Thursday, March 15, 2012

BEMA Professional Networking Opportunities


BEMA Network members (All):

Be sure to mark your calendars for the Black Emergency Managers Association monthly professional networking opportunities every third Tuesday of the month in the Washington, D.C. area at Busboys & Poets 5th & K Street, N.W. location.

Meet fellow BEMA members, exchange business cards, and dine at your leisure on appetizers or on B&P’s other fine menu items.

Join in on discussions on Homeland Security\Emergency Management advisory council, or other events and meetings attended and coming up.

Looking forward to seeing everyone in the Washington, D.C. area. 

If you’re visiting from out of town, stop by and say Hello!

                Venue:          Busboys & Poets   ( http://www.busboysandpoets.com/about_5th.php )
                Location:       5th & K Location
                                         1025 5th Street, NW
                                         Washington, DC

                Time:             5:30 PM  - 8:30 PM

                Dates:           Tuesday
                                               April  17th 
                                                         National Infrastructure Advisory Council meeting       
                                               May  15th               
                                               June  19th                                  
                                               July ----------- No networking                    
                                               Aug ----------- No networking                    
                                               Sept  18th
                                                        National HBCU conference & Black Caucus following week
                                               Oct.  16th
                                               Nov. 20th
                                               Dec. 18th

              Parking:          Street and metered parking is available.
                                          There is also a public underground parking garage right below the
                                           restaurant.
                                               A Marc Parc lot is located directly across from the street open
                                               Monday through Friday from 6 AM to 7 PM.
                                               Parking there is $10 during the day and $5 after 5 PM.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Achievement gap: It's still about race



In American society, we can't avoid the fact that socioeconomic disparities are racial disparities



By Joe Pettit
11:56 a.m. EST, February 22, 2012

Imagine a report that reached the following three conclusions: In Maryland, 35 percent of males passed Advanced Placement exams, but only 8 percent of females passed them; 70 percent of males who took the AP exams could pass them, but only 28 percent of females could; and nationally, an estimated 79 percent of females who could succeed in AP courses were not even being offered them. The outcry over such differences by gender in achievement and access to AP tests would result in a massive public outcry over obvious systemic failures to educate males and females equally. The injustice would be obvious to everyone.

Now consider the reality: Those same numbers were recently reported, but the "males" were whites and the "females" were blacks. Listen for the outrage. Listen for the calls for immediate reform. Listen for the cries of injustice. Nothing of this sort is to be heard. Why?

Let us now be honest. The results from the first scenario would run counter to the expectations of every parent, teacher, citizen and legislator. It would be clear that something was wrong. The results of the second scenario are exactly what most parents, teachers, citizens and legislators expect. There is no cognitive dissonance because nothing is perceived to be out of the ordinary.

This thought experiment makes clear that racial stigma and racial injustice remain entrenched in our society, our education system and our politics. It also demonstrates three significant problems with the recent analysis of the achievement gap in Maryland. First, it is insufficient to claim that the problem is now more one of class than of race when the poor remain disproportionately black. Second, to argue that educational success is primarily a matter of personal responsibility and effort on the part of students and parents logically entails that black students and parents are far more likely to be irresponsible than their white counterparts. This is racism in pure form. Third, the stigmatizing effects of such analysis eliminate any sense of necessity and urgency for systemic reform.

More black students have succeeded in schools where greater success by white students is still very much the norm. Black success in schools that are predominantly black remains rare. Therefore, noting that the achievement gap is closing in racial terms will still not change the face of success or the face of failure. Nor will it do to pretend the problem is now only a matter of class rather than race when, in Baltimore City Public Schools, 86 percent of the students are black and 84 percent of the students are low-income.

Every student and every parent is responsible for taking education very seriously. But this obvious truth does not explain who is responsible for differences in educational outcomes. In the imagined scenario of differences between males and females, it would still be true that all males, females and their parents should take their education seriously. But when drastic differences in educational outcomes are considered, it would be assumed that factors other than the effort of the students and parents are responsible. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that female students and their parents are somehow to blame for the differences.

Yet, too many are happy to blame black students and parents for their lack of effort and, in doing so, wash their hands of any concerns about systemic injustice. They conflate questions of responsibility for individual actions and responsibility for racial inequality. Additionally, they suggest that the success of white students is strictly a matter of merit, rather than systemic and historical advantages.

