Most educators recognize the value of practical experiential learning and strive to develop assignments that engage students in a meaningful way and help them to deepen their understanding of rote content and derive some meaning from it. In an age ...]]> The classroom lecture/discussion model has become shallow and brackish. It should no longer be the standard.

Most educators recognize the value of practical experiential learning and strive to develop assignments that engage students in a meaningful way and help them to deepen their understanding of rote content and derive some meaning from it. In an age where multiple streams of information input compete for student attention, active learning activities have become even more important. Such lessons need not be overly cumbersome, but should, for a time, involve students in a shared “nontraditional” activity which can then be used to process and apply course content.

Landmark College in Putney, Vt., serves a population of students who learn differently and for whom college success is fraught with some additional obstacles. As a college, we are tasked with exploring pedagogical methods for mining new levels of self-awareness in students. All faculty seek to get their students “out of the classroom” to apply course concepts in a practical realm. This type of approach, often reserved for higher-level courses, is particularly valuable for our first-year population who are vulnerable after ongoing challenges at the high school and college level. These students are ripe for self-discovery and our program seeks to deliver.

Like many first-year seminars, "Perspectives in Learning" is a course specifically designed to scaffold and explicitly delineate the interconnections between disciplines. Its goal is to teach skills that can be generalized across the curriculum and to support learning. In addition, it aims to promote increased metacognition and awareness of diversity.

In a unit addressing theoretical models of memory (encoding, prioritization, storage and retrieval) and classification of long-term memory (declarative/non-declarative), students are “brought to the wall.” That is to say, the entire class embarks on a shared experience that, at first, seems to have little to do with the content or study skills, but is ultimately one of the most valuable lessons of the course. It not only brings students to apply the theoretical concepts to novel situations, but shifts the class dynamic through collaboration and group process.

Layers of collaboration

The class meets at the campus Rock Wall for a collaborative lesson with Landmark’s adventure educator. The adventure education tenet “challenge by choice” still remains true. However, students are required to participate in the climb. They must be present, wear a harness and shoes and engage actively in some way. The shared experience is the key.

The lesson occurs in three phases: Content Review, the Climbing Experience, Process/Reflection. Prior to the climb, students have done all the traditional exercises, read articles, developed visual models and representations of each concept. These models are reviewed just prior to the climb and used for reference and review. The experience begins as the adventure educator takes over the class and directs the brief safety lecture and instruction on equipment and procedure. The great shift occurs as students begin to gear up.

Harnesses, it seems, are the great equalizer. Everyone looks awkward. But happily, new leaders emerge. More vocal class members suddenly need support from the typically less visible students. Some are deftly buckling and shoeing and others are looking befuddled by the tangle of webbing. Eventually, course-specific terms are matched with the new lingo. Gris-gris, locking cam and “red is dead” are identified as new semantic learning. We don't sit in a room and look at pictures of these terms and memorize definitions and descriptions. We use them in a active way and introduce the terms while using the equipment and terminology.

The lesson is designed to have students access the different memory systems and learn to recognized and discuss the differences and the importance of using them in concert. Those already experienced with the tricky locking carabiners are celebrated as having a functional “procedural memory” for such things; and, everyone is expressing the retrieval of “emotional memories” of past fun or fear in relationship to rock walls. Eventually, this buzz calms as belayers settle in and the business of climbing begins. Students on the ground support those on the wall with encouragement or direct instruction. Students not climbing find their roles as anchors or photographers. There are so many ways to be involved that it is impossible to avoid collaboration in this process.

You bring yourself to the wall—it’s personal

When students finally come back down to the mat, they smile, they shake their arms and fingers and the processing begins. At first, they just relive the climb, talking about challenges and exciting moments. Then with prompting, they shift to the process pages posted on the wall or easel. This is where they record examples of how the different memory pathways were in use during the activity. This work can be hard as they still want to talk about the episodic and emotional experience rather than dig in to focus through a more academic lens. This is supported by another level of collaboration. Students tease out ideas together as they stand in front of the poster pages labeled with prompts. What was semantic? Procedural? Reflexive? What was retrieved? What was encoded? Responses differ among students and generate debate. Analysis deepens as they are asked how their experience relates to the brain’s prioritization of information. Some will admit that recent emotional burdens faded in the endorphin rush as someone realizes “I forgot about that Psych exam I have been so stressed about. I just let it go. Their task is to apply this observation to the target information (survival information trumps emotional and academic data) and identify how to use this knowledge in the future.

