Teacher Preparation Report- UVa Rated Poorly, but Why?

The National Council on Teacher Quality released a report this week on the quality of teacher preparation around the nation.  That certainly would grabbed people's attention but maybe that was the point.  Less than 10% of the programs were rated received 3 stars or higher.  UVa received 1.5 out of 4 stars in Secondary Education.  So what does that mean?  A question with no easy answer.  A better question is should that rating matter?  Yes but only a little.  Most media will report on this with some attention grabbing headline making UVa  or other schools look bad then move on.  What's more important is to recognize the purpose, scope and use of the report and then give it some context.

Providing Context
UVa is an outstanding institution and attracts some of this state's and nation's top scholars.  One must assume that the pool of teachers it produces are also of outstanding quality.  Having worked closely with many of these individuals and observing them both as student teachers and later once they joined the workforce, I have found they are well prepared for the job.  Some are as not quite as good as others but it cannot be an accident they enter our school ready to roll and versed in what to expect.  I believe that one can never really be "ready" for the first time you are on your own teaching your won students and all that means but if I had to choose who to hire, knowing they are a UVa Curry School graduate would provide a great deal of confidence.  

But this report indicates something different.  So context is important.  A closer look finds that this report doesn't really evaluate the process or results of these programs.   I give them credit for being thorough.  Maybe overly so.  Somewhere lost among the graphs and endless charts and fingerpointingmight  even be something of worth.   There was this tidbit from the exective summary:

 "Through an exhaustive and unprecedented examination of how these schools operate, the Review finds they have become an industry of mediocrity, churning out first-year teachers with classroom management skills and content knowledge inadequate to thrive in classrooms with ever-increasing ethnic and socioeconomic student diversity."    
So what you are saying is they stink?

The stated purpose for this report is "providing information that aspiring teachers and school leaders need to become strategic consumers and that institutions and states need in order to rapidly improve how tomorrow’s teachers are trained."   The authors of this report have what seems a laudable goal but a funny way of achieving it.  It proceeds to beat up just about every institution and would seem to do more to undermine confidence in these programs rather than to foster improvement.  Maybe that is the intent?  It focuses in on how programs hold up to a narrow list of predetermined criteria.  Many of which might indicate the NCTQ has an agenda for certain reforms and wishes to push schools in that direction.  What's less apparent is whether or not that agenda mirrors that of other corporate style measures often linked to such critical reports.  The TUs executive summary of the report would read something like this:  "Eh."

 Linda Darling-Hammond had a bit more to say and called the whole thing "nonsense"   She is not alone and there is also no shortage of other critics of the NCTQ or this study.  When word broke that U.S. News was planning to rate teacher preparation programs and would rely on the NCTQ to produce those ratings,  35 chief academic officers from the education schools of the Association of American Universities signed a letter adressed to the magazine's editor expressing concerns about the methods being used. 
That ought to say something about context.

OK, so  clear the NCTQ thinks all but 4 are bad.

If I were brutally honest I'd say that this is one of those reports from some group of think tankers who seem to exist solely for producing such reports.  A lot of time and energy went into this and it is not totally baseless, probably even has some merit as a tool for improvement.  But as a teacher I don't have much use for people who don't truly understand what we do and like to spend time explaining what we need to change.  They seem either disinterested or too busy examing education on paper to bother getting boots on the ground and engaging with teachers and people in schools.  Maybe that is too dismissive but it is a position built on long experience with reports and reformers.  I'd point out that they didn't visit the schools they rated, didn't look at how teachers produced by schools were performing in their job and didn't really do much in terms of providing real world substance to back up their low ratings.    But they probably sold some magazines and generated some web traffic.


Is UVa Doing a God Job?
Yes.  I've cooperated with 3 student teachers and 5 or 6 practicum students from UVa over the years.  Without exception they were enthusiastic, hard working and willing to learn.  Professionally they were about as well prepared as one could be in terms of methods and pedagogy.   That together with UVa's solid content programs meant they were they were much farther along than I was in my own career at that point.  UVa has a an strong reputation in our community and is known for turning out some of the best educators around. 

