We are currently debating the future of our shared governance process, which will change our governance structure irrevocably. There has been vigorous debate on both sides necessary to make an informed decision. The AAUP is appealing to your strength and courage during these tenuous times. Courage is not the absence of fear but the absence of self. So we ask you to be courageous and to look beyond any fears towards hope. Hold fast to shared governance. Vote No.
Professor Jason Gorman’s comments at the Academic Senate meeting on April 18th, 2017:
As you heard, for over half a century since NCC’s beginnings of shared governance, the Academic Senate has been commended for its effectiveness and collegiality as a major component of governance at NCC. Even recently, in the April 16th Middle States evaluation report, the Academic Senate, its bylaws and its committees have been commended for its role in shared governance and academic freedom. Here are some of the things Middle States has said:
From the April 16, 2016 Report from Middle States,
“The Academic Senate Bylaws of the College address the need to maintain academic freedom and integrity including the charge of the standing committees’ professional practices. [Page 15]
“The system of committees and forums aspires to ensure a campus environment that encourages academic freedom and inquiry.” [Page 14]
“The by-laws of the Academic Senate ensure broad representation by students, faculty and administration in Mission review.” [Page 5]
“Policy and procedure for the development, review, assessment and revision of the curriculum are clearly outlined in the by-laws of the Academic Senate and constitute the primary responsibility of the Curriculum Committee. Faculty clearly take a lead role in designing, maintaining and updating curricula.” [Page 22]
Both the NCCFT and the Academic Senate Executive Committee have stated the significance of the revision of the Academic Senate Bylaws, how it would alter governance at NCC and referred to the proposed revisions as marginalizing the Academic Senate to a “forum.” Earlier this year I said at the Academic Senate that we must find a balance between Dr. Keen saving us and saving ourselves. Today is a most important day with the forthcoming vote. I submit to you that a forum is not a governance body. The faculty must participate in formulation of academic policy. Not just with authoring, but with authorizing.
Middles States had only two simple comments on the Academic Senate Bylaws which I put in a comment at the NCCFT blog. They are:
From the April 16th report,
“This section of the NCCFT contract and the Academic Senate Bylaws appear to conflict with Article II: Procedure of the Academic Senate Bylaws.”
“These statements, along with the complex process for Presidential veto and Academic Senate veto override have coalesced to form a difficult process for effective and efficient policy making decisions to occur on campus.”
As with Board of Trustees policy 1300 and the removal of the words “Academic Senate,” the current proposed revisions of the bylaws go far beyond what Middle States has indicated. I am sorry to say that they obliterate shared governance completely. They are a risk to academic freedom and most importantly they put students’ education at risk. The revisions as proposed also risk compliance with Middle States. They warned us of the dangers of this:
From the April 16th report, “This lack of a functioning shared governance structure may lead to issues with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.” [Page 14]
I call upon the NCCFT and ASEC to support shared governance. I and others do not support the bylaws revisions as proposed. None of us should.
As we are all well aware local, state and federal budgets have, over a number of years now, severely cut funds to public higher education. The proposed state and federal budgets continue that trend. Under the recommended state budget NCC would lose $2.5 million dollars and the proposed federal budget would severely slash monies, which go to health, research, the arts and humanities as well as sustaining public higher education. NCC, like so many public institutions of higher learning, is at a financial breaking point. The reality is that our students will suffer by being asked to bear higher tuition costs and faculty as well as the college community as a whole, will now be asked, yet again, do even more with less. This is an unsustainable educational and economic model.
Please click on the link and sign the open letter opposing the proposed federal budget. The time has come for faculty to step up and speak out.
On Thursday March 2, 2017 the NCC AAUP took thirty-six students to Albany, New York for the annual Higher Education Lobby Day. Our students joined with other students from across the SUNY and CUNY campuses to advocate for their education. The annual Higher Education Lobby Day saw record attendance. We started the day by joining with other students at a pep rally and then broke into smaller groups to meet with legislators. Each group met with four legislators and our students gave testimony regarding how the cost of higher education has personally impacted them and what higher education means to them and their futures. Our students were eloquent and impressive in their testimony. It was a great day and the entire NCC community should be proud of how well these students represented themselves and Nassau Community College.