The question is not why this or that black student has such poor educational outcomes. The question is why there is such a difference in educational outcomes between whites and blacks. To conclude that this difference is explained in terms of individual responsibility requires us to conclude that blacks as a group are intellectually and morally less capable of educational success than whites. This creates an obvious stigma that robs all blacks of opportunity — even the successful ones. Even blacks who achieve great things, not to mention those who achieve only average success, will still live under a public cloud of suspicion that the problems characterizing blacks a group are simply lurking under the surface of their lives, waiting to reveal themselves at school, at work or in communities.

Unless we reject this stigmatizing logic loudly and at every turn, we will never begin to address questions of racial injustice. We will continue to make the likelihood of educational and economic success depend far too much on skin color, and we will all be complicit, willingly or not, in supporting the ongoing triumph of white supremacy in our country.

Joe Pettit is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Morgan State University. His email is morganprof@yahoo.com.

Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun

Achievement Gap: It's Still about Race

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Governance and Decision-making in Colleges and Universities




There is no single or generally accepted definition of governance, as it has been described as structures, legal relationships, authority patterns, rights and responsibilities, and decision-making patterns. One commonly given definition of governance is the way that issues affecting the entire institution, or one or more components thereof, are decided. It includes the structure and processes, both formal and informal, of decision-making groups and the relationships between and among these groups and individuals. What distinguishes governance from administrative decisions is that governance tends to be early on in the process and establishes policies. Much of what happens later is administration.

Governance of higher education institutions around the world varies from nation to nation, ranging from direct and detailed control by the central government to laissez-faire, private profit-making enterprises, with many other arrangements in between. This entry will focus on governance patterns of colleges and universities that have emerged in the United States. One of the distinctive features of U.S. governance is the great diversity of forms that have emerged in contrast to other countries, which tend to have great uniformity. Each governance pattern reflects the unique history of the sector and the needs of those specific institutional types. There are several reasons for this diversity within the governance system, which include the absence of a centralized authority for education, strong public and private interests, a lay citizen governing board, and responsibilities that vary for trustees, presidents, and departments among institutions. The distinctive feature of governing boards has allowed for a decentralized system of governance where power and autonomy is distributed. Also, the U.S. governance system has followed the general societal patterns for governance in a democracyrepresentative or collective decision-making often termed shared governance.

Shared Governance

The definition of shared governance has changed slightly over time, but the commonly accepted definition is from the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. It identified governance as the joint efforts in the internal operations of institutions, but also characterized certain decisions as falling into the realm of different groups. This statement was jointly formulated by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB).

The statement, although not intended to serve as a blueprint for institutional decision-making, outlines roles for the president, faculty, administrators, and trustees in academic governance decisions. For example, it suggests that issues such as managing the endowment fall to the trustees, maintaining and creating new resources to the president, and developing the curriculum to the faculty. Not all decisions neatly fall into the domain of one of the three groups. It notes that much of governance is (or should be) conducted jointly. In other words, the statement argues that multiple members of the campus should have input on key decisions, a process termed shared governance. Questions over general education policy, the framing and execution of long-range plans, budgeting, and presidential selection should be decided jointly.

This open definition of shared governance is meant to respect the wide differences in history, size, and complexity of American higher education. For example, governance processes at liberal arts colleges are distinctive in that the whole faculty is often involved in governance; at larger institutions such as doctoral-and masters-granting institutions, governance tends to be a representative process through a faculty senate and joint committees. At community colleges, unions are also a key factor in the process. Although academic governance has changed over time, becoming highly participatory in the 1960s and more hierarchical in the 1980s, it has historically retained the notion of the importance of consultation and participation of campus constituents in major decision-making, reflecting democratic principles.

Governance Structure

The governance process is complex and includes many different layers (or groups). Each group differs in levels of responsibility by type of institution, culture of the campus, and historical evolution. Thus, there is no single organizing approach for governance. Trustees and boards have been delegated authority by college and university charters from the state legislature for oversight and decision-making. The legal requirements for boards are typically very loose; they need to assemble with a quorum periodically and oversee certain broad responsibilities. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, boards dominated decision-making, and faculty had little involvement. However, as faculty professionalized in the late 1800s, there was a concerted effort among faculty to obtain greater authority within the decision-making process. As Robert Birnbaum notes, "the reality of governance today is much different than the strict legal interpretation would suggest" with boards having total authority (p. 4).