The Curry School students I encounter are as ready as they can be.  It is true some are better than others and some will not choose to remain or even stick with teaching.   Even people at Curry would ackowledge the school has flaws and room for improvement.  But students there are given every opportunity to succeed and that is thanks to the knowledge, skills and experience afforded to them through proven methods.  Curry is proactive and innovative but stays grounded where the rubber meets the road.  So to place stock in a rating of 1.5 out of 4 is kind of silly.

So why the lackluster rating?  The report doesn't really assess performance.  It instead looked at a slate of criteria centered around the Curriculum, Syllabi and Admissions process of these institutions.  The report stated "we are setting in place market forces that will spur underachieving programs to recognize their shortcomings and adopt methods used by the high scorers".  This is a very telling statement and reveals that the report is an effort to spur action.   The NCTQ seems to suggest things be done a certain way.  And the only way to improve is to cater to the criteria being rated.  


The goal of any teacher prep program is to prepare new teachers for rapidly changing reform oriented professional world they will ener.  There's simply is no way to standardize how to effectiveley do this. Nor should there be.  Schools should constantly assess what they teach, how they teach it and ways to improve.  But undermining their support doesn't and won't aid them in that process.  Any report worth a hoot would connect what it measures to program quality. 

What is Being Rated
 A whole bunch of things but they are hidden under and avalanche of data and useless findings. Sometimes the larger something is the less productive it is.   The main things measured all fall under four main headings. These are provided here in abridged form  and only the ones that apply to secondary appear below.  I've omitted the ones applying only to elementary or special education.

The talent teachers need
    Selection Criteria- The program screens for academic caliber in selecting teacher candidates.


What teachers should know
    Common Core High School Content- The program ensures that teacher candidates have the content preparation

    necessary to successfully teach to the Common Core State Standards.

What teachers should be able to do

    Classroom Management- The program trains teacher candidates to successfully manage classrooms.

    Lesson Planning- The program trains teacher candidates how to plan lessons.

    Assessment and Data- The program trains teacher candidates how to assess learning and use student performance 

    data to inform instruction.

    Equity-The program ensures that teacher candidates experience schools that are successful serving students who 

    have been traditionally underserved.

    Student Teaching- The program ensures that teacher candidates have a strong student teaching experience. 

    Secondary Methods- The program requires teacher candidates to practice instructional techniques specific to their 

    content area.

Outcomes

    Outcomes- The program and institution collect and monitor data on their graduates.

    Evidence of Effectiveness- The program's graduates have a positive impact on student learning. 

That stuff is important.  A quick review of the list makes clear that these things are great in principle but there is a disconnect to the list and whether or not the program produces people who can teach.  Sure raising the bar in terms of candidates and asking more from them iare tough to oppose but this is not a scientific process.   Schools and classrooms are dynamic environments and you need a great deal more than content and pedagogy to be successful and effective.   In our data oriented world I trust my eyes and my mind when I see someone work with students.   While studies and efforts intended to help better prepare future teachers are welcomed, the way it is currently being done, as is the case with the NCTQ, are not and do little to help prepare educators.

Who is the NCTQ?
Who they are is really a matter of what they are.  So what exactly is the NCTQ?  Well that is not the easiest question in the world to answer.  As a starting point I looked at their own words:

The National Council on Teacher Quality advocates for reforms in a broad range of teacher policies at the federal, state and local levels in order to increase the number of effective teachers. In particular, we recognize the absence of much of the evidence necessary to make a compelling case for change and seek to fill that void with a research agenda that has direct and practical implications for policy. We are committed to lending transparency and increasing public awareness about the four sets of institutions that have the greatest impact on teacher quality: states, teacher preparation programs, school districts and teacher unions. 

