Inter-Institutional Faculty
Senate
April Board Meeting, 2008
Good Morning Madam President Dyess, Vice President Blair,
Chancellor Pernsteiner, Directors, University Presidents, students, staff, and
guests:
Thank you for this opportunity to address you today.
It is the first week of spring term and allÕs well. The Spring
Break Effect looked good on the faces of
student this week. One could see the visible difference of what rest and
relaxation can do for a person.
There are many effects in life that are not quite as positive as the Spring Break
effect. For example there is the CSI Effect. The
effect is a reference to the phenomenon of popular television shows such as the
CSI franchise raising crime victims' and jury members' real-world expectations
of forensic science, especially crime scene investigation and DNA testing. Much of the concerns of the CSI Effect stem
from the "dramatic license" taken by the writers of forensic science
television--glamorizing the field, overstating the accuracy of forensic
techniques, and exaggerating the abilities of forensic science. This is said to
have changed the way many trials are presented today. Prosecutors are pressured to deliver more forensic evidence
in court and to do so in a Hollywood/media enriched fashion. CSI has had a much different effect
than the Law and Order shows. People who overestimate the reality-basis of CSI
may develop unreasonable expectations of actual forensic practitioners.
Although some of the technologies used on these fictional programs are found in
real crime labs, they often require much more time and deliver answers more
equivocal in real life than on television. Analysts worry that people will come
to believe that real criminalist and forensic science, has become as swift and
certain as we have always wished justice to be. DNA evidence in particular is
expected more and more by jurors whether it is relevant or not in a given case.
Some potential jurors find themselves, during the voir dire process, being asked whether they are viewers of shows such
as CSI.
Academia is also said to feel this effect. Universities have seen an increase in students enrolling in forensic
science and related science programs. There has been criticism from police
departments that, in an effort to increase their student numbers, universities offer
courses that will not adequately prepare students for the ÒReal expectations of
CSIÓ, leaving graduates unprepared for real-world forensic work. The CSI Effect in this situation brings
to light a much deeper probe that sending yet another effect rippling across
AmericanÉLetÕs set up the scenario for the scene.
Commission on the Future of Higher Education
The formation of a Commission on the Future of Higher Education, also known
as the Spellings Commission, was announced
on September 19, 2005 by then U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings.
The nineteen member Commission was charged with recommending a national
strategy for reforming post-secondary education, with a particular focus on how
well colleges and universities are preparing students for the 21st-century
workplace, as well as a secondary focus on how well high schools are preparing
the students for post-secondary education. In the report, released on September
26, 2006, the Commission focuses on four key areas: (1) access, (2) affordability (particularly
for non-traditional students), (3) the standards of quality in instruction, and (4) the accountability
of institutions of higher learning to
their constituencies (students, families, taxpayers, and other investors in
higher education). Since the report's publication, the implementation of the
recommendations has become known in some circles as the ÒSpellings EffectÓ on
Higher Education.
A significant motivation behind the Spellings Commission's was the fear that
the American higher education system is deteriorating and failing to prepare
the American workforce for the rigors and competitiveness of the globalized
marketplace. The Spellings Commission opens its report by stating that Òhigher
education in the United States has become one of our greatest success stories.Ó
but recently, as the commission bluntly states in its preamble, Ò[foreign
higher education systems] are passing us by in a time when education is more
important to our collective prosperity than ever.Ó The commission emphasizes
the relationship between industry, education, and the government.
One must also remember that Presidential commissions on education have been
relatively common since the Truman Report in 1947. Other commissions worth noting include President Eisenhower's ÒCommittee
on Education Beyond the High School, 1956Ó,
President Kennedy's Task Force on Education, 1960, and President Regan's National Commission on Excellence
in Education, which produced A
Nation at Risk, 1983.
The published SpellingÕs Commission report was titled A Test of
Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. It proposed several solutions to the problems
facing higher education today, corresponding to the four primary
concerns of the commission: access,
affordability, quality, and accountability.
According to the Spellings Commission, access to higher education "is
unduly limited by the complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of
information about college opportunities, and persistent financial
barriers" (Commission Report 5). The commission blames the lack of
communication between colleges and high schools as one source of the problem.
The report states that "forty-four percent of university faculty members
say students aren't well prepared for college-level writing, in contrast to the
90 percent of high school teachers who think they are prepared" and
"only 17 percent of seniors are considered proficient in mathematics, and
just 36 percent are proficient in reading." In response to this, the
Commission proposed linking the
expectations of college professors for incoming freshman to the criteria
required for students to graduate high school, and doing so by increasing
communication between the two groups. In
order to accomplish this, the Report "strongly encourages early assessment
initiatives that determine whether students are on track for college".
