Tag: Cutting

  • UNL Proposes Cutting Educational Administration Department

    UNL Proposes Cutting Educational Administration Department

    In an effort to address a deep deficit caused by rising costs, declining international enrollment and flat state funding, University of Nebraska–Lincoln officials have proposed merging or cutting a slew of programs. But one proposal has sparked particular outrage—within the university and beyond: the plan to ax the educational administration department.

    If the plan goes through, faculty members and students worry the state will be left without a key pipeline to fill leadership roles at local schools and colleges, particularly in rural areas. The University of Nebraska–Lincoln is the only university in the state that offers a Ph.D. program in educational leadership or higher education, which has a distinct scholarly focus, while Ed.D. programs and master’s degrees to train education leaders can be found elsewhere.

    “It’s hard for me to imagine the flagship university in a state does not offer a program to prepare future principals, future superintendents, future leaders of colleges and universities,” said Crystal Garcia, an associate professor and Ph.D. coordinator in the department. Eliminating the department would be “really doing a disservice to education as a whole in the state of Nebraska.” She noted the department is “incredibly impactful,” serving 316 current and incoming graduate students.

    Administrators have proposed nixing five other academic programs as well: community and regional planning; earth and atmospheric sciences; landscape architecture; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design. The plan would potentially retain the master’s degree program in educational administration but rehouse it elsewhere.

    Through these cuts, the university aims to reduce the budget by $27.5 million, in part by eliminating 58 roles—17 from the educational administration department, including tenured and tenure-track positions. University officials also proposed two department mergers and budget cuts to the College of Engineering and the College of Arts and Sciences, amid other cuts to administrative and staff expenses.

    The proposal will now be considered by the Academic Planning Committee, a group of faculty, staff and students. Members of affected programs can make their case before the committee in live-streamed hearings, and the public can weigh in through a feedback form. Then, the APC will come out with recommendations the chancellor can take or leave. If the chancellor decides to move forward with the proposed cuts, the issue will come before the Board of Regents in December.

    Elizabeth Niehaus, a professor in the educational administration department, said faculty were stunned by the news and are preparing to defend the department to the committee—and the Board of Regents if need be. She and other faculty members believe the department is thriving.

    The proposed cut was “quite honestly shocking, because we are a strong department with great students, great faculty, with a national reputation, folks who have been winning awards for teaching and research,” Niehaus said. “So, we did not see that coming.”

    The Decision-Making Process

    The university’s executive team undertook “a strategic, data-informed and holistic review of all academic programs,” said Mark Button, UNL’s executive vice chancellor.

    The review weighed a variety of metrics, he said, including student success outcomes—such as retention rates and degree-completion rates over a five-year period—the ratio of student enrollments to faculty members, and demand for programs as measured in student credit hours and students joining majors.

    Administrators also drew on metrics for research success used by the Association of American Universities; the university is seeking to regain membership in the organization, which it lost in 2011. Those measures include book publications, research citations and awards and fellowships. Administrators also compared programs to similar programs at other public AAU institutions, Button said, and considered more qualitative factors, like whether a program was distinctive in the state. The metrics were shared with college deans and then department chairs in May.

    Button said the metrics used to review the academic programs reflected priorities already in the university’s strategic plan and the criteria used for past budget reductions. Education administration was among the departments that “didn’t perform as well,” he said.

    Faculty members argue the process lacked transparency; they didn’t know until a day before the proposal came out that the department was on the chopping block. They say their specific questions have gone unanswered, including which particular measures caused them to fall short and whether the pandemic years were contextualized in the data.

    “We were reduced to a single number that definitely does not reflect the depth and breadth of what we do and our contributions to the field, to the university, to the state,” Niehaus said of the scoring process.

    The decision felt so at odds with how the department sees itself that associate professor Sarah Zuckerman said she wondered if it was being targeted for its outspoken faculty members. Zuckerman, who serves as president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said other members of the department are also active in the organization, as well as in Advocating for Inclusion, Respect and Equity, a faculty coalition focused on diversity issues.