Several years reading and researching reform movements have heightened my senses.  This report and many similar headline grabbing reports from the NCTQ emit echoes of corporate, profit driven, top heavy national policy reform that has done little to advance education over the past decade.  What is has done is likely the same as what this report will.  Undermine the very people doing all they can to help students.

The NCTQ even recommend capping the number of licenses issued in each state.  Yep they want to reward stronger teacher prep programs by allotting them more licenses. "Programs would not be prohibited from admitting as many candidates as they choose, but they would not be able to assure candidates that a license and job in the state will be waiting for them."  Teaching is collaboration not competition.  The NCTQ doesn't get that.  Efforts to train highly effective teachers and promote teacher quality shouldn't do the opposite.    Teacher training matters.  But I don't think this study does. 

Becoming a great teacher
My advice to those seeking to pursue a career in education and doing so at one of these instittuions is don't pay too much attention to all this white noise.  Instead put your back, mind and heart into the hard work of getting ready to be a teacher.   Because it doesn't get any easier once you start.  Al these schools are not created equal.  But if you find the right one for you and focus on making the most of your time there, you'll be just fine.  And if enough people like you continue to do just that, then the nation will be fine too. 

This is Progress?

It has been a busy past week for sure.  But the lead story of our local paper on Monday  1/14/13 read as follows:

"UVa set to launch global classrooms"

Now there has to be something remarkable in this article to warrant putting education as the lead right?   Wrong.  

It is arguable that the University of Virginia is behind the times a bit in launching its digital presence and many theorize that contributed to the failed ouster of Teresa Sullivan this past summer by the Board of Visitors lead by Helen Dragas.  The efforts to improve in this area led to a partnership between Coursera and UVa as they offer MOOCs(Massive Online Open Courses).  This particular article features World History teacher Phillip Zelikow and his efforts to provide a World History Course using this approach.  

Zelikow and the author laud the new approach of flipping the classroom.  New huh?  

There is nothing new about much of this.  It is merely a reflection of the shifting political winds.  For starters the wondrous fascination with online education and technology leads to a false sense that technology infused education is automatically better.  They are blinded to the fact that it may simply be a lecture on a computer rather than in person.  The idea that the campus walls are being knocked down is intoxicating.  But UVa doesn't stand out for this type of this nor am I thinking it should try.  Certainly the access by the masses to skills and knowledge is a piece very attractive to many.

But so is Google. Can the result of a MOOC on the participant be described as "an education?"  Is this effort more valuable for UVa to go global or for the participants?   

I have taken several MOOCs and some were good, some were not.  One was even through UVa.  What usually made the difference was if I was able to interact with the instructor.  If you do not have access to an actual person to enrich your learning, what does that say about quality?  My feeling is that a real education starts when you are born and mostly comes from interactions with real life people.  There is a whole lot more going on that just the conveyance of information or content.  Learning  is a two way street despite what the commercials at the University of Phoenix would have you believe.  The MOOCs I've taken helped me but only to the degree necessary.   They did their job.  There are many shortfalls with  MOOCs not the least of which is the way they are pushed and marketed.  


The intoxication with flipping is even worse.  Nevermind "flipping" a classroom to those of us in the basement meant sneaking into a classroom and literally turning all the desks upside down.  This oft repeated  buzzword seems to seduce reformers and they immediately conclude this is the "panacea".  The magic bullet.   I can't escape the irony that this "flipping" (and the paper uses quotes too) is all too normal.  It usually amounts to a taped lecture and then making the students do what would have previously been homework in class.   In some cases that is an improvement and the teacher who can be replaced by a computer deserves to be.   It is one of many best practices.  But we must not forget that a good education involves a teacher, a student and an rich variety of methods.  None that are worthwhile should be sacrificed for expediency or cost.  There are trade offs with flipping.   In high schools for instance having 8 teachers "flip" on you might mean you are now saddled with a hours of instructional videos amounting to more homework.  The door may be open to individual attention in class and more student centered strategies but at what cost to the student?  The fluid nature of piecing together information replaced with uniform and robotic information. 