Even though governance is shared, trustees, governors, boards, or visitors play a significant role. Although holding different titles, these individuals maintain a similar function: to protect and ensure the interest and trust of the institution for the public or for a private group such as a church. The differing names reflect the different sectors and regional traditions. Trustees are more likely to play a custodial role over property and funds, being less involved with academic matters. Governors' roles tend to be more comprehensive and include academic matters. In general, board (this generic term will be used throughout the entry to designate these several different authority groups) responsibilities vary from clarifying mission, assessing president's performance, fund-raising, ensuring good management, and preserving institutional independence. Many boards have authority for ratifying institutional decisions, which can allow them to become involved in administrative details. Board authority varies by institution; thus to understand a particular campus it is necessary to obtain their charter and by-laws. Also, board members can be elected in public institutions or appointed in private institutions. Boards of private institutions tend to be larger than public ones.

Most boards report to another entity; for example, boards of trustees might report to a church while regents report to the legislature of a state. Today, most states have a system-wide coordinating board that campus governors or regents report to rather than directly to the legislature. Up until World War II, 70 percent of public colleges reported to their own board. However, when enrollments increased and there was major growth in the number of higher education institutions, state systems of governance developed. By the mid 1970s, only 30 percent of public colleges answered only to their governing boards.

Boards, trustees, and regents can be made up of very different types of individuals. Trustees are often alumni of the institution, whereas regents are often elected officials representing political party or district interests. Therefore, the perspective brought to the task of governing can vary greatly.

Another key player in governance is the president, who administers the policies set by the board. Presidents' and other administrators' role in governance is to make recommendations to the board and to implement policies. Faculty members, as noted above, became an integral part of governance around the turn of the twentieth century. In 1915 the American Association of University Professors developed a set of principles related to faculty rights, one of which is the right to offer input concerning institutional governance on matters related to academic decisions. Faculty members typically have input on decisions in such areas as employment, research, degrees and degree requirements, courses, evaluating programs, evaluation of faculty, admission, advising, and criteria for obtaining degrees.

Students' involvement in governance also varies by institution. Some boards have student membership. Some states, such as California, now have a law providing for student board membership. Also, most campuses have a student assembly or senate in which members are chosen by election. This body can operate as a governance body, providing recommendations to the president, administration and board. But it is rare for student assemblies to have any formal authority; rather, they are considered as part of the shared governance  process.

Campus senates are the most common mechanism for faculty involvement in governance in a systematic way. Senators are elected to their positions from each college or school, making the campus senate a representative body. Most campus senates operate primarily through committees, and are only allowed to make recommendations to the president/administration and board about institutional matters. Several campuses have developed other formal governance structures in order to codify decision-making processes and input. Some campuses have developed joint committees of faculty, students, and administrators that develop recommendations for action on key institutional issues.

What are the areas in which governance decisions tend to be made? Policy setting areas tend to include mission, strategic direction, and selection processes for administrators, faculty, and staff; budgeting and expending funds; procedures related to construction of buildings; academic programs including degrees, course, admission, and graduation; promotion, tenure and salary increments; athletic programs; student matters; research, grants, and contracts; parking, security, and other services; and public relations.

External Influences

Although not formally part of campus governance, outside forces such as state governments, alumni, donors, federal government, accreditors, and associations often affect governance processes through funding, persuasion, policy, and guidelines. These other groups are important to acknowledge, even if their influence is infrequent and not formally defined by a charter, statement, or set of principles. Legislatures use budget allocation as a way to influence campus decision-making outside the formal governance processes. Individual donors might ask to have a say in certain institutional decisions in exchange for a monetary contribution to the institution. The federal government can establish rules and regulations that indirectly affect campus decision-making. For example, regulations about affirmative action have had an effect on campus admissions decisions and policies. Accreditors and associations probably have the least direct influence on campus governance. Accreditors, for example, can define requirements for a certain field of study. These requirements influence the decision-making processes at campuses that want to retain their accrediting status.

Trends in Governance

There are several trends in governance that are important to highlight: (1) the growth of external influences; (2) inability to respond to external challenges;(3) the lack of prominence and move away from shared governance; and (4) decreasing participation. These forces are related: The growth of external influences is coupled with institutions' trying to alter decision-making processes that were originally internally oriented to be more externally oriented. The lack of participation, among faculty in particular, is related to a move away from the tradition of shared governance.