At some point, students’ will comment on each other’s “approach” to the wall. This is often a concrete observation of a student’s behavior that reflects their general approach to other challenges. When climbing, some students are notably haphazard in their approach, some attack the wall until they find their rhythm. (You were all over the place on the way up, but you rang that bell!). Still others stare at the wall and plan their route carefully before even touching it (Dude, you stood there forever, but then went up like a spider monkey!) Some folks need prompting to begin the climb, and their technique improves as they ascend. Some, when stuck at the crux, focus quietly scanning the options; others call for help (what now!), And a few, give up too quickly, fearing the challenge. In many cases, however, student behavior when attempting the climb can be related to their approach to other challenges in their academic life such as writing assignments or research. These tendencies on the wall are identified by other students and, for many, it is only a few quick steps to relate it to in class behavior. (Impulsive responses, giving up too easily on in class tasks). These are genuine and honest insights and are shared and received in a positive way.

The class is over by now and students hang out to talk. While students have a better understanding of the vocabulary and how this experience and academics meet, it is these final metacognitive revelations that tend to be revisited in class after class. The group dynamic has shifted as everyone has a greater understanding and appreciation for each other. The moments and their meaning are discussed openly and freely among students as they continue to collaborate and support each other throughout the semester.

Different angles

This activity, like so many lesson plans, has evolved and been used to address other course concepts. The gym is an overlooked facility as a tool for integrating curriculum. With imagination, a skillful teacher can help find the relevance and richness in any experience.

In the past, this same activity has proved valuable in helping students understand the function of specific brain structures. Students can visualize and discuss brain activity when they climb blindfolded and need to use touch (parietal lobe) to create maps of the holds (hippocampus) and plan moves (frontal lobes). (And let’s not forget the sheer exhilaration of climbing blind–limbic system! Amygdala!) These discussions highlight how even specialized parts of your brain are always at work and do so in concert with each other. The next leap is finding a way to capitalize on this knowledge to aid in academic learning. In general, lessons such as this create “teachable moments” and bring students to an understanding that concepts in the course can be generalized to other areas of their life.

Shake it up and get out

Even in-class collaborative groups can become stale as students get stuck in roles or simply can’t find a role at all. The wall changes this. In its essence, it presents a different level of collaboration and gives a concrete experience of a student's learning style. Students whose areas of competence are revealed at the wall are then suddenly freed to take more risks in classroom work groups. Likewise, those typical classroom heroes who struggle on the wall give up some of their in-class macho and proffer more respect and space to the others.

Since Landmark College’s inception, the unique mission and standards for teaching have always held faculty accountable for lessons that engage and inspire students. This approach has become even more valuable as technology has turned the traditional classrooms from self-contained incubators of structured learning, to an estuary of fast flowing competing information. This phenomenon is not unique to Landmark. The classroom lecture/discussion model has become shallow and brackish. It should no longer be the standard.

All learners approach information differently, even if they are not explicitly identified. Experience is central to the learning process, and collaboration adds many dimensions to classroom learning for all students. This requires that faculty be innovative and be encouraged to step out of their own rote curriculum and out of the classroom. They must shake up activities, create the teachable moments, make students stretch and, yes, sometimes, let them climb the walls.

Rebecca Matte is an assistant professor in First Year Studies at Landmark College. The photo of the climbing wall was taken by Russell Durrenberger, one of Matte's students.

By 2014-15, many K-12 education systems should be able to adopt new state assessments after working to implement new state standards for student learning in English Language Arts and Mathematics. ...]]> From a higher education perspective, new "Common Core" standards could improve student college-readiness levels, reduce institutional remediation rates and close education gaps in and between states.

By 2014-15, many K-12 education systems should be able to adopt new state assessments after working to implement new state standards for student learning in English Language Arts and Mathematics. Many state higher education systems are also preparing for this new era of public education that has been building since 2009 by looking at “gateway” or credit-bearing entry-level course curricula and placement policies for students who may need remediation.

In 2009, 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia signed a memorandum of agreement with the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers to commit to a state-led process for developing K-12 education standards aligned with higher education and workforce expectations, also known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The agreement led to the development of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics. Since then, 45 of the original 48 states have adopted the standards and are in the process of implementing them across K-12 education through teacher professional development and new state assessments.