It seems in our rush to improve the status quo in education we are willing to look beyond the flaws of any given approach and promote it simply because of the novelty or the price.  Zelikow and UVa are doing a good thing. But anyone who believes this will amount to some increase in quality or experience for most enrolled is probably mistaken.  The real benefit is the ability of Zelikow to then do more small group discussion during the actual class.  As we change the face of education we must not overlook the fact that it still needs to resemble a face. After reading his piece it would seem to me that Douglass Rucskoff of CNN would agree that we should not make distance learning, MOOCs or similar reform into it something they are not.  

I remember 15 or so years ago doing my student teaching and supervising a latin class where the students learned via satellite network.  They watched broadcast lessons,  submitted their papers by mail and waited weeks for feedback.  Their boredom and frustration was painfully obvious.  Not so much with the delay but with the isolated feel and absence of a relationship with a knowledgeable teacher.  They were stuck with me.  Devoid spontaneity their learning suffered.   This and their multi-tasking meant there was no way they learned as much as the students present with the teacher.  But they did have the chance to take Latin which counts for something.  

So Progress has been made I suppose.  And in the years since we have traded satellite feeds for high speed internet.  The change is noticeably unremarkable.  Unwilling to accept the realities of the human mind and learning we continue to search for "better" ways to learn.  The result is an over-willingness to see such measures as headline worthy.  When in fact they are just worthy.  I commend UVa and Zellikow for their efforts.  But I stop short of buying this approach as anything but less than what students in his current class might experience. 

Flipping and MOOCs and what they are.  Not headlines.  And not real progress. 

 

Accountability for Some

accountable  (əˈkaʊntəb ^ə l)

-adj.

1.	responsible to someone or for some action; answerable
2.	able to be explained

 
"We must embrace a culture of innovation and accountability by adopting proven reforms"

 -Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, January 3, 2013

The last two years in Virginia have seen calls for limiting continuing contract status for teachers (similar to tenure), changing dismissal policies to make it easier to fire teachers, and increases in accountability measures to make sure that schools and teachers are doing a good job.

Governor Bob McDonnell is a strong supporter of teacher and school accountability. Apparently not so much for leadership accountability.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. K-12 public schools and colleges in eleven states receive accreditation from SACS. They are a recognized and legitimate source of accountability for institutions.

This organization issued an official Warning to the University of Virginia for non-compliance with it's standards. A warning that if not addressed could lead to loss of accreditation. This warning had nothing to do with academic quality at the University. The warning applies solely with leadership of the institution, specifically, minority control of the board and decision-making. This warning is a direct result of the Board of Visitors actions last summer in dismissing President Teresa Sullivan.

How did the Governor hold the Rector of the UVA Board of Visitors accountable for leading the board down this improper path?

He reappointed her to the position.

How is the Virginia Legislature holding her accountable for her actions?

They're moving forward with approving her nomination to the Board.

Don't pretend to care about accountability if you're only interested in accountability for some.

Maybe if teachers contributed more to political campaigns we'd get better treatment?



From the University of Virginia Website:

In response to the resignation and subsequent reinstatement of President Teresa A. Sullivan, SACSCOC required that the University document compliance with three principles – Principle 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirement 2.2 (Governing Board), and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5 (Faculty Role in Governance). After reviewing the response from the University’s Board of Visitors, the Board of Trustees of SACSCOC found the University non-compliant with Core Requirement 2.2 and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5. In a recent press conference after the announcement, the president of SACSCOC cited concerns related to minority control of the board (Core Requirement 2.2) and policies surrounding faculty role in governance (Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5).

June 26, 2012- The Reinstatement

      The TU went on down to the UVa lawn today to watch things play out between the Board of Visitors, Teresa Sullivan and just about anybody else who has an opinion.  When asked by a former student why we were there we didn't have a quality response.  I went with "stickin it to the man" while Steve had something about the "power of people and decisions in a vacuum."  While most of the happenings seemed scripted it was neat to watch things unfold and they did so in a remarkably rapid manner.

