A new approach to Texas journalism is getting cranked up, and you may want to have a look. It's the Texas Tribune, calling itself a "non-profit, nonpartisan public media organization," with promises to "promote civic engagement and discourse on public policy, politics, government, and other matters of statewide concern." 

So far it looks like the effort will devote considerable energy to legislative and education issues.

Web sites and blogs come and go these days (as print newspapers limp off to oblivion), but the new "Trib," has some momentum going for it. First, the editor-in-chief and CEO is Evan Smith, who spent nearly 18 years at Texas Monthly, stepping down in August as the magazine's president and editor. Second, the group has recruited an impressive stable of writers, who have begun to post some interesting blogs, particularly on public and higher education. Third, the project has received $750,000 in grants from Houston Endowment and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, just to get the operation rolling.

Since the advent of the Internet, media outlets have struggled to find a "business model" that works. Giant media companies such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are holding on, but some observers have maintained that the non-profit sector may need to step in.

Those who follow and care about the current downward spiral of public affairs journalism should be especially encouraged. The Trib's promotions insist that the new Web presence is not designed to replace local newspapers, but to help them, as local media outlets (even in the big cities) struggle to maintain solvency. State coverage of policy issues is particularly problematic.  

At first blush, the Texas Tribune looks impressive. Watch for TCCTA blog posts utilizing this new source. Here's the link. 

News stories have proliferated for many years that the United States is losing its global competitiveness because our college graduation rates are slipping.

However, a new report, The Spaces Between Numbers: Getting International Data on Higher Education Straight, finds that, while the proportion of U.S. beginning four-year college students who graduate from the same institution in six years is 56 percent, the proportion who graduate from any institution is 63 percent. That figure is comparable to France’s seven-year rate of 64 percent, the Netherlands’ seven-year rate of 65 percent, or Finland’s 7.5 year combination of 58 percent in universities and 70 percent in their polytechnics. These little known, but significant, facts about our nation’s graduation rates, are not new but are sometimes overlooked, according to an accompanying press release.

As for community colleges, according to the report: "The United States does not compare very favorably with other nations regarding associate’s degrees because our community colleges historically have taken on other missions that comparable institutions and programs in other countries have not assumed."

The report is from the Institute for Higher Education Policy, and is a publication from IHEP’s Global Performance Initiative, which aims to "create a new understanding of the rapidly changing global context for learning and credentialing in higher education, and the potential impact of these changes in the United States." Launched in 2007, the initiative has issued several publications focusing on global higher education through its online information resource center. The Global Performance Initiative is also supported by the Lumina Foundation for Education, an Indianapolis-based private foundation "striving to help people achieve their potential by expanding access to and success in education beyond high school."

So, if the overall report is correct, U.S. graduation rates remain comparable to those of other developed countries. The only major difference—the data most commonly highlighted, but rarely understood—is the categorization of graduation rate data. The United States measures its graduation rates by “institution” while other developed nations measure their attainment rates by “system.” 

The report claims that, upon analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and from other individual countries’ statistical agencies, a majority of OECD countries are producing the equivalent of bachelor’s degrees at roughly the same rate in roughly the same time span.

Mathematics and science instructors may wish to check out a free webinar that will be offered on Thursday, Nov. 12, from 12:30-1:30 p.m. CST. The registration deadline is Nov. 11, in order to receive a packet of material. The webinar is sponsored by the Hechniger Institute on Education and the Media, which is affiliated with Columbia Teachers College. The title is "America’s Math & Science Crisis: How to Fix It?" Much of the discussion will center upon secondary education, but will focus also on issues related to college preparedness and global competition. 

Speakers will include Michele Cahill from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Texas educational leader and businessman Tom Luce of the National Math and Science Initiative, and a representative from the U.S. Department of Education. 

Here's a link for more information. 

Turnout is expected to be low for today's statewide election, in which voters will choose whether or not to pass 11 amendments to the state Constitution. However, depending upon location, there are a lot of local measures on the ballot as well, including important bond elections for community colleges and independent school districts. 