As a national initiative to create common educational standards for students across multiple states, the CCSS represent a new chapter in American education. In keeping with the tradition of state and local control over education policy, this initiative was driven by state governors and state education commissioners across the country. Participating states committed to improving college- and career-readiness rates at a time when international comparisons showed the U.S. lagging behind in educational performance, college attendance and degree attainment. For example:

• On the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), U.S. 15-year-olds in 2009 fared about average with their counterparts in other industrialized countries and below average in math. The U.S. ranked 14^th in reading, 17^th in science and 25^th in math—and performed far behind many countries including South Korea, Finland and Canada.
• The U.S. also now ranks ninth in the world in the proportion of young adults enrolled in college and has fallen from first to 16^th in the world in its share of certificates and degrees awarded to adults ages 25-34.

CCSS supporters often see the standards as one strategy for raising U.S. educational performance. According to the conservative Fordham Institute, the CCSS in both English Language Arts and Mathematics expect more of students than a majority of the state K-12 standards in place before the CCSS was developed and adopted. In addition, common standards across states provide a framework for preparing students beyond high school. From a higher education perspective, these new standards could improve student college-readiness levels, reduce institutional remediation rates down the road and close education gaps in and between states.

While promising and admirable, the CCSS have come under fire in many states as the implementation process wears on. During this past legislative session, for example, states have passed measures to postpone, require additional public debate or eliminate state funding to implement the standards. Even in states where such efforts were unsuccessful, the CCSS are a volatile topic with parents, teachers, higher education faculty and states’ rights groups rallying fears of federal intrusion.

Yet, the CCSS are neither a federally mandated curriculum nor a prescription for operating a classroom. The CCSS are rather grade-level expectations of what students are expected to learn. It is up to states and school districts to implement the standards and develop accompanying curricula that align to the standards.

The PBS program Frontline has run comprehensive coverage on the evolution of U.S. education standards.

If more states postpone or overturn the implementation of these new standards, the U.S. risks stalling in the current educational status quo or falling further behind international benchmarks. The implementation of these new educational standards for students is challenging enough as it is (see NEBHE Bites Into the Core).

It’s hard to see CCSS succeeding without higher education. In particular, awareness and support from the higher education community is needed in two areas: 1) assessing post-CCSS students’ college readiness and 2) teacher preparation.

Assessing college readiness

States that adopted the CCSS will administer new state assessments to measure students’ mastery of the standards. Funded in part by a 2010 grant of $330 million from the U.S. Department of Education, these assessments are being developed by two state-led assessment consortia: the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. In New England, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont joined the Smarter Balanced consortium, while Massachusetts and Rhode Island are PARCC member states. Offered in both elementary school and high school, these new assessments may replace the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in Massachusetts and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) exam in the other New England states.

The higher education sector has been integral to the assessment design process for both consortia, particularly at the high school level. While not necessarily designed to be high-stakes assessments, some states and districts plan to use the high school assessment results to measure teacher effectiveness in addition to school and district accountability. The later high school assessment will also have “college-ready scores” in mathematics and English Language Arts/Literacy that will signal readiness for college gateway courses in English and math.

As described by Melinda Treadwell, the provost of Keene State College, the CCSS and correlated assessments target the “critical minimum essentials” in terms of gauging the “domains that are key for college and life, namely critical thinking and analytical skills.”

Alison Jones, vice president of postsecondary collaboration at PARCC, said the assessment results will identify students who are not college ready and who need additional remediation by “helping postsecondary institutions make informed decisions about curriculum design and alignment, and the provision of academic services. … Community colleges could also use the results along with high schools to provide early interventions before students leave for postsecondary education.”

Moving forward, higher education institutions should consider:

• What assessments are currently used to place students into (or out of) remedial coursework?
• Can the new CCSS assessments be one of multiple measures used to determine students’ college readiness?
• How will the CCSS assessment be used in the college admissions process, if at all?

Teacher preparation

In addition to college readiness, higher education has an important role to play in teacher readiness. The next generation of teachers has to be better prepared to enable students to meet the new expectations of the CCSS. Several New England states have recently embarked on efforts to realign teacher-preparation programs. Rhode Island, for example, has worked with PARCC to host a state meeting that addresses how the CCSS will drive changes in teacher preparation in mathematics. Deborah Grossman-Garber, associate commissioner for academic planning and policy for the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, said the agency has funded a number of projects to enhance the understanding of the CCSS among teacher-preparation faculty.

In New Hampshire, similar work is underway with joint conferences for K-20 faculty as well as math and science partnership grants for college faculty to deliver professional development to incumbent teachers. “We built teaching teams of elementary, middle and high school teachers with a college faculty member to take apart domains within the Common Core to develop better and more effective teaching strategies,” said Treadwell of Keene State.

