April 05, 2009


Said and Unsaid

First, the throat-clearing. Since Arizona doesn't do daylight savings time, it's three hours behind the East Coast during the spring and summer. This means I'm fighting monumental jet lag. And for reasons nobody here has yet explained to me, the district that includes the convention center, a branch of ASU, Chase Field, and all manner of new construction doesn't have a single convenience store or drugstore. How you can have high-rise dorms and multiple high-rise hotels without a single place to buy toothpaste is beyond me, but here it is.

(The natives have been weirdly sympathetic. One confessed that although he likes the weather, “there's nothing here.” Another said that if you want an actual downtown, you should go to Tempe. The city has actually outsourced its downtown. As a fan of coastal cities, I'm utterly at a loss.)

The opening reception for the conference itself seemed more sparsely-attended than last year's, which probably reflects budget cuts at the member colleges. (My own college stopped paying for out of state travel several months ago. I'm here through the good graces of IHE.) On Friday I ran into a former colleague who asked who else from my college had come. I told her I was it, though I didn't explain how.

I registered relatively early, my metabolism still being on Eastern time, so I had a chance to read the program at some length. There's far more about leadership development than I remember seeing last year. The program even opens with a joint statement by the AACC and the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) which is ostensibly about diversity – it even came with a diversity lapel pin, so we can all be uniformly diverse – but is really about leadership development, mostly at the board and presidential levels. The program also contains a host of panels on leadership development, some emphasizing diversity, some not.

Although nobody is connecting the dots in public, it isn't hard to see what's behind all that. Sparse hiring for full-time faculty over the last few decades is making itself felt farther down (or up) the pipeline. Historically, key administrative leadership started out in the faculty, then climbed the ladder. If you don't hire faculty, you don't develop the farm team. (At my cc, we already have several departments in which chairs almost have to be drafted, since everybody has already done a turn and nobody wants to repeat.) A few years ago I started noticing searches at the dean and vp levels failing; now it's hitting the Presidential level. The short-term response has been a sort of musical chairs among existing presidents, but that doesn't do much to diversify the ranks. And here we are.

Of course, there's also the current funding freefall behind all this. As the CEO of the AACC, George Boggs, noted in his greeting, the current funding situation for cc's nationally is 'daunting,' and many of our responses are 'unprintable.' That's about right. In this situation, the usual narrow strike zone for good administrators – you want people smart enough to do the job, but dumb enough to take it – gets that much narrower, as even the dimmer bulbs figure out that it's largely un-doable.

In that context, Donna Brazile's keynote speech makes sense. I'd seen her from time to time on tv, but had never understood what the fuss was about. In person and at length, though, she's riotously funny. (The look on her face when she described the satisfaction of voting for a younger man – raised eyebrow, indulgent pause – was priceless.) She did a nice job of channeling what many of us have been thinking for the last few months – my favorite was “we finally have a President who understands how to multitask” – and showed real enthusiasm for community colleges and what we do. But the theme of her talk was basically “get up and get moving.” (She phrased it as “this is our moment,” which she repeated several times.) You could read it as the usual call for political involvement, and that was certainly a part of it. But in the context of this year's program, it seemed too like an acknowledgement that it's time for the next cohort to step up. In some ways, it's a remarkably difficult time to do that, but that makes it all the more necessary.

Now someone just has to connect the dots between hiring full-time faculty and developing the next generation of leaders. Hmmm...

Glad you're having a good time, but I miss you desperately. TB and TG are being good sports, but there are some frustrating moments where one of them will sigh and say, "I wish Daddy was here." Usually after I've said no to something for the umpteenth time.
This IS our moment in the CC ranks.

As you have articulated in your blog (and hopefully in your local political arena) CCs are where people go to improve their job prospects after working several years, or several decades, with a HS degree. It is also where many returning veterans will go as they adjust to a world very different from the one they just left. It is the place where state governments can get the most education (rather than the most research and journal articles) for their higher ed dollar.

That requires Leadership Training for many existing CC leaders, who seem to lack the kind of PR lobbying, and salesmanship instincts one typically sees at major universities. Our horn might not be as big as theirs, but there are a lot of us and we all have the same story to tell.

Tell that story properly, and maybe your budget won't get cut.
Part of the problem is that hiring full-time faculty means a budget hit now, which looms larger in the admin's eyes than a lack of leaders half a generation in the future.
Nice blog.
I am always saddened by calls for "political" involvement by education system. I would have far preferred the pursuit of knowledge to be open to all and not controlled by a small elite who seem to be intent on alienating half of the country.
Jim C: Politicization is pretty much inevitable if you invite a (former) campaign strategist to give your keynote. But it's a higher education conference--it's not like there are going to be any non-Democrats there to complain, right?
It required political action to pass the Morrill Act (providing the first access to colleges for all by creating the Land Grant system via a blatant handout of government property to fund universities), to provide federal funds so veterans could attend college, and it requires continued political action to keep education available to all rather than limited to the children of the elite.

We are talking about Community Colleges here, not SLACs, and asking for funding to go to the classroom rather than the sort of academic writing that Jim C probably objects to. I can't believe anyone thinks that community colleges aren't serving the Joe Plumbers of the world, but lots of people are ignorant of the way students like my Joe the Electrician and Joe the Carpenter go back to college to become engineers - starting at a CC.
You miss the point- by "politicizing" CC-level higher ed, and (accurately said) alienating *at least* half the population, the AACC has taken steps to delegitimize itself.

The NEA has killed many funding inititaives at the local level across the country through their "politicization" of issues unrelated to K-12 ed.

This is very frustrating for people like my wife, who has her "fair share" money extorted out of her paycheck every month just to see it get squandered on silly, irrelevant, and divisive issues.

Then another millage levy gets shot down and the NEA sits around wondering what happened . . .

Do you *really* want 60% or more of the taxpaying public resentful over the shenanigans of the organization supposedly looking after the interests of the community colleges?
I didn't see anything in DD's blog comments about the speech that could be characterized as divisive. It is a fact that the previous President could not multitask, just as it is also a fact that CCs are no more K-12 than they are SLACs.

I have seen one major change in the CC higher ed world from 8 years of the Bush administration: a change in federal financial aid rules that has had a serious negative impact on my Joe the Carpenter students. They cannot get funding for the credits over 60 that are needed to reach junior standing in an engineering college. I know why they passed this "one size hurts all" rule (abusive schemes, mostly in the for-profit workforce sector), but it has not been good for the students most in need of assistance in their education.

I fail to see how addressing issues of significance to an hourly worker who is also going to school constitutes an "elite" focus. The elite are not at a CC.
"It is a fact that the previous President could not multitask, just as it is also a fact that CCs are no more K-12 than they are SLACs."

Not divisive?



Also- one outright lie and one gross simplification in one sentence (not even a run-on)!

[the outright lie is obvious; the "holocaust-denier" statement about CCs not having to pick up the slack for K-12 is true enough if your goal is to use the language to obfuscate.]
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?