Please go to the link to stand with your colleagues across the nation and here at NCC against the Muslim Ban:
Upon review of the proposed Board of Trustees policies, we are concerned about draft Policy 6100 “Detecting and Reporting Fraud.” https://www.ncc.edu/aboutncc/ourpeople/board_of_trustees/pdfs/BOT_Policy_SECTION_6100.pdf) Although to our knowledge, this policy has not been placed on a Board committee’s agenda, we would like to offer comments at this time so that our concerns can be considered during committee discussion.
Draft Policy 6100 makes reporting, “known or suspected fraud or irregularities” an affirmative obligation of every NCC employee. However, this policy deviates from the requirements set out in the SUNY Fraud Reporting Policy. http://system.suny.edu/compliance/fraud-reporting/fraud-policy/
- SUNY requires “each campus…to establish an easily accessible mechanism (fraud hotline) such as a toll free number, e-mail address, or facsimile number that individuals can use to report…” along with a guarantee of “limited confidentiality.” Policy 6100 does not provide for either.
- Policy 6100 should affirmatively offer “Whistleblower Protection” as in the SUNY policy.
- Policy 6100 is confusing and contradictory and places an onerous burden on the reporting employee. Policy 6100 applies a “due care” and “reasonable certainty” standard for reporting. It also contains the contradictory admonition that the employee “…not try to question anyone nor investigate…” while at the same time warning the reporting employee to “…take due care and thought, and make all effort to acquire reasonable certainty prior to reporting.” These requirements are mutually exclusive rendering the Policy’s requirements confusing and vague.
Moreover, while the Policy makes reporting an affirmative responsibility with NCC employees subject to disciplinary action for its violation, this reporting standard deviates from SUNY’s “Good Faith “ standard. The SUNY policy “…protects those who make a report, even if that report turns out to be incorrect. If the reporter, given the facts they had at the time, believed that the fraud they were reporting was true, they will be afforded protection from any retaliation.” This is an entirely different standard than the one this policy will apply here at NCC.
December 12, 2016
By Janet Farrell Leontiou, Ph.D.
Recently, I attended a film screening at our local public school. The film, “Most Likely to Succeed,” (produced by Ted Dintersmith and One Potato Productions, 2015, and directed by Greg Whiteley.) This is a new entry into a growing genre of films offering critique of American public education. The film establishes, like most, that school is failing our kids. The film is well done and shows that public school, how it is structured now, now longer works. The film demonstrates that public school in America was invented in response to supplying workers to industry. The filmmakers make clear that we are living in the post-industrial age and therefore, our thinking of school needs to evolve into a more relevant institution. Instead of school preparing people for the assembly line, the film argues that school should now serve a high-tech workplace. What if we could best prepare our children for being in the world without looking to business to define education?
We keep getting school wrong because we look to business for a definition instead of defining education on its own terms for its own sake. The film critiques a version of public school but then ends up replacing the model with a newer version of the same model. The film features High Tech High in California. The narrative is shaped around two very engaging students: Samantha and Brian. Throughout the film, we see their transformation and we celebrate their successes. The classroom, in High Tech High, can best be described as modeled after a Google lab and the teachers are more like managers than teachers. The structure of the school is loose. There are no designated subjects or class periods. The teachers do not have tenure and their contracts are renewed annually. Although the film suggests that this arrangement is mutually preferred by both teachers and school administrators, it models a corporate strategy of hiring contract workers. All of the teachers in the film are extremely likable; there is tremendous good will toward their students.
In one of the first scenes at the school, the teacher instructs the students to assemble the tables and chairs. He then leaves them to figure out how to accomplish the task. Student autonomy does not necessarily translate to hands-on learning. In the film, students are expected to find out what they need when they need it. The Socratic method is called Socratic not only because there is an emphasis on questions but also because it was modeled after Socrates who led the conversation. The film makes clear that we do not know what the workplace will look like in the future and this is the motive behind the creation of a school that emphasizes: collaboration, independent research, creativity, and risk taking. The school year culminates in a showcase of collaborative student work. The work is beautiful and impressive. I am left asking the question: why can’t we create an environment like this but keep a traditional curriculum and see the teacher as the authority–as the one who is the author of the educational encounter. Why can’t we have the socratic seminar with Socrates?