Other states and schools of education should consider how their teacher-preparation programs align with the CCSS. For example, are teachers prepared to help students determine an author’s point of view in a text and evaluate any claims made by the author? Are they prepared to develop mathematical reasoning skills so that students can compute mathematical problems and then conceptualize whether or not the answer makes sense?

Looking to the future

Institutional leaders, college faculty and state education leaders all have a role to play moving forward. As Jones of PARCC said, “regardless of what the college president or chancellor may say, if the faculty doesn’t have faith and confidence in the college-readiness scores that are ultimately set for placing students into credit-bearing courses, they are not going to be supportive.”

Jacqueline King, director of higher education collaboration at Smarter Balanced, concurred, “State and institutional stakeholders must collaborate for successful implementation of the CCSS and the college-ready assessments.”

The feeling is shared by at least some in New England’s higher education community. “It’s an invaluable opportunity for meaningful conversations with K-12 partners about what college readiness really means,” said Treadwell.

Building upon this initial understanding and support for the standards and college-ready assessments will be even more important in the coming months. The debate about the CCSS assessments is hardly over. More state legislatures in the next legislative season will consider measures to delay, defund or simply stop the implementation of the CCSS. Still other states will withdraw or debate whether to withdraw from the assessment consortia.

Things may get especially dicey when the first sets of student scores are released after the initial assessment slated for 2014-15. Based on the experience when MCAS and NECAP were first administered, the results may be discouraging and even troubling if student results are lower than expected. But change takes time—perhaps even more time than the crafters of the CCSS and common assessments envisioned—to deeply implement the standards in schools across the nation and prepare students to take the assessments.

As a P-20 education community, we should stay the course and support schools and school district leaders and teachers in raising expectations and helping students meet the challenges of being college and career ready. From adopting the CCSS assessment results as one measure for determining a student placement into credit-bearing courses to collaborating across education sectors in teacher preparation, we must expect more from our students and ourselves.

Monnica Chan is director of policy & research at NEBHE.  Stafford Peat, NEBHE senior consultant along with Ashley Perzyna and Yinan Zhang, former NEBHE Policy Research Interns and recent graduates from Harvard Graduate School of Education provided research support for this article.

While MOOCs may make access ...]]> Massive Open Online Courses (“MOOCs”) are free online courses offered by institutions of higher education to individuals across the world, without any admissions criteria. Through web-based courses hosted by MOOC platforms such as Coursera or edX, student-participants learn by accessing media, including documents, pictures and uploaded lectures on the course website.

While MOOCs may make access to education easier for individuals with certain disabilities, their format may render the courses inaccessible to individuals who have vision or hearing impairment. Many individuals with vision impairment use “assistive technology” such as screen readers and voice recognition software to use computers and access the Internet. Individuals with hearing impairment, meanwhile, often rely upon captioning when watching videos. Therefore, MOOCs may be inaccessible for individuals with vision or hearing impairment if the websites are not designed to work with assistive technology or if the lectures are not captioned or transcribed. If the MOOC courses are inaccessible to students with certain disabilities, the institutions and/or the platform providers may be found to have violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

Title II of the ADA provides that qualified individuals with disabilities may not be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of, nor subjected to discrimination by, public universities and colleges. Meanwhile, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits disabled individuals from being excluded from the participation in, denied the benefits of or subjected to discrimination under any operation of a college, university or other postsecondary institution receiving federal financial assistance.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing Section 504 and Title II. Since the early days of the Internet, OCR has emphasized that an institution’s communications with persons with disabilities must be as effective as the institution’s communications with others. OCR has repeatedly held that the “communications” includes the verbal presentation of a lecturer, printed material and the resources of the Internet. To determine whether a communication with disabled students is “as effective as” communications with nondisabled students, OCR analyzes three factors: 1) timeliness of delivery; 2) accuracy of the translation; and 3) provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual with the disability.

Unfortunately, the three-factor test promulgated by the OCR has not been meaningfully expanded upon by the OCR in a way that would provide institutions with a useful roadmap to ensure which features websites must have to ensure compliance with Section 504 and Title II.

However, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division’s publication entitled Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities provides helpful guidance for website compliance under the ADA and Section 504. Specifically, the division suggests that web developers refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. ­The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines provide many recommendations for making web content more accessible for individuals with disabilities, such as the recommendation that all prerecorded audio be captioned. The division also outlines a “Voluntary Action Plan for Accessible Websites,” which suggests that website hosts:

1. Establish a policy that their website will be accessible;

2. Ensure that all new and modified web pages and content, including tags, captions, photos, graphics and scanned images, are accessible;

3. Develop a plan for making the existing content more accessible and describe the plan on an accessible web page;

4. Ensure that in-house staff and contractors responsible for web page and content development are properly trained;

5. Provide a way for visitors to the website to request accessible information or services and establishing a procedure for quick responses to users with disabilities; and

6. Periodically enlist disability groups to test web pages for ease of use.

The Department of Justice recently announced that, in light of the fact that the “Internet as it is known today did not exist when Congress enacted the ADA” and that “[m]any colleges and universities offer degree programs online; [and that] some universities exist exclusively on the Internet,” it intends to propose amendments to the ADA’s regulations to “make clear to entities covered by the ADA their obligations to make their website accessible.” Unfortunately for institutions currently offering MOOCs, the process for drafting and finalizing such regulations may take years. In the meantime, OCR emphasizes that institutions have “an affirmative duty to establish a comprehensive policy in compliance with Title II in advance of any request” for an accommodation by a student with a disability.

Given OCR’s emphasis on the importance of effective communications and in light of the current lack of direct guidance from the departments of Education or Justice, it is important for institutions offering MOOCs to proactively ensure that the MOOCs will be fully accessible to students with visual and hearing impairments, and it would be wise for institutions to adhere, as closely as possible, to the division’s Voluntary Action Plan. Toward that goal, institutions should insist that contracts with MOOC platforms address each party’s responsibility in providing accessible content and addressing the other requirements outlined in the Voluntary Action Plan. While not exhaustive, the agreements generally should address the compatibility of all of the course materials with software used by individuals with vision impairments, the captioning and/or transcripts of lectures and the policies and procedures for handling mid-course requests for accommodation by a student with a disability.

Nicholas Anastasopoulos is a member of the Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Group and Higher Education Group at the Massachusetts-based law firm of Mirick O'Connell. Amanda Marie Baer is an associate in the firm's Litigation Group and a member of its Higher Education Group. 

My iPhone backs up to the “cloud.” GoogleDocs is all about “cloud computing.” And Facebook, well, forget the clouds; it’s as ubiquitous as the sky.

But ...]]> Engaged learning—the type that happens outside textbooks and beyond the four walls of the classroom—moves beyond right and wrong answers to grappling with the uncertainties and contradictions of a complex world.

My iPhone backs up to the “cloud.” GoogleDocs is all about “cloud computing.” And Facebook, well, forget the clouds; it’s as ubiquitous as the sky.

But learning? Really? Is learning really going to be in the clouds as well?

I’m referring, of course, to the dramatic rise in online learning. Whether it is the millions upon millions signed up for MOOCs (massive open online courses), the popularity of Khan Academy, or the fact that one in three college students has taken an online course as part of their education, online learning is everywhere.

In some respects, this is to be expected. Technology has driven just about everything to the web, from the way we shop to how we watch movies and plan our parties, there appears to be an app for it all. Education, it appears, will be next.

Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation, for example, recently profiled five key “success stories,” including MOOCs, computerized adaptive testing, and “stealth assessment.” A common thread is that such technology is based upon massively networked, data-driven, and automated systems. Students playing an “adaptive” learning game will find that it changes in difficulty according to responses, offering instantaneous feedback and helpful prompts. Research has shown that such automated real-time feedback, when linked to learning analytics grounded in “big data,” provides opportunities for mastery learning at a much faster pace than in traditional face-to-face classrooms.

Such disruption is no longer at the margins. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is investing in similar technologies for community colleges, which educate almost half of the 18 million undergraduates in postsecondary education. The U.S. Department of Education recently approved Southern New Hampshire University as the first institution in the country to offer a fully online competency-based education (that is, reflecting, “can you actually do the work?” rather than seat time).

So is that our future? If it is, where does it leave traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions?

I run a research center that planned to convene more than 100 scholars and practitioners at Tufts in July to discuss this very question. There are dozens of academic programs—certificates, minors and majors—around the country that focus on community engagement. From questions of civic leadership to community-based asset mapping to theories of social change, we help students develop the habits of mind and repertoires of action to engage with our local and global communities.

So the question of online learning looms large over our programs. Yes, like a big dark cloud. Paul LeBlanc, the president of SNHU, is coming to speak to us. So are the folks from MITx. And we’re going to ask lots of questions and take lots of notes. Because deep learning, it seems to me, can’t all be done with our head in the clouds.

Don’t get me wrong. MOOCs, and online education more broadly, may be wonderful for a certain form of content delivery, one which helps students master certain kinds of knowledge. This is oftentimes referred to as transmissional knowledge, in that we simply transmit a particular body of knowledge. As the Brookings report makes clear, technology is becoming really good at that. So good, in fact, that within a decade, it will change much of how we think about and do teaching and learning.