      After what can only be described as a seriously ill conceived maneuver, Teresa Sullivan was reinstated by a unanimous vote.  But not before just about everyone said they were sorry for something.  No doubt most of the moves took place behind closed doors well in advance of today but that should not lessen the significance of what transpired.  Sullivan will still face the sane daunting challenges we have all been made aware of but she will do so with a mandate of support from the community and likely a renewed faith in the University's ideals. We will share more on today's outcome and the events as a whole but for now we will let the pictures tell the story.  If you wish to add your own caption, funny or otherwise, feel free to do so. 

Almost there...

The whole world is watching...maybe not.

Nobody frames a protest sign like the TU.

Shade was key during the actual meeting.

When word spread of a decision people scrambled for a good spot.

The TU had cameras everywhere, even far away.

Can you find Waldo? How about Turner's hair?

Can we get a guest post?  And why is the girl behind the notepad staring at us?

 I thought Turner's speech one-upped Sullivan. 

I know how to work my camera...unlike Steve

The Week that Was

It has been a busy week.  The UVa situation has continued to spin and one parallel that haunts the future of K-12 Education is how decision makers and those affected by those decisions often see the world through a different lens.  The disconnect too often leads to frustration, confusion, even anger from both groups of people.  Maybe the higher ed folks could benefit and learn from a look down into the same schools that provide them with most of their clientele.  We are more often forced to bridge that gap and work together.  As we all travel forward and reshape education of the future we must remember that we are all actually here for the same thing. 

What should and often does unite everyone in K-12 is the mission of serving all our children.  This road usually gets bumpy and some people even get run over.  But we are in it together and we forget this at our own peril.  Our sometimes conflicting views should be a source of strength.  One difference that does exist is that division wide employees usually work 12 months and teachers 10.  Consequently decision makers might focus on ideas and developing long term improvement goals but doing so in a degree of isolation.  While most teachers spend summer throttled down recovering from the past year allowing time to energize for the one that is approaching.    Many teachers use this time to retool and better equip themselves as professionals.  Some take classes, some plan units and I have spent the past the three days at a division-wide conference.  Curriculum Assessment and Instruction(CAI) brings county teachers from all levels and schools together and tasks them make long term visions a reality.

The last time I attended CAI 4? years ago these conversations were cenetered around talk of SOLs and AYP in an effort to define quality instruction.   SOL talk was noticeably absent this year and we were developing different things.  The goal this summer was to create and polish Performance Assessents to measure a range of the county's "Lifelong Learning Standards. "  These then provide additional and more balanced ways to see where kids are with skills and content and how they are progressing, beyond objective quarterly assessments and the SOLs.
That was where our efforts were focused for three days and I had the privilege of spending time  working closely with teachers and leaders from other schools, something that is rarely afforded during the busy school year.   There we all were trying to turn theoretical ideas into tangible things.  At times it was frustrating, confusing, difficult but also rewarding,worthwhile and even funny.  We  voiced differences and concerns and navigated in a positive direction.   Some of the products no doubt will exceed expectations and other may fall short. But for 3 days there was a unity often lacking in the us vs them world. 

Make a large donation, name a building.

This bring us back to the situation at UVa where us vs them might not go far enough in describing the polemical debate taking place over Teresa Sullivan's ouster.  We touched on the money and online education trail that are potential aspects and this week also saw major UVa donor Paul Tudor Jones weigh in supporting her removal.  Then the interim President stated he does not support the boards removal of Sullivan This was followed by a lengthy and long overdue public response by Board of Visitors rector Helen Dragas that included the Pseudo apology "we did the right thing, the wrong way.  For this, I sincerely apologize."  Bloggers were quick to link this to a PR firm now working with Dragas and the Board have been working with.  Meanwhile no sign of stabilizing of the states portion of funding which is now around a meager 5-6%.  So what is really at the core of any disagreements?

 And now news that the Board will be meeting on Tuesday to potentially "reconsider" its decision and re-instate Sullivan, assuming she would accept.  Like I said, busy week. 