One proposed constitutional amendment deals with higher education. It relates to the effort to develop more "Tier One" research universities. These school are seen as major contributors to prospective jobs and prosperity in the modern economy. UT-Austin and Texas A&M are the only such public universities presently, and the state is reportedly far behind in the competition for research grants and programs. 

Here's the ballot language: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund." 

The universities involved are Texas Tech University, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Texas at El Paso, University of Texas at San Antonio, University of Houston, and University of North Texas.

To enable these emerging research universities in Texas to achieve national prominence, this amendment would establish a new National Research University Fund. The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University would not be eligible to receive money from this fund.

The enabling legislation for this amendment would disperse the funds in the National Research University Fund to emerging research institutions through three mechanisms: the Research University Development Fund for educational and general activities that promote increased research capacity, the Texas Research Incentive Program to provide matching grants for donations from private sources, and the National Research University Benchmark Fund to reward universities that meet critical benchmarks toward achieving national prominence as major research universities.

The best source for non-partisan information on elections is the Texas League of Woman Voters. Here's their Voter Guide, which may be printed and taken into the voting booth on election day. 

Every faculty member has had to contend with students who try to talk their way into a higher grade. A syllabus can be clear and precise, with the grading system spelled out in air-tight language, and you'll still get the occasional appeal or confrontation. Some believe the phenomenon is growing more common, while others believe it's always been part of the territory. One instructor at a recent TCCTA event said that students have adopted a "Philadelphia lawyer" mentality (with apologies to attorneys from the City of Brotherly Love) in seeking out loopholes to exploit.

Laurie Fendrich is a professor of fine arts at Hofstra University and a regular blogger for the Brainstorm section of the Chronicle of Higher Education. In a recent post (also available on page B2 of the Chronicle Review insert of the Oct. 30 edition of the CHE), she expands on the issue, getting into the thorny question of whether the humanities have adopted grading standards that are "mushy" in comparison to the "hard" sciences. She traces the problem back to the 60s, with its emphasis on equality instead of commerce and competition. "In an age where professors and students are almost equals," she writes, "what's astonishing isn't that some students brazenly try to simply negotiate their grades upwards. Rather, it’s a wonder all students don’t come knocking for a higher grade."

The blog has drawn some interesting comments as well. Here's the link (subscription).

On Thursday, Oct. 29, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board unanimously approved rules to implement HB 2504, a new law that requires all higher education institutions to post detailed course information on their Web sites. As testimony before the board indicated, much of the information, in particular course syllabi and curriculum vitae of faculty, is already published or posted, in compliance with guidelines of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

However, for faculty and supervisors the most controversial requirement of the new statute is the following language:

Institutions of higher education included in this section shall conduct end-of-course student evaluations of faculty and develop a plan to make evaluations available on the institution's website.

HB 2504 was enacted in the waning hours of the 2009 Regular Session. For background on this important issue, please read this previous post. The text of the bill is available here. 

Testimony by Coordinating Board staffer MacGregor Stephenson confirmed that schools are not required under the law to post student evaluations by any stipulated time, but each college and university must develop a plan to do so. The deadline for the plan is August 2010 (the board's rules extended the deadline from January because of an inconsistency in the statutory language). Importantly, this means that institutions will determine the format and scope of their evaluation instruments.

It is vital that faculty members on each campus participate in this process to help insure that the evaluations represent a valid assessment of faculty, do not jeopardize academic rigor, and do not violate the privacy of students and teachers. If you have information to share on this subject regarding current efforts at your school to formulate an evaluation plan, please send it to snelson@tccta.org, so it can be reported to colleagues around the state as appropriate. 

Experienced faculty members often grimly answer this question in the affirmative, judging by the chat around the campfire at professional gatherings such as the recent TCCTA Fall Conference for Faculty Leaders. It seems to many teachers that standards were once higher, students were more deferential, and young people had a more modest sense of entitlement "back in the day." 

Not so fast, say a couple of commentators in Inside Higher Ed. Here's the link to the entire article. 

Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.and David B. Strohmetz are educators at Monmouth University. They point to plenty of evidence (albeit anecdotal) that professors were worried over the quality of their students a long time ago, pointing out, for instance, that "a faculty report once concluded that 25 percent of students admitted to Harvard in 1897 did not have the writing skills necessary to succeed in college." 