Such technology, though, has very clear limits. Namely, the knowledge that can be learned through such systems has to be stable, singular and solvable. Put simply, there has to be a right and a wrong answer.

But to be blunt, this is not truly education. Or at least not all of it. Education, ultimately, is transformational in that it helps us grapple with the uncertainties and contradictions of a complex world, pushing us beyond our comfort zones and into moments of genuine reflection. John Dewey suggested that such true learning begins in a “moment of doubt,” what we might call an “aha moment,” of rethinking and reframing what we thought was normal.

So with that goal in mind, I want to suggest that we must keep our feet firmly on the ground at the same time that our heads are up in the clouds. Engaged learning—the type that happens outside of textbook covers and beyond the four walls of the classroom—offers a chance to make learning come alive and bridge theory and practice.

In the end, the ubiquity of the technological cloud that is blanketing higher education may indeed have a silver lining: It will help us to be clear that what we do in our classrooms and communities matters to our students, local stakeholders and the future of higher education.

Dan W. Butin is the founding dean of the School of Education at Merrimack College and the executive director of the Center for Engaged Democracy.

Related Posts:

Does Community Engagement Have a Place in a Placeless University
I Am Not a Machine

The first installment of the series featured Philip DiSalvio, dean of the College of Advancing & Professional Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, interviewing Carnegie Foundation ...]]> In April, NEJHE launched its New Directions for Higher Education series to examine emerging issues, trends and ideas that have an impact on higher education policies, programs and practices.

The first installment of the series featured Philip DiSalvio, dean of the College of Advancing & Professional Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, interviewing Carnegie Foundation President Anthony Bryk about the future of the credit hour; the second featured DiSalvio's interview with Fastweb.com and FinAid.org Publisher Mark Kantrowitz about student debt; the third, DiSalvio’s interview with Lumina Foundation President and CEO Jamie P. Merisotis about Lumina’s commitment to enrolling and graduating more students from college.

In this installment of the series, DiSalvio speaks with American Council on Education (ACE) President Molly Corbett Broad about the efforts ACE is making to raise educational attainment in the U.S. and around the world.

The context

The nation’s most visible and influential association representing the presidents of U.S. accredited, degree-granting private and public universities, the ACE remains consistently at the center of federal policy debates in areas critical to higher education.

With a focus on improving access and preparing every student to succeed, ACE convenes representatives from all sectors to collectively tackle the toughest higher education challenges and to address and resolve those issues that most affect access and student success. Among those issues are disparities in access, college completion, student preparation, financial aid, student debt loads, and higher education costs, as well as persistent gaps in access to and completion of higher education by minority groups.

Ongoing challenges remain in making higher education more accessible and attainable. Providing useful insights on the transformational potential MOOCs hold for higher education and how higher education will evolve in the U.S. over the next 20 years, Broad points to the efforts that ACE is making in developing the next generation of higher education leadership. 

The interview

DiSalvio: Although significant progress has been made over the past decade to put higher education within reach of all students, gaps remain in access to and graduation from college. President Obama has made college completion a cornerstone of both his higher education and economic platforms, with the goal of graduating the highest proportion of college students in the world by 2020. What role is ACE playing in responding to these gaps?

Broad: ACE has taken a leading role in advocating for and developing a variety of initiatives aimed at boosting college access and completion, including the National Commission on Higher Education Attainment, which issued its report in January. Raising the nation’s education attainment rate is deeply embedded in the DNA of ACE. It has played a central role in the mission of ACE from our very founding. We were created by the nation’s leaders in 1918 as soldiers were returning from World War I to a jobless economy. We were then called the Emergency Council on Education because raising the education attainment of those veterans was an economic imperative. Again in 1942, ACE was called upon to create the alternative high school credential, the GED, to raise education attainment opportunities for those returning soldiers from World War II who had dropped out of high school to join the armed services. So by passing the GED, those veterans became eligible for the GI Bill and they went on to college and became what we refer to as the “Greatest Generation.” Since 1945, ACE has evaluated military training and experiences to determine their eligibility for credit recommendations. Later, ACE’s credit recommendation programs were extended to the workplace and to major departments of government. So it seemed quite logical for us to help create the attainment commission following President Obama’s call to restore the nation’s higher education preeminence. We’re already helping 34 states to participate in the American College Application Campaign and have created a Center for Education Attainment and Innovation within ACE. One of the greatest strengths of American higher education is the rich diversity of institutional size and mission. Consequently, our community is taking many diverse approaches to raising education attainment and to boosting the number of Americans able to gain a college degree.