I have taught at a community college for the last twenty years. In the classroom, I have worked to create my version of education as many educators have done. The word “education” means to lead out from darkness. I see it as separate from training. Training means to drag; it means we are always following something or someone. On the locomotive train, school is the caboose. I invite my students to engage with the educational process at any point that interests them. I teach to their interests and drop in the pedagogy as I go along. I ask that we all let go of the end product and make a commitment to learning for its own sake. I ask my students to wonder about what kind of work they envision for themselves. I do ask them about jobs. Work comes from the Latin word opus, meaning something grand we produce with our lives. I tell them that they need not have the answer, only to ask the question. Getting them to ask questions is extremely difficult because they have little practice. What they most need to learn is to learn how to learn.
The film makes clear what I think we all know by now but we are stuck with a system that is very difficult to change. The test driven, meaningless culture of school is replicating a rat race mentality to school. We are all running on the gerbil wheel and in some cases, arguing that we cannot step off the wheel. Parents at the screening of the film in my community were anxious. We have been trained to think that school is the ticket to our kids’ financial success. Now, this genre of films suggests that the deal we have struck may not pan out as we imagined. I would like to see school disengage from business and define itself on its own terms. We have stripped meaning out of school.
“Most Likely To Succeed” does a good job of inserting meaning back into school. The meaning, however, grows out of the project based learning approach. I ask my students to create meaning by crafting a meaningful life. My students have been brainwashed into thinking that a diploma will get them money. A diploma is meaningless if you not received an education. No one becomes wealthy from wishing to be rich. Those people who become wealthy do so because they discover something that they love doing and if you love something, you tend to do it well. Our teacher in constructing meaning is Viktor Frankl and the text is Man’s Search for Meaning. He not only constructed meaning in his life but he did so under the seemingly impossible conditions as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. He writes on the topic of success and I wish his words could spawn a revision of school:
Don’t aim at success–the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it does so as the unintended side-effect of one’s dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success; you have to let it happen by not caring about it.
In other words, teach to the test and the students forget what they crammed after the test is over or teach by emphasizing meaning, students will be able to perform on a test.The test score is the by-product of having learned well and not the meaningless hurdle to jump over at the end of the race. It broke my heart to hear that my son’s fourth grade teacher gave a practice test every day to prepare them for the standardized test to come at the end of the school year. If it were me, that would have turned me away from school and away from learning. The teacher told the class that her reputation was on the line and her reputation was tied to the test scores. Needless to say, fourth grade became something to get through and get beyond.
We seem to think that because we live in a high-tech world, that our schools need to be high-tech as well. I think the opposite. The technology is there; it is not going away. Young people will be drawn to the new technology. In school, we need to stress conversation because our children have little exposure to unmediated communication. The spoken word is becoming a foreign language. Socrates recognized the power of the dialogue and saw it as the instrument for transformation. Socrates was wary of the use of new technology in his day. In our world, we tend to be uncritical of technology and think that more is better. He was speaking about the technology of the written word but his comments pertain to all technology. Of course without the existence of the technology he is arguing against, and his student, Plato, we would not have learned:
For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who earn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.
Socrates was most concerned with the learners’ soul. Just last week I met with two grammar school teachers to talk about a little girl who is like a daughter to me. The teachers explained that within the current environment of school, the children are encouraged to merely scan nonfictional texts to seek out relevant information. As I listened, I thought: how (and why) do we teach her how to engage in such a soulless, meaningless task so that she can perform well on the standardized test?
I received an education in a subject that most would now call antiquated–rhetoric. We no longer teach rhetoric even though it was once the foundation for all study. Before I returned to graduate school for a Ph.D., I was an assistant vice president at Chase. I had no preparation for business. I had a foundation in learning how to learn. If we do not know what the marketplace is to look like in the future, it seems that the most responsible thing to do for our kids is to engage them in the education process, model what it means to think, and learn how to learn. Then, no matter what the future holds, they will be able to adapt and move forward. Instead, we choose to constantly be in reaction to what the workplace demands school to be. This mentality will always put us behind because by the time we have answered those demands, the demands will change. This film is just another example of an educational system rushing to catch up. The film creates the argument that the old, post-industrial school model is out-of-date and needs to be replaced with a high-tech model of school. Same wine, different bottle.
 Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1959) 16-17.
 Plato, Phaedrus (New York: Penguin Classics, 2005) 274c-275b.