Historians might add that, during colonial days, drunkenness, laziness, and slovenly behavior were deemed by college administrators to be approaching epidemic proportions—at highly selective schools no less. Going even further back (to put it mildly), some scholars have argued that Plato's Republic was written out of deep concern over the dismal academic preparation and character of Athenian youth. The book presents some rather drastic views on education, after all, so there must have been a problem to begin with.

Has there ever been a generation of "seasoned" teachers who heartily approved of their contemporary cohort of young students? It's an interesting question, though any putative answer won't solve the problem of today's high attrition or low scores in algebra. 

The authors of the Inside Higher Ed. piece also point out that most college professors were probably good students when they went to school, so perhaps they tend to judge today's students by an unfair yardstick. And wouldn't we have checked our cell phones for messages constantly—and irritatingly—if we possessed them back then? But technology is a whole other conversation.  

Here's a passage:

"If students are not ideal scholars, there must be a good reason for how this came to be. A common explanation for students’ shortcomings involves generational differences. But it seems too easy to merely conclude that the students of today, "generation me," are qualitatively different than students of the past. We must remember that when we compare students past and present, we may be using an unfair comparison group. We run the risk of using our own past experience as the default comparison group. This presents two problems. First, our recollection of our own college experience may suffer from retrospective biases where we recall things more favorably than they were. Did we really do all of our reading? Did we really avoid procrastinating? Did we truly devote ourselves to our coursework? Were we really attentive in class 100 percent of the time? Certainly, we are prone to some degree of rosy retrospection."

A few disruptive students can poison the learning environment of a whole class. Some faculty members have stated unabashedly that they prefer teaching online, just to avoid the face-to-face rudeness, chattering, ringing cell phones, and disrespect that increasingly creep into the traditional classroom. (As we all know, rudeness is entirely possible online too—and some say it's more extreme.) 

Faculty who discuss the issue calmly and analytically often point to various contemporary symptoms in related settings (such as in obnoxious behavior during movies, concerts, speeches, and other public events), and the likelihood that many first-generation students have not yet absorbed the norms traditionally associated with a college class. Today's students are often unfamiliar with the term "syllabus," for instance, and occasionally are indignant when examinations can't be retaken.

Diagnosis is easier than treatment, of course.

ProfHacker is a blog that delivers tips, tutorials, and commentary on pedagogy, productivity, and technology in higher education. A recent series of posts involves the hypothetical presentation of a disruptive classroom scenario, with suggestions from readers on how they might handle a similar situation. Veteran instructors will recognize the scenarios immediately, and may find some useful tips on how to deal with various situations. The contributors are practitioners. Importantly, the blog makes it plain that its purpose is not to complain about students.

Here's the link. 

ProfHacker is especially strong on technology issues, and publishes Monday-Friday. 

The Professional Development Seminar at the annual TCCTA convention will feature "Brain Research and the Community College," presented by Janet Zadina, a cognitive neuroscientist, reading specialist, and former high school and community college instructor. The presentation will be Friday, March 5, 2010, from 1:00-2:15pm, at the Westin Galleria Hotel in Houston. The event is sponsored by the TCCTA Professional Development Committee, chaired by David Lydic, Austin Community College.

Dr. Zadina received her doctorate in the College of Education at the University of New Orleans, conducting her award-winning dissertation research on the neuroanatomy of dyslexia through collaboration with Tulane University School of Medicine. She continued her postdoctoral education with a fellowship in cognitive neuroscience in the department of psychiatry and neurology at the Tulane University School of Medicine where she researched neuroanatomical risk factors for developmental language disorders through MRI brain scans.   

She is currently engaged in neuroscience research as an assistant professor in cognitive neuroscience in the department of psychiatry and neurology at Tulane, and in Psychology at the University of South Florida. Dr. Zadina is the author of Six Weeks to a Brain-Compatible Classroom, a workbook for educators, among other books.  She is the founder of the Web resource, Brain Research and Instruction, and has presented keynotes and workshops internationally on brain research and instruction. Here's the Web site.