DiSalvio: ACE was among a group of higher education associations that convened a national Commission on Higher Education Attainment. In its Open Letter to College and University Leaders, a blueprint was developed for a campus-level college completion campaign that is designed to prevent students from falling by the wayside as they pursue a college degree. What areas of reform and possible strategies to advance the goal of increased attainment are addressed in this document?

Broad: The attainment commission’s open letter is intended as a call to the academy from the academy, to make retention and completion a critical campus priority and to stem the unacceptable loss of human potential represented by the numbers of students who never make it to graduation. The commission raised the issue of new reforms and those already underway and urged campus leaders to consider three main areas for reform: 1) changing the campus culture to focus more on retention; 2) improving cost effectiveness and quality; and 3) making better use of data.

There is a plethora of ways institutions can go about meeting attainment goals. The open letter outlined strategies that are simply examples to guide the attainment conversation on individual campuses. It begins with assigning ownership. Presidents and chancellors must clearly assign responsibility for enhancing student retention and graduation. We urge our colleagues to give retention and completion the same level of priority that campuses afford to the recruitment and selection process in admissions. We further urge our colleagues to create a student-centered culture to improve the academic experiences and ensure faculty see student completion as a central part of their responsibility. In this way, students who need help could get ready access to appropriate campus resources, including support services for the growing numbers of nontraditional students. We also encourage institutional leaders to give credits for prior learning.

DiSalvio: Ongoing challenges remain in making higher education more accessible especially among students from disadvantaged backgrounds. ACE maintains that removing barriers to college education requires elevating student preparation, continued investment in financial aid, and greater flexibility in course delivery. In what ways is ACE committed to removing these barriers in advancing the pursuit of equal access?

Broad: Let me start with student preparation. ACE convened faculty groups from the learned societies to make recommendations on the various drafts of the Common Core standards, which will ensure high school graduates are college-ready. This, I believe, is truly an important effort and college teacher-preparation programs are now hard at work to incorporate these standards. We are seeing temptation to back away from the standards, but I believe that would be a great mistake. There is no better single strategy to improve college retention and completion than to have entering students who are well prepared to do college-level work. That is one place where ACE has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort.

I mentioned earlier that ACE was also the creator of the GED and it has been a part of our organization since 1942. In 2011, ACE and test developer Pearson VUE created a joint venture that will drive the future direction, design and delivery of the GED testing program. Beginning in January 2014, the GED test will be aligned with Common Core standards for high school graduation and offer additional learning resources and preparation materials in order to increase the number of adults who pass the GED test and go on to postsecondary education.

Another area where we are working on student preparation is our ACE College Credit Recommendation Service (ACE CREDIT) and military and veterans programs that assist adult learners and student veterans in speeding their path to a degree.

ACE also plays a central role in advocating for a strong system of federal financial aid that helps extend access to higher education to all students. Our institutions, despite significant financial pressures, are working hard to hold down college costs and to provide generous financial aid to those in need. In partnership with a number of higher education associations, ACE works with the tax-writing committees of Congress in support of higher education tax provisions, including tax credits that support tuition, as well as several kinds of education saving programs and the tax deduction for charitable giving.

I also want to mention our work on the Fisher case heard recently by the Supreme Court. ACE filed an amicus brief in support of the University of Texas at Austin. ACE has long advocated for the ability of our institutions to consider race and ethnicity as one factor when constructing a diverse student body, one where individual talents and personal interests, background, academic skills, and geographic origin all can play a role.

DiSalvio: In what could be a major step toward bridging the gap between massive open online courses (MOOCs) and the college credit system, the ACE has reviewed and made credit recommendations for five Coursera MOOCs. If some colleges decide to grant credit for those courses, the council's recommendations could go a long way toward helping students who complete MOOCs gain valuable college credits. How could this raise education attainment in the U.S. and around the world?

Broad: I believe MOOCs hold the promise of extending to students, including minority students and adult students around the world, greater access to high-quality education on their own timetable. We are seeing a growing number of post-traditional students enrolled in American higher education who are not full-time, first-time students coming to college right after high school.

The Coursera and Udacity MOOCs that we have recommended for credit are part of ACE’s overall MOOC evaluation and research initiative. This is a small but important part of ACE’s broader push to expand prior learning assessment. Of course, the decision to utilize MOOCs or accept those credits in transfer is one made by each institution on a case-by-case basis.