Many commentators have noted that external agents are less reluctant to enter the decision-making process than in the past, even at the final stages. In addition, higher education is in the midst of a shift from its tradition of informal, consensual judgments to standardization, litigation, and centralization. Societal and legislative expectations have been altered, focusing more on accountability, quality, and efficiency. As Kenneth Mortimer and Thomas McConnell note, "the increased influence of state coordinating boards and system level administration in the last twenty years has moved decisions further away from campus based constituents." (p. 165). Boards and presidents now find themselves acting more as buffers to outside forces than in the past.

The intense environmental demands on higher education place great responsibility and strain on institutional leaders to make difficult decisions in a timely manner. The substance of academic governance has changed; traditional "maintenance" decisions, which include items such as the allocation of incremental budgets, modifications to the curriculum, and issues of faculty life, are being replaced with "strategic policy-making" decisions. These new decisions are high stakes challenges related to the changing nature of scholarship, prioritizing among programs, choosing among new opportunities, and reallocating either shrinking or unchanging (not growing) budgets. Current decision-making systems (e.g., academic senates) were not created to cope with these types of decisions and demands. These traditional academic governance structures are facing a cascade of criticism, describing them as being slow and ineffective. Campus senates and other joint administrative-faculty committees need to design processes to resolve unprecedented problems from the changing environment.

Although shared governance has been the norm for the last century, several commentators have noted that there are problems with shared governance that can no longer be ignored, including the following: (1) it does not actually represent or describe governance patterns in the majority of institutions; (2) it ignores the conflict of interests and adversarial decision-making practices inherent in a major new governance structurecollective bargaining; and (3) it takes in little account of the external forces. It is noted that shared authority only exists at a few elite institutions with powerful faculty, and that administrative authority is foremost at most institutions. Also, it is noted that there are few shared goals at most institutions, the principle that shared governance is built upon. Faculty and students are divided into different interest groups, making self-governance difficult with minimal consensus on issues. Thus, in practice, shared governance is usually not possible.

At the same time, academic governance is becoming less participatory, as fewer individuals care about or are involved in academic governance. Current trends work against widespread academic governance participationfewer full-time faculty are employed, participation is not rewarded, other demands take precedence, and faculty allegiances favor disciplines rather than institutions. There is concern about institutional effectiveness, morale, and the quality of decision-making. Because of the complexity of institutional issues, well-considered decisions should be based on a high degree of input and thought, usually achieved through participation of multiple constituents. Institutions may jump to poor conclusions since decisions do not benefit from a thorough examination of the issues or multiple perspectives.

There are many challenges in governance that need to be resolved in the twenty-first century: perhaps new structures and governance forms will be applied to higher education, as developed in the last century, with the emergence of shared governance, campus senates, and state-wide coordinating boards.

Bibliography

American Association of University Professors. 1995. Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 1996. Renewing the Academic Presidency: Stronger Leadership for Tougher Times. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards.

Berdahl, Robert O. 1991. "Shared Academic Governance and External Constraints." In Organization and Academic Governance in Higher Education, 4th edition, ed. Marvin W. Peterson, Ellen E. Chaffee, and Theodore H. White. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Birnbaum, Robert. 1991. How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carnegie Commission. 1973. Governance in Higher Education: Six Priority Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dill, David D., and Helm, K. P. 1988. "Faculty Participation in Policy Making." In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 4, ed. John C. Smart. New York: Agathon.

Dimond, Jack. 1991. "Faculty Participation in Institutional Budgeting." In Faculty in Academic Governance: The Role of Senates and Joint Committees in Academic Decision Making, ed. Robert Birnbaum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Keller, George. 1983. Shaping an Academic Strategy. In Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in American Higher Education, ed. George Keller. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lee, Barbara. 1991. Campus Leaders and Campus Senates. In Faculty in Academic Governance: The Role of Senates and Joint Committees in Academic Decision Making, ed. Robert Birnbaum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mortimer, Kenneth P., and McConnell, Thomas Raymond. 1979. Sharing Authority Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schuster, Jack H., and Miller, Lynn H. 1989. Governing Tomorrow's Campus: Perspectives and Agendas. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Schuster, Jack H. ; Smith, Daryl G. ; Corak,Kathleen A.; and Yamada, Myrtle M. 1994. Strategic Governance: How to Make Big Decisions Better. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Westmeyer, Paul. 1990. Principles of Governance and Administration in Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishers.

Adrianna Kezar

KEZAR, ADRIANNA. "Governance and Decision-making in Colleges and Universities.Encyclopedia of Education. 2002. Encyclopedia.com. 13 Mar. 2012 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.  