These are not so much symptoms of change or a failure of leadership.  They are side effects of the tensions among the players that shape the world of education.  What appears to be missing t UVa and often across our nation is common and collegial conversations about what is good for students and then moving forward.  Those lower down can suffer from short sightedness from focus on the real work of education.  Those higher up often farther removed and lack understanding of what things mean on the ground.  In defense of teachers and those lower down any missteps there are far less disruptive and damaging.

The CAI conference closed with some reflection on and discussion of leadership, charges as we move start the year,  door prizes(thanks!) and even some dancing.  We now break for the summer before moving the challenge will be moving everyone that did not attend forward.  I will steal a quote from the closing presentation at the conference which I think is fitting.  In the meantime we'll keep an eye as things across town continue to unfold.

"I could tout my degrees, grade-point averages and certifications, but if I didn't have a genuine love for students, I would be nothing in the classroom."   

Jennifer Walker 2008 Ohio Teacher of the Year.

For Profit Education to Blame?

As we continue to digest and react to the happenings on the grounds at the University of Virgina the fallout continues.  After the epic 12-hour Board of Visitors Meeting naming McIntyre Dean  Carl Zenthaml as the Interim President, the Vice Rector Mark Kington and noted professor Bill Wulf have announced they are leaving.  It is hard to imagine Helen Drages would be reappointed in 2 weeks by governor Bob McDonnell.   The Daily Progress reported today that the potential fact that when Sullivan's became an obstacle to a plan to partner for online learning, her fate was sealed  Hmmmm?

Forgive me for thinking this is the most plausible explanation for the whole debacle.  You draw your own conclusions but there appears tat the very least to be a lot of people writing letters.  Imagine though what the for profit giant Education Management Corporation would stand to gain by securing their place in developing UVa's online presence.
EMC's growth strategy is to tap into public and private education funds through UVa and like my colleague stated this all just fits too nicely.    In short  For Profit Education(K-12, Apollo Group, Bridgeport, et al.) needs markets and colleges(and public schools) are those markets. 

Peter Kiernan, Darden School Board of Trustees Chair who resigned a short while into all of this,  was closely tied in and coincidentally a former partner of Education Management Corporation(and Goldman Sachs), a company in which Goldman Sachs acquired a major stake. EDMC is “one of the largest providers of private post-secondary education in North America."  Can't blame business people for doing business, except when they do it in the manner many now suspect. 

Set aside the merits of Online Learning or the fact we have business people not educators weighing the merits of such programs, the basic problem remains that if is there is a sliver a truth to any of this money and profit has become a poor substitute for why we have schools and learning institutions. When education becomes about money and private financial outcomes we are destined for bad things.  To bring it full circle we cannot judge this as good or bad unless we shine a light upon all the shadows.   By contractual amendment Sullivan can only speak out so much on this and is prohibited from making disparaging comments.  So someone else will have to help piece this all together.  It does appear to be about business. And based on public response to what has transpired here, most people agree this is no way to do business. Helen Dragas and the Board of Visitors are framed as the villains but that might be overly simplistic.  They might be, this exact lack of response was responsible for Jefferson's most famous work.  He preferred to be remembered for the founding of UVa.

The TU does not necessarily think online learning or virtual education is bad.  Nor do we dislike money.    I don;t even have a problem with most rich people.  :)   It is the for profit aspect that is troubling.  These are public schools and institutions and part of the public trust. They are intended to serve the greater good and not the bottom line. Once we hand them the keys will we be able to take them back?  I can live with selling naming rights to a rest stop but not sure I'm OK with sending my kids to State University of Inc. 

Make too much sense?   Read what you want, believe what you will, I am not alone.   

 Check out this UVa Alum and current Dukies theory on these things.  She dialed her theory in back on June 13th. 

Love to hear some other thoughts on this.


PS I have never seen Sasquatch, a yeti or skunk ape...yet.

Sullivan's Travels

More than the Rotunda is undergoing major change at UVa.