    “It gives me a little bit of a nauseous feeling,” Zuckerman said.

    Button argued it’s “definitively not true” that the proposed cuts target outspoken departments. He said the proposal involved “very painful decisions.”

    “I probably can’t underscore enough just how difficult this budget-reduction process is for our entire university community and for everyone who’s committed to an outstanding land-grant, flagship, Big Ten university here in Nebraska,” Button said. “I share the sense of pain and grief that everyone on our campus is going through now.”

    If the cuts become a reality, tenured and tenure-track professors will have a year’s notice of their termination and the university has promised to develop teach-out plans for students. But students don’t have the details of those plans, and some said the uncertainty makes them ill at ease.

    Korrine Fagenstrom, who is participating in the online Ph.D. program focused on higher ed administration from Montana, said she doesn’t know what she’s going to do.

    Four years into her program, she doesn’t want to leave, she said, but “I don’t know what it would look like to stay—I don’t know that anybody does.”

    “The idea of the program getting eliminated at my final hour is terrifying,” said Kathryn Duvall, a third-year student in the Ed.D. program. “I have made sacrifices to my family. I have made sacrifices to my own personal life and dedicated years to getting my education. And this program has spent years pouring into me and developing me as a researcher, as a writer, as an educator, as a leader.”

    She also worries on a “macro level” that education in the state will suffer without the leadership training UNL provides.

    “Eliminating a program like this is eliminating foundational training that produces equitable educational opportunities in our society,” Duvall said.

    The Bigger Picture

    University officials argue that other offerings in the state, such as Ed.D. programs at University of Nebraska–Omaha or small private universities, can fill the same needs as UNL’s educational administration programs.

    But K–12 superintendents, who generally have doctorates, need more—not less—access to the affordable, high-caliber training public institutions like UNL historically provide, said Mónica Byrne-Jiménez, executive director of the University Council for Educational Administration. The proposal to cut the department has garnered national attention, because it’s an unusual move for a flagship campus or a university with a Research-1 Carnegie classification, she added.

    “It’s nothing I’ve seen before,” Byrne-Jiménez said, noting most R-1 universities boast strong K–12 and higher ed leadership programs. “We don’t want it to become a national trend.”

    Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, said that while UNL is a “unique case,” she has seen a growing number of education schools or colleges merge with other programs over the last decade. The Iowa Board of Regents also approved plans last week to end the University of Iowa’s graduate and doctoral programs in elementary education, secondary education, special education and science education.

    She worries that federal funding cuts, particularly to teacher training grants and Institute of Education Sciences contracts, is going to thrust more universities into positions where they consider taking such actions.

    Byrne-Jiménez said such programs may be extra vulnerable at a time when Americans are questioning the value of higher education and schools are “hyperscrutinized.” Educational administration programs also tend to attract smaller cohorts, she said, because a select few want to go into education leadership roles. She fears their size, combined with national skepticism, makes them susceptible to budget cuts. But she believes these programs have an outsize effect on the long-term success of state residents that needs to be considered.

    “From an external perspective, it looks like these are small, sort of niche programs that might not be generating a lot of money for the university,” she said. But “the impact is great.” At UNL, “those 300 students are going to go out to 300 schools and 300 communities.”

    Source link

  • Why are universities cutting languages? – Campus Review

    Why are universities cutting languages? – Campus Review

    The University of Tasmania’s (UTAS) move to cut its Indonesian language program amid plummeting enrolments has been described as “shortsighted” and “strategically incoherent” by a long-running provider of study tours to the Southeast Asian country. 

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How will cutting NAEP for 17-year-olds impact postsecondary readiness research?

    How will cutting NAEP for 17-year-olds impact postsecondary readiness research?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    With the U.S. Department of Education’s cancellation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 17-year-olds, education researchers are losing one resource for evaluating post-high school readiness — though some say the test was already a missed opportunity since it hadn’t been administered since 2012.

