Technology & Learning
Community
From the Facilitator
January 1997
Is It Time for “Campaign Reform”
in Community Colleges?
by Carol Cross, TLC Facilitator
The 1996 Conference on Information Technology (CIT) was an inspirational
event. Never have so many people been so interested in educational
technology, nor have the examples of model programs been so plentiful,
nor have the tools available to educators been so powerful, exciting,
and affordable. But the dynamism and possibility present at this
year's CIT stands in sharp contrast to the reality most of us see
every day in higher education. If your own experience doesn't deflate
some of your excitement, then perhaps the results of the 1996 Campus
Computing Survey (published in the January 1997 issue of Signals)
will; it tells us that less than 40 percent of community college
courses use information technology–even for the relatively traditional
task of developing handouts for classes. The most interactive technologies,
such as the Internet, or the most engaging instructional materials,
such as multimedia curricula, are used in less than 15 percent of
community college courses–and community colleges, on the whole,
are more likely to use information technologies in instruction than
any other segment of higher education!
At the conference, I was asked several
times by both faculty and administrators why, when the possibilities
are so great, the technologies are so advanced, the public's expectations
are so high, and the student needs are so extensive, more isn't
actually happening at the colleges. And the answer that popped into
my head was delivered by the raspy-voiced oracle of the movie All
the President's Men, the all-knowing Deep Throat: “Follow the money.”
When you “follow the money” in community
colleges, the Campus Computing Survey finds that barely 13 percent
of all institutions, including community colleges, include the use
of information technology as part of the faculty merit,
promotion, or tenure system. In addition, among the 54 model programs
described in the League's latest monograph on exemplary distance
education programs (see Page 4 for more detail), only one institution
mentioned the faculty reward system as an aspect of its distance
learning program (although some did discuss the issue of faculty
compensation). Finally, in perusing the conference program for the
League's Conference on Information Technology, I failed to find
one program description among the 300-odd forums, workshops, and
special sessions that explicitly addressed the issue of faculty
promotion and tenure systems related to the use of information technology.
Maybe it is time to take a hard
look at the money trail. We need to ask tough questions exploring
how much good faculty development, Internet training, authoring
software, and even infrastructure investment will do us if we continue
to base our reward structures on traditional modes of instructional
evaluation While every institution will have its renegades and innovators,
if we do not begin to address this issue, the bulk of the personnel
will continue to “follow the money” (as represented by the institutional
merit and promotion system); and, they will follow not just for
financial reasons, but because the reward system represents what
is truly valued by their peers and their superiors. Sadly, however,
our current reward system may not reinforce what the students and
the public want or need.
When you receive this newsletter,
the newly-elected Congress should be convening with the newly-re-elected
President. One of the key issues they will be talking about, driven
by public dissatisfaction with last year's election process, is
campaign reform. Educators should watch the debate closely, for
it is not far removed from the current faculty reward system quandary.
Like the current campaign funding legislation, the existing faculty
reward system was developed for priorities of the past and favors
the status quo. Not surprisingly, it is asking a lot of those who
have benefited from and believed in the traditional processes to
adopt a new methodology that will likely create uncertainty and
lead to marked change. It will take courage, commitment, and compassion
to leave familiar structures constructed for earlier times in order
to build anew for a 21st-century information society. And yet, for
those of us who truly believe in the potential of information technology
to keep access and excellence alive in community colleges, is there
anything else more important? Can we really accomplish anything
else of significance on our information technology campaign without
this reform?
Carol Cross,
TLC Facilitator
|
