|
|
Dr. Christopher Levan |
I'm not in the driver's seat, so I can't know all the signals. But from the outside, the principal's decision looked particularly heartless. A small boy, Paul by name, captive in his own unique orbit and largely unable to cope with the rush and bustle of a regular classroom, is going to have his last prop pulled out from under his fragile world.
The argument is simple. The school's budget can't stretch to cover Paul's special needs. Anabel, his teacher's aide (TA), is toast. "It's time to get back into the regular classroom and make your own way. In a time of fiscal restraint, extraordinary expenditures are impossible."
I suppose it's a daily occurrence across the continent, but this one touched home. Paul had enjoyed and depended upon the assurance that his TA has provided over the past few months. According to his own reckoning, this very patient woman was one of the few hopeful signs on the horizon of his life.
Parents, both working and frayed at the edges and having three other children to mind, didn't seem to have the time to pierce his durable exterior and find the boy inside. Teachers and school functionaries were likewise overworked. To them he was a "problem." Of course, they would never tell him that directly. But the sighs he heard behind his back, the upward cast glances that he caught out of the corner of his eye all spoke of the weariness that his superiors felt when he came into range.
The message was clear enough: Paul takes work.
Consequently, losing the lifeline of Anabel's constant nurturing is a blow. A child who was coping, albeit with considerable effort, is now a financial burden. Parents are furious, Anabel is dismayed, and Paul is lost.
It is easy to stand at a distance and toss indignant darts at heartless bureaucrats who rob children of their chance in life. Paul's dilemma is not so much a clarion call to action as a parable about our world. He embodies the bottom lining of education and many other related enterprises.
The Alberta Advantage is not free. It is purchased on the backs of the diminished and powerless. If we stand firm on the expectation of a constantly increasing GNP, the economical imperative of growth and a social assumption of progress, the Pauls of our community will lose. Those people who do not fit, can not produce, or who require extra attention are anomalies in the system, placing a drag on our streamlined efficiency and lowering our performance indicators.
And let's be honest, Paul presents some industrial strength trials. He can't learn as quickly as others and he soaks up any teacher's time like a giant sponge. And his few mountaintop insights are separated by long stretches of wilderness reversals. No joke!
But when we choose to allow the economics of our culture to roll over and flatten folk like Paul -- the bumps in our smooth road to success -- we choose a one dimensionally shallow society. Is it not people like Paul who help us to appreciate the important aspects of living?
On the other hand, we must be careful not to patronize Paul and those like him, as if impairment has an implicit virtue. But he does force us to ask the ultimate questions of worth. Are our commonly held standards of achievement all that eternal? His dilemma makes me question the predominance of the principles of efficiency and productivity, as if speed and volume mattered in the end.
In the final analysis, education is not about an accumulation of facts, the rapid processing of data, or the fine tuning of industrial skills. It's about wisdom: the ongoing dialogue between playfulness, self-knowledge and the passion for a better world. It's about becoming good neighbors, brothers and sisters to all we meet.
Thank goodness for the Pauls who make the way of wisdom worthwhile because it's not the end result, the last line on the tally sheet that counts. In the end it's the journey that matters.
Will the U of A thrive and survive in the "new economy"? Members of the Academic Technologies for Learning (ATL) user group grappled online with the issue last week and agreed to share their discussion with Folio.
IS THE U OF A A "NEW ECONOMY COMPANY"?
DR. TERRY ANDERSON
Professor and Director of ATL, Faculty of Extension
Dr. Terry Anderson |
June 3, 1998. Reading the latest Wired magazine (June, P. 172) last night, I stumbled upon Wired's list of 40 companies that they believe will thrive in the "new economy." I mentally went through the list of criteria trying to assess the U. of A. on each.
One could argue that a university is not a company and that such comparisons are not useful. On the other hand schools like Phoenix University and the Graduate School of America are unabashedly "companies" and are competing directly with us in the teaching component of our mandate.
Anyway, here are the criteria.