    The department cited funding issues in its cancellation of the exam, which had been scheduled to take place this March through May.

    Since the 1970s, NAEP has monitored student performance in reading and math for students ages 9, 13 and 17. These assessments — long heralded as The Nation’s Report Card — measure students’ educational progress over long periods to identify and monitor trends in academic performance.

    The cancellation of the NAEP Long-Term Trend assessment for 17-year-olds came just days before the Trump administration abruptly placed Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics and as such, the public voice of NAEP, on paid leave.

    Carr has worked for the Education Department and NCES for over 30 years through both Republican and Democratic administrations. President Joe Biden appointed her NCES commissioner in 2021, with a term to end in 2027.

    The decision to drop the 2025 NAEP for 17-year-olds also follows another abrupt decision by the Education Department and the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut about $881 million in multi-year education research contracts earlier this month. The Education Department had previously said NAEP would be excluded from those cuts.

    Compounding gaps in data

    “The cancellation of the Long-Term Trend assessment of 17-year-olds is not unprecedented,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications for the Education Department, in an email.

    The assessment was supposed to be administered during the 2019-20 academic year, but COVID-19 canceled those plans.

    Some experts questioned the value of another assessment for 17-year-olds since the last one was so long ago.

    While longitudinal studies are an important tool for tracking inequity and potential disparities in students, the NAEP Long-Term Trend Age 17 assessment wasn’t able to do so because data hadn’t been collected as planned for more than a decade, according to Leigh McCallen, deputy executive director of research and evaluation at New York University Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools.

    “There weren’t any [recent] data points before this 2024 point, so in some ways it had already lost some of its value, because it hadn’t been administered,” McCallen said.

    McCallen added that she is more concerned about maintaining the two-year NAEP assessments for 9- and 13-year-olds, because their consistency over the years provides a random-sample temperature check.

    According to the Education Department’s Biedermann, these other longitudinal assessments are continuing as normal.

    Cheri Fancsali, executive director at the Research Alliance for New York City Schools, said data from this year’s 17-year-olds would have provided a look at how students are rebounding from the pandemic. Now is a critical time to get the latest update on that level of information, she said.

    Fancsali pointed out that the assessment is a vital tool for evaluating the effectiveness of educational policies and that dismantling these practices is a disservice to students and the public. She said she is concerned about the impact on vulnerable students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds and underresourced communities.

    “Without an assessment like NAEP, inequities become effectively invisible in our education system and, therefore, impossible to address,” Fancsali said. 

    While tests like the ACT or SAT are other indicators of post-high-school readiness at the national level, Fancsali said they offer a “skewed perspective,” because not every student takes them.

    “The NAEP is the only standard assessment across states and districts, so it gives the ability to compare over time in a way that you can’t with any other assessment at the local level,” Fancsali said.

    Fancsali emphasized the importance for parents, educators and policymakers to advocate for the need for an assessment like NAEP for both accountability and transparency.

    LIkewise, McCallen said that despite the lack of continuity in the assessment for 17-year-olds, its cancellation offers cause for concern.

    “It represents the seriousness of what’s going on,” McCallen said. “When you cancel these contracts, you really do lose a whole set of information and potential knowledge about students throughout this particular point of time.”

    Source link

  • Cutting In Line for Faculty Appointments

    Cutting In Line for Faculty Appointments

     


    Cutting in Line

    You
    might think that law professors are sticklers for following the rules. In fact,
    the opposite is true. They do not regard rules, and especially University
    Regulations as applying to them. I have seen this applied to tenure standards
    and the composition of committees. I’d have to say in fairness to  law professors, it is clear that Universities
    ignore their own rules and even state law when it suits them.

    There
    are many example, but one that stands out is hiring spouses. Under state and
    federal law as well as university regulation when a position is open it must be
    publicly advertised. This is in part to make sure there is no favoritism and so
    that people of all genders and races have a chance to apply.

