The trailer is available here. It is also worthwhile to check out the TakePart home for the film, where there are some very interesting interactive tools for exploring the impact of rising costs in your state and at your institution.
Good governance is a noble idea, but governing boards–trustees, regents, visitors–have until recently been generally regarded as entities residing outside the administrative org chart. Trustees–perhaps because they are generally not chosen from academic ranks–are regarded by faculty members as curious creatures with uncertain motives and powers. To the extent that they are regarded at all, they are given wide berth. I say “until recently” because there seems to be a growing movement to pit university administrators against their governing boards. Fanned by sensational stories about board intrigues, high-profile dismissals of college presidents, and clashes with powerful external interests, governing boards have all of a sudden become visible and controversial.
This is a happening at a time when standing outside the administrative org chart might be one of the few places to see what is really happening to an institution. The number of failed or unsustainable Institutions is rising, new technology is disrupting established business models, and the social contract with higher education is under pressure. The American public believes that governing boards need to play a larger role, but boards–whose members are often boosters and donors–may not have the necessary skills to do that. It is a new era. Like Mr. Smith, governing boards that want to assert their power will make many people uncomfortable. I think that discomfort is largely due to uncertainty about how governing boards want to operate in this new era. Old understandings about university governance have been crumbling, and CUNY Board Chair Benno Schmidt decided it was time to chart a new path forward.
Schmidt–a former president at Yale–and his Governance for a New Era Project has just issued a blueprint for governing boards. In the interests of full disclosure: I was a member of Benno’s project, along with sitting presidents, trustees, and other faculty members.
Our comments about the oversight responsibilities of trustees are not intended to diminish the responsibilities or powers of top institutional or academic leaders. The role of the chief executive officer is naturally crucial to the successful advancement of higher education institutions. And trustees must be able to rely on the president or chancellor in the development of policy and the operation of the institution. It is essential that chief executive officers be perceived as having trustees’ trust and confidence and that the flow of information be facilitated by the administration. Except in rare situations of crisis or in the selection of top administrators, trustees, who have final fiduciary authority, act through campus leaders who have day-to-day responsibilities for institutional management.
The signers of this document have come together to craft a bold new approach to governance— governance for a new era—recognizing that it is urgently needed if American higher education is to maintain the diversity and excellence that have for so long made it the envy of the world. We are a bipartisan group of diverse and independent leaders beholden to no organization in our participation in this governance project. Each of us might express these values in different ways, and we recognize and expect each institution to modify and adapt these principles to its own mission and culture. But the values we outline are ones that we all share and ones that we believe all trustees and all leaders in higher education must aggressively pursue, today and long into the future.
It is impossible for me to conceive of a path forward for American higher education that does not involve every component of an academic community jointly pursuing what the university’s mission. I hope the Schmidt report is read and discussed by faculty, administrators, and alumni.
This big picture explanation of higher education’s financial problem comes from EducationNews
Check it out.
The luncheon speakers (all from charter schools) at today’s New York Times Schools for Tomorrow conference talked about assessment and testing, lamenting that not enough of it was done. One of the panelists remarked that he had even tried to imagine what an over tested student might look like. He didn’t try hard enough. This is what it looks like.
In Spring 2014, the Association of College Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) commissioned GfK Custom Research to gauge the public’s perception of higher education and the role of trustees in shaping the direction of their institutions. It should not come as a surprise that the American public has become disillusioned with the direction that colleges and universities are taking, but the college governance survey is breathtaking in scope and offers a very interesting window on where the public thinks accountability lies.
Americans are worried about the state of higher education, and they believe boards need to take more responsibility. Nearly three out of four respondents believe boards should not allow their institutions to surrender to pressure to withdraw speaking invitations to controversial speakers. 89% of respondents believe college is becoming out of reach for the middle class. Nearly three quarters do not believe that students get their money’s worth. And an astounding 91% said it is the board’s responsibility to “take the lead in reforming higher education to lower costs and improve quality.”
Among the findings:
- 62% of Americans believe higher education leaders are doing a fair or poor job to ensure higher education is worth the time and money. 44% believe that higher education leaders are doing a fair to poor job to ensure that students graduate with the skills and knowledge they need for citizenship and career.
- Six in 10 say colleges and universities “are increasingly becoming places of intolerance and political correctness.” The public is split 49% to 50% on whether higher education leaders—including boards of trustees—are doing a good job to ensure students are exposed to a multiplicity of perspectives from across the political spectrum.
- 81% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that all students should “take basic classes in core subjects such as writing, literature, math, science, economics, U.S. history, and foreign language.”
- Fully 71% of respondents believe the tenure system “contributes significantly to higher costs and lower education quality in American colleges and universities.”
- Nearly three out of four respondents believe that boards should not allow their institutions to surrender to pressure to withdraw speaking invitations to controversial speakers.
- 89% of respondents believe college is becoming out of reach for the middle class. Nearly three quarters do not believe that students get their money’s worth.
It is popular within some Ivy Halls to downplay the importance of independent governing boards in academia, but according to the GfK poll, the vast majority of American think that trustees play a critical role in shaping the direction of their institutions:
And whom do the American people want to take the lead in reforming higher education? Boards of trustees. An astounding 91% said it is the board’s responsibility to “take the lead in reforming higher education to lower costs and improve quality.”
There is a renewed interest in experimentation and design in education, and it is not just confined to campus planning offices and architectural firms trying to land the latest signature academic building project. Earlier this year, The New York Times described what happened when design icon Ideo was tasked with reinventing a failing school system in Peru. About the same time, Jeff Sellingo talked about a Stanford d.school project aimed at redesigning the undergraduate experience.
What emerged were four provocative ideas:
- The Open Loop University
- Paced Education
- Axis Flip
- Purpose Learning
As university systems consolidate campuses, close redundant programs and re-think the need for residential instruction, the timing is perfect for serious design in higher education. What is a regional campus, for example? Does it have to look like the poor cousin of a nearby public research university? Higher education is at the same inflection point that the media industry was in 1995, the start of the Internet era. It is naive to think that an evolutionary path will be any kinder to incumbent institutions than the Web was to newspapers.