A "new economy" company excels at
Anyone brave enough to venture a grade (on a U. of A. 9 point scale of course!) on our university's performance on the above?
I'LL BITE -- IT'S LUNCH HOUR ANYWAY
DAVE TRAUTMAN
ATL, Faculty of Extension
Dave Trautman |
June 3, 1998. Terry Anderson wrote:
1. Globalism: exploiting worldwide markets and open systems
We do exploit global markets for students. And we have a pretty open system for attendance and public use of facilities. We also try to make use of the conventional wisdom when it comes to keeping our "systems" from becoming self-centered and closed.
2. Communications: Building brands and mindshare networking (I have no idea what "mindshare networking" is, but plan to drop the phrase at the next cocktail party :-))
We are constantly working to build our brand name within Canada and our reputation in some circles is pretty darn good. Overseas we have to line up behind more well known brands like Harvard, Stanford, and the like.
Of course if people playing college aged kids in Hollywood movies were agonizing over which school to attend (Calgary or Edmonton) then perhaps more of the world would consider us an "important place" to be educated in. Perhaps we need product placement.
Mindshare is that business-babble marketing thing which obliquely refers to how well our "name" stays with people. I can think that within Edmonton the "U of A" is a high quality brand which easily comes to mind. In Lethbridge or Calgary their own local is likely to have more mindshare. If people spend any time thinking about the U of A as a result of reading the paper, or seeing us on TV or from something their neighbor said about us, then we have good mind share. Our trouble is we have a brand without a consumable. In that context mindshare is not something we can exploit to our advantage.
3. Innovation: Creating and utilizing new ideas: speed and agility
As a research institution I have to believe we are innovating and utilizing new ideas. I've had the fortune to have met some of the brightest and most innovative researchers on this campus in a whole range of disciplines and I think we have perhaps 15 of the best people on the planet in some areas and another larger number of (as yet) unrecognized leaders in their fields.
Our speed is not too good. Our agility leaves a lot to be desired. But as Terry cautioned, this is not private enterprise we're dealing with. Our accountability is to the parents of the children who attend our classes and not to a product consuming public. We really only need to be as agile or as fast as our competitors for these students. On this scale I think we're about even with the crowd.
4.Technology: Using new tools to maximum effect: adaptation
I think this university adapts pretty well. Not all of its faculty is on side with everything, but I think that just reflects the diversity which comes from our size. When taken against the kinds of technology implementations I've seen with really big companies in the past, I think the U of A leads. The U of A regularly uses tools long before mainstream conglomerates ever contemplate the invoice.
The Microelectronics Design Lab was a great example for me of this leading aspect. At the time the centre opened everyone I knew was talking about CAD and CAM innovations because of what was being written and reported from Japan and the United States. Students and faculty here could practice and learn and explore true CAD design technologies at a time when Douglas Cardinal was only beginning to replace his draftsmen with the digitizing tablet.
5. Strategic vision: Understanding how to be in the right place and stay there.
It's fairly easy to say the university's politic is much more democratic and consensual than with fast moving global reach corporations. If the vision of the founders of a company is lost or becomes unworkable over time there are catastrophic consequences when trying to improve or change it. It's a political thing. Our university chooses leadership at many levels and with many different priorities. Hopefully when things are working right the overall vision is adopted at other levels and the individual vision within a faculty or even within a department can operate without generating conflict between the levels.
Of course, in some ways we cannot avoid conflict within the kind of structure necessary to run a university. I think this university handles conflict within itself quite well. Of course I may not suffer the dire consequences of those conflicts in my line of work so perhaps I haven't enough experience to know of what I speak. As much as a "vision thing" actually contributes to the success of an organization (which is doubtful to me when I think of corporate visions) it really comes down to being able to realize all of the potential within an organization no matter what vision is adopted.