Dr. Walter Bumphus Appointed to Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council


WASHINGTONMarch 1, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano has appointed American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) President Walter G. Bumphus to the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council (HSAAC). The new council, comprising prominent university presidents and academic leaders, is charged with advising the Secretary and senior leadership at the Department on several key issues.
"Dr. Bumphus's extensive experience and expertise will make him a valuable asset to the Council," said Secretary Napolitano. "I look forward to working with him on these critical issues."
The new council underscores the Department's commitment to working with the academic community.  In this noteworthy role, the AACC leader will provide advice and recommendations on issues related to student and recent graduate recruitment; international students; academic research; campus and community resiliency, security and preparedness; and faculty exchanges.
Bumphus brings to his new advisory role more than 40 years' leadership experience in both 2-year and university settings, as well as substantial operational experience in the corporate world. From 2007 to January 1, 2011, he served as a professor in the Community College Leadership Program and as chair of the Department of Educational Administration at the University of Texas at Austin. He previously served as president of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System (LCTCS) from 2001 to 2007. From November 2000 to September 2001 he was chancellor of Baton Rouge Community College (BRCC). Prior to joining BRCC, he worked in the corporate world serving as president of the Higher Education Division of Voyager Expanded Learning. Six years prior, he served as president of Brookhaven College in the Dallas County Community College District,Texas' largest undergraduate institution. He is a native of Princeton, Kentucky.
Bumphus will attend the group's inaugural meeting on March 20 in Washington, D.C.
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) is a national organization representing the nation's almost 1,200 community, junior and technical colleges and their more than 13 million students.  Community colleges are the largest and fastest growing segment of higher education, currently enrolling close to half of all U.S. undergraduates. For more about AACC, see www.aacc.nche.edu.

Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council (HSAAC)


Secretary Napolitano Announces Academic Advisory Council

Release Date: March 1, 2012
Updated March 9, 2012

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON—U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the formation of the Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council (HSAAC), comprised of prominent university presidents and academic leaders charged with advising the Secretary and senior leadership at the Department on several key issues.

“The formation of this Council represents an important milestone towards engaging the academic community in our homeland security efforts,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Their collective expertise will be a critical asset to the Department, and I look forward to working with them.”

The new council underscores the Department’s commitment to working with the academic community. Secretary Napolitano has asked the group, which will be chaired by Dr. Wallace Loh of the University of Maryland, to provide advice and recommendations on issues related to student and recent graduate recruitment; international students; academic research; campus and community resiliency, security and preparedness; and faculty exchanges.

The group’s inaugural meeting will take place on March 20 in Washington, D.C. A notice in the Federal Register formally announced the first meeting, which is open to the public.

Members* appointed to the HSAAC are:

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun, President of Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts

Dr. Lezli Baskerville, President and CEO of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, D.C.


Ms. Carrie L. Billy, President of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium in Alexandria, Virginia

Dr. Walter G. Bumphus, President and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges in Washington, D.C.

Dr. David M. Dooley, President of the University of Rhode Island in Kingston, Rhode Island

Dr. Royce C. Engstrom, President of the University of Montana in Missoula, Montana

Dr. Antonio R. Flores, President and CEO of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities in San Antonio, Texas

Dr. Rufus Glasper, Chancellor of the Maricopa Community Colleges in Tempe, Arizona

Dr. Jay Gogue, President of Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama

Ms. Marlene M. Johnson, Executive Director and CEO of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Eric W. Kaler, President of the University of Minnesota in the Twin Cities, Minnesota

Dr. R. Bowen Loftin, President of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas

Dr. Wallace Loh, President of the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland

Dr. Gail O. Mellow, President of LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City, New York

Hon. Ruby G. Moy, President and CEO of the Asian Pacific Islander American Association of Colleges and Universities in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Hunter R. Rawlings, III, President of the Association of American Universities in Washington, D.C.

Dr. John Sexton, President of New York University in New York City, New York

Rear Admiral Sandra Stosz, Superintendent of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut

Dr. Dianne Boardley Suber, President of Saint Augustine’s College in Raleigh, North Carolina

Dr. Holden Thorp, Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Chapel Hill, North Carolina

*There are outstanding appointments still being determined at this time.

For more information, please visit www.dhs.gov.

RECOMMENDED READING LIST

Search This Blog

ARCHIVE List 2011 - Present