You may be aware that our home base at the Teaching Underground is in Charlottesville, Virginia.  The University of Virginia is no doubt, among the best things about living where we do. The University is dear to the TU, one of us attended as a student and well, one attends as a sports fan.  But our lives and our community are enriched and blessed from its proximity to this great institution.  That is why we were troubled to learn Sunday June 9th that an E-mail from University Rector Helen Dragas ended the tenure of current President Teresa Sullivan.

It remains unclear at this point as to what specifically brought this about.  But the power players who pull the strings at UVa were clearly displeased with something and made Sullivan's tenure remarkably brief.  Maybe she moved too slowly, maybe too fast.  What's for certain is that as more information comes to light things smell worse.  Sullivan became the 8th University President back in August 2010(the office of President was not created until 1904).  I will refrain from speculation but the primary stated reason of "philosophical differences", quoted by Dragas from Sullivan's resignation letter, seems woefully inadequate and should give us pause.  Philisophical Differences...really?  Fired or removed or forced out or resigning, on a Sunday morning forcing an impromptu Board of Visitor Executive Meeting? 

Something in the system has broken.  A change this large should not happen in this way at all.  The praise for President Sullivan has poured in from the governor(who apparently supported her ouster when informed by the board), local media, members of the academic and business community, yet Sullivan is out. Why and how can a shift of this magnitude occur with no public understanding of the process? 

These are trying times for large public universities around the country.  They are not immune from the same issues that plague our K-12 public schools.  Education is transforming into a much more business like landscape and struggling to define itself as we move forward.   It would seem fair to conclude that the individuals making these decisions are to a large degree beyond the reach of the average stakeholder. 

Barring an issue that required privacy I think that the Board of Visitors is obligated to provide more information to all of us who love the University.  Pressure continues to grow for more details but only time will tell whether this happens.  But it must.  How else are we to judge whether or not this is a good or a bad thing.  No matter if the change is good or bad in the long term, it seems a sign of the times and I for one think it is an ominous sign for the future and stability of our educational institutions. 

I had heard Sullivan's name in many corners of life around town over that past 22 months.   One in particular resonated with me.  It was when I heard her comments regarding the Penn State University scandal as we all struggled to come to terms with what had transpired.   I wanted to share some of her words as they caused me to reflect.   The phrases that stuck out to me are in bold.

You can read the complete text of Sullivan's speech here.

"We are entrusted daily with the sons and daughters of this Commonwealth and other parts of the world, and we are entrusted daily with the care of patients and their families. We must ensure that we subscribe to the highest values in our interactions with anyone’s children. What is true of our faculty must be true of our staff as well. In doing my own search for the COO and the Provost, I was especially attentive to the issue of character. Both Michael Strine and John Simon are stewards not only of our assets but also of our mission.

I do believe that tone at the top is important, and I have sought to send a message to this community that respect for the individual, doing the right thing, caring for one another and making every decision with consideration for our values are how we will do business. Not everyone will agree with how I enact these values. There are inevitably conflicts between individuals, or disagreements about resource allocation, in which each side will claim that their position is the righteous one and I have been hypocritical.

That is why we need good processes. A good process leads to good decisions because it requires us to call to mind the important considerations that precede the decision. A good hiring process leads us to consider values such as expertise, diversity, and character. A good personnel evaluation process leads us to offer honest feedback about an employee’s performance, just as grading gives us an opportunity to provide feedback to a student.

Finally, individuals may fail and processes may fail. That is why we need good systems."

We must never forget what our true mission is as educators.  Whether a teacher's aide in an elementary classroom, high school teacher,  a college professor or a member of a Board of Visitors at a major University, the more we stray from the reason we are here, the more troubling things are likely to become.  We must move forward but must never forget why and for whom we came to be educators. The farther you are from those affected the easier that is to do.




Local Media Reports on the story

 Daily Progress

Faculty Reaction

Timeline of Sullivan’s Tenure

Sullivan Ousted

Stepping Down