I give us a 7.5
THANKS TO FIVE BRAVE SOULS
DR. TERRY ANDERSON
Professor and Director of ATL, Faculty of Extension
|
Dr. Terry Anderson |
June 5, 1998. Thanks to five brave souls who responded to my "new economy" posting earlier this week. Dave Trautman's 7.5 was posted to this list. We received a high eight from an external friend of the university a "resounding failure" from another faculty member; a faculty member who gave us a seven or eight on innovation, but "much lower" on implementation and finally a comment that mirrors my own view, that seeks to separate our "score" between the teaching and research components of our organization.
I didn't need to ask Stephen Murgatroyd's opinion (see today's article in the Journal) who thinks we are an "anachronism."
My own views are related to the need for the U. of A. to climb out of its campus shell, and assert our presence and the value of our academic contributions on a global scale (see http://iroquois.ucs.ualberta.ca/HyperDispatch14/Distance-Education.html for an article that Randy Garrison and I wrote for Dispatch related to this view). I believe that our research performance is "world class" and continues to enhance our prestige and our capacity to serve our disciplines, the public and our students now, and in the "new economy."
|
However, despite our efforts at enhancing classroom delivery through "smart classrooms," video conference facilities and Internet support, we have a long ways to go on the teaching side of the house. We need a systematic program that ensures that the teaching function is truly valued, that admin and support systems are geared to support innovation in teaching, that incentives exist at the faculty, department and individual prof level, a marketing program that capitalizes on our teaching products and a commitment to insure (and measure our progress) as we become "leaders in learning."
It is only by ensuring excellence in teaching at all levels -- certificate, non-credit, undergraduate graduate, professional and continuing professional that we will continue to receive the support and funding necessary to maintain our research function. Further, we have to realize that teaching means more than classroom instruction. Learners desire and demand alternatives that match their learning styles, time commitments and geographical constraints.
I ramble on.... but welcome your comments.
THE VIEW FROM HONG KONG
DR. MARK GREEN
Professor (on Sabbatical, July 1 1997 to June 30 1998)
Department of Computing Science
Dr. Mark Green |
June 5, 1998. I meant to respond to Terry's original message but didn't have time (I know that's a common excuse).
I'm close to the end of a three-month visiting appointment at the City University of Hong Kong. The external view of the U of A has been quite interesting and I thought I would share my thoughts.
Within the academic community we have a very good reputation, both for research and teaching. Virtually every person I have talked to has a very high opinion of the U of A. This was very encouraging. The disappointing part, as usual, was our reputation outside of the academic community. Many of the British and Australian universities advertise very heavily here for students. There are some advertisements from Canadian universities, Toronto, McGill and Western seem to be the most common.
This point was really driven home to me by one of my relatives. They mentioned to me several British universities, which I had never heard of, and asked me why U of A wasn't near as good as these universities. While in reality, we are much better, the community that we are trying to recruit students from (and donations as well), doesn't know that. In this case advertising really pays!
This raises they thorny issue of how we should be promoting ourselves. As academics we like to be known by our contributions to our field. But, unfortunately, the general public doesn't see this, so we need some way of communicating that. How do we do that without looking like used car salesmen (used university salesmen :-))?
I wouldn't be as negative on the teaching side as Terry. Recently I had lunch with a young professor from another university in Hong Kong, and he gave me a long story about how teaching is used as a punishment at his university. While we may not reward good teaching enough, we certainly don't view teaching as punishment!
Since we are slightly isolated up in Edmonton, there is a tendency to have a more negative view of our situation than is really the case. It's hard for us to get out to lunch with someone from a different university to get another perspective on our problems.
I think the most important thing for us to do at the present time is to build more contacts between departments and faculties. This will give us more opportunities to exchange ideas, build on each other's expertise, and possibly show our students that there is something in common between the different courses and departments that they study in.
![[Folio]](http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/gif/small/folio.gif)
Folio front page |
![[Office of Public Affairs]](http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/gif/small/opahome.gif)
Office of Public Affairs |
![[University of Alberta]](http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/gif/small/uahome.gif)
University of Alberta |