    The
    usual hiring season takes place in the fall and winter. So it was with some
    surprise that Dean Bob came to the faculty with a candidate for an
    environmental law position in the Spring. He said the University President wanted us to hire
    her. She  had not gone through the usual
    recruitment process, we did not need a teacher in the area, and we had not
    given public notice of the availability of a position. The faculty resisted so
    to some extent and the Dean explained that the medical school wanted to hire
    her husband and part of the deal was that we hire his wife. When asked what the
    consequences were if we did not hire her his answer was “catastrophic.” The
    faculty voted to make an offer although no one knew what catastrophic meant.
    She accepted the offer, basically saying to other would be applicants “Get the fuck out of my way? Don’t you know who I sleep with?” and  with the understanding most or all of her salary would
    be paid by the central administration and the med school. In effect, a job for
    her was part of the salary of the hot shot med school hire. No way around this. 

    After
    she was hired, in order to “comply” with State, federal and university
    regulations, a public notice of the job was issued. Twenty people applied. What
    they did  not know is that the School had
    violated the law and already hired someone for the job opening they were just
    hearing about. I raised the issue with several people in an effort to determine
    who had made the decision to violate the law and the response was dead silence. Law schools are experts at the “coverup.” But this story has an even less happy ending. Within two years the hot shot med
    school hired decided he hated it at the med school and  the school was left with someone who would not
    have been hired teaching in an area that was already covered. The last I heard
    she had moved to who knows where with her husband but was still on the faculty
    teaching remotely or occasionally. 

    When
    the rules are bent to allow spouses to cut in line one question that comes up
    is what to do if the couple splits up. Actually there is answer to that – you
    do nothing. So, in many instances, the spouse cuts in line through some
    unlawful act of the university or law school, is hired and then stays even
    though the rationale for hiring him or her has long since disappeared. Remember
    that the trailing spouse’s job was a form of income the person who was sought
    after. Evidently, that income is retained even who the sought after person is
    divorced, quits, or dies.

                Often when the spouse is hired he or
    she is in a different department. This raises the question of what happens of
    one spouse gets tenure and the other one does not. If one department really
    wants to retain the performing spouse, then the standards have be lowered for
    the other one.

                Maybe the most unusual spouse issue
    I have seen involved a professor who was hired on the merits.  His wife was hired to take the position as a
    legal writing instructor which is lower paying job with no promise of eventual
    tenure. The wife and husband desperately wanted for the wife to be elevated to
    a regular faculty position. She wrote articles and applied through the normal
    process. The husband was a decent teacher and good scholar but a bit of a jerk so
    there was not going to be a free pass. 
    After going through the process and being interviewed, she was not made
    an offer. It is entirely possibly that the collective hope was that if she were
    rejected maybe the husband would leave. The problem was his jerkiness was
    pretty widely known and he was not likely to be recruited. Personally, I liked
    him because, in his own way, he too was an outsider and spoke truths no one wanted to hear.

                It is an understatement to say they
    were bitter. It was a great example of the sense of entitlement of people who
    graduate from elite schools have. She was very upset about being a lowly
    writing instruction although their combined income was quite high. For some
    reason and  am not sure why, their
    bitterness became aimed at each other. Their divorce would make most messy
    divorces seem amicable. She eventually did get a regular teaching position at a 
    low ranking school.

                Remember those articles she wrote while
    hoping for a job at her ex husbands school?

    Well
    shortly after the breakup he began listing them as having been “ghost written”
    or ghost co-authored by himself. In short, he was now claimed that they had
    dishonestly represented as her work he had done as her work. The raised a bit
    of an ethical question. Were they both lying or just him when he claimed to
    have written he article with her name on them. Always wishing to make a bad
    situation worse, the battle between exes took to the internet when he sent an
    email with the subject “ungrateful bitches.” That pretty much put an end to any
    chance he had to move up through the law school ranks. In fact, when this all
    happened it was rumored that he had a visiting offer from Harvard. That was
    withdrawn.

    Source link