Affordability
Another dilemma that the commission notes regarding the access to higher
education is the availability for low-income families and, to a lesser extent,
students of minority groups. The report states that "there is ample
evidence that qualified young people from families of modest means are far less
likely to go to college than their affluent peers with similar qualifications."
In an effort to lessen the stress of paying for college, the commission's
report recommended shortening the FAFSA form to encourage more people to apply
for financial aid. The report also calls for greater productivity and
efficiency of the financial aid system. State funding for higher education has
fallen to the lowest levels the nation has seen in two decades, and the report
proposes that Universities be held accountable for their "spending
decisions... based on their own limited resources."
Quality
The report urges colleges and universities to embrace innovative ideas for
new methods of teaching to improve the quality of higher education. The report
also addresses the idea that organization and nation-wide reform are key parts
in repairing the ÒproblemsÓ of higher education. Modifying the curricula and
assessments on a nation-wide level would help distinguish students in the
academic world.
Accountability
Lastly, the commission proposes creating a public database, where statistics
and other information about colleges and universities could be viewed by all in
order to clarify the haziness of accountability. The information that would be
made available in the proposed database would include the cost, admissions
data, and college completion rates. The database could eventually even contain
data such as the "learning outcomes of students". The Commission
argues that colleges might have a more vested interest in the success of their students if this
information were made public to prospective students and their parents.
One must not forget to note that this report has been the target of
criticism.
Response to Report's Recommendations
But the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education's "Measuring
Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education" focuses on most of the same areas as Spellings
Commission report. The "report card" looks at individual states and
assesses the status of their higher education since 2000. Although the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education is not directly affiliated with
the commission, there is significant overlap in not only the areas of concern,
but in some of the membership. SpellingsÕ
is quoted as saying that she is proud her report has similarities to the
National Center's report.
The Department of Education addresses some of these anxieties on a
"Myth vs. Fact" page posted on the DOE Website. Some universities are beginning to use
and modify Learning Management Systems to create information systems that
provide for a means of articulating institutional, classroom and personal
learning outcomes at all levels as well as means to consistently rate
performance toward those objectives. Alternative solutions are being researched.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
OregonÕs underperformance in educating its young population could limit the
stateÕs access to a competitive workforce and weaken its economy over time. The
state continues to fall behind in enrolling students in college by age
19—and this rate has dropped by double digits since the early 1990s. The
proportion of students graduating from high school within four years has
declined, and proportionately fewer of those who do graduate enroll in college
directly after high school. Internationally, Oregon not only ranks very low in
the proportion of certificates and degrees produced, but is comparable to such
low-performing nations as Hungary and the Slovak Republic. Since the early
1990s, colleges and universities in Oregon have become less affordable for
students and their families. If these trends are not addressed, they could
undermine the stateÕs ability to compete successfully in a global economy.
2006 REPORT CARD
|
2006 REPORT CARD |
||||||||||||
|
As the CSI effect had its toll on highly publicized trials such as those of
Scott Peterson, Robert Blake and even O.J. Simpson it also drew many people
into forensics. TV networks like Court TV, Discovery Channel and A&E also
carry many programs depicting forensic investigations of actual cases, such as
Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, Body Of Evidence: and American Justice.
In our world of evidence-based practice, new expectations of
being able to identify best practices show how they are being achieved, and
measure and document change is more important than ever.
ChancellorÕs Expectations for the Learning Outcomes and
Assessment Project have been clearly articulated:
1.
Engage faculty in defining student learning outcomes
that really matter, teaching practices most effective in achieving them, and
valid/reliable methods of assessing them, and aligning this work in
collaboration with K-12 schools and community colleges.
2.
Connect this work in meaningful ways to the State
BoardÕs long term plan and system portfolio, specifically to mission-driven
standards and performance benchmarks for campus achievement evidenced by
measurable and timely results.
3.
Use language and numbers that make sense to
legislators, build understanding and trust, and compel state investment of
resources in postsecondary education, while having genuine meaning for students
and their learning.
In closing, as the IFS meetings today, the primary focus in understanding the New High School Diploma, our role as faculty to make the necessary connections to high school teachers, and work closely together for implementation of the new essential skills is priority for this 2008 year. On the OUS side, creating a process for which all the campuses understand their role in the Bigger Picture of the systems portfolio, aligning the performance-based outcomes from each campus mission statements, and documenting results the results as an OUS system are essential. Many of these results or EFFECTS campuses have been experiencing for years but not always documented and presented to the best of our ability. The PK-20 model allows strength in the argument for a better educated Oregonian. Maybe someday, The IFS report will be documenting the Oregon Effect on Education across the curriculum and how that model works.
Thank you.