We have created a Presidential Innovation Lab that will offer opportunities for leaders in higher education, both those who are producers of MOOCs and those who are skeptics, to engage in some proactive thinking about this new learning space. We believe this effort will help us guide a national dialog about potential new models that can help close persistent attainment gaps not only among the young, but also among older students and low-income students. The outcome of the Presidential Innovation Lab will be shared widely with the ACE membership, the press and policymakers.

I also believe prior learning assessment is an area where we are seeing new ideas for raising education attainment. Many of our member institutions are asking questions about courses outside traditional degree programs—whether they can help raise completion, whether they can meet the college curricula and whether they can increase learning productivity. ACE is well positioned to help uncover those answers.

DiSalvio: The higher education landscape is transforming at a rapid pace. How will higher education evolve in the U.S. over the next 20 years? How will it affect higher education leadership and what can higher education leaders do to prepare for future challenges and opportunities?

Broad: Higher education has been an industry that for decades hasn’t seen much change in its delivery and its teaching methods. However, in recent years we have seen significant innovations. I believe there will continue to be more emphasis on the role of information technology and the cognitive sciences, as well as online learning.

Another trend in higher education is the graying of the presidency. Fifty-eight percent of college and university presidents in 2011 were 61 years of age or older. Over the coming years, we are going to see a significant turnover of college and university presidents. ACE is committed to developing the next generation of leaders who will take on those presidential positions and help sustain the preeminence of American higher education. Among the programs we offer are those for new presidents and new chief academic officers, the ACE Fellows Program, and an array of other leadership development activities.

We also should anticipate that higher education institutions will develop more flexible options for students looking to ease their path to degree completion and to gain credentials they can show employers. At the same time, new types of credentials appear to be emerging. Some call these "stackable credentials." Digital badges for the completion of certain learning activities, credits for prior learning outside the classroom and portfolio reviews are good examples. Some of this involves helping students earn degrees and some may be helping students gain other kinds of new credentials beyond degrees that will help them in both employment and their career. These are just some of the pressures for change that we will see in the years ahead.

Last week, the Census Bureau reported that three New England states are the oldest in the U.S. in median age: Maine (43.5 years), Vermont (42.3 years) and New Hampshire (42 years). The other states in the region are old too: Connecticut (40.5 years); Rhode Island (39.8 years) and Massachusetts ...]]> New England is aging ... but gracefully?

Last week, the Census Bureau reported that three New England states are the oldest in the U.S. in median age: Maine (43.5 years), Vermont (42.3 years) and New Hampshire (42 years). The other states in the region are old too: Connecticut (40.5 years); Rhode Island (39.8 years) and Massachusetts (39.3 years), compared with a national median age of 37.4 years.

New England's aging has been rapped before as a threat to regional economic growth. See our Fall 2004 Connection piece (before the journal was rebranded as NEJHE) noting that the region was "perceived as 'old and cold'—and no longer viewed as a major competitive threat by other parts of the United States."

Not everyone is sold on the self-pitying brand of competitiveness. Former Providence Journal editorial page editor Bob Whitcomb commented on our item on aging: "Some might see the aged population of the three northern New England states as an unvarnished drawback. However, the states are notable for their very low crime rates, beautiful natural environments, good healthcare indices and indeed high overall quality of life. I see many advantages to such regions in the fact that the median age is rising there and population growth is slowing to a crawl."

Asked Whitcomb: "Must everything be measured in terms of faster economic growth? And are there really too few people in the world?"

To judge from the congested highways around Boston, the answer is "no."

Still, the prevailing concern is that New England will suffer for lack of educated young workers.

Now, however, comes some vindication for Whitcomb's view that faster growth isn't everything.

This week, the Social Science Research Council published its 2013-14 report, Measure of America, showing that Connecticut and Massachusetts rank first and second nationally in the index measuring not only economic benchmarks but also various measure of health and educational attainment. Rhode Island ranks sixth; New Hampshire, 14th; Vermont, 15th: and Maine 25th.

New England may limp to the top yet. See the interactive maps.

John O. Harney is executive editor of The New England Journal of Higher Education.

The first installment of the series featured Philip DiSalvio, dean of the College of Advancing & Professional Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, interviewing Carnegie Foundation President Anthony Bryk about the future ...]]> NEJHE's New Directions for Higher Education examines emerging issues, trends and ideas that have an impact on higher education policies, programs and practices.

The first installment of the series featured Philip DiSalvio, dean of the College of Advancing & Professional Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, interviewing Carnegie Foundation President Anthony Bryk about the future of the credit hour; the second featured DiSalvio's interview with Fastweb.com and FinAid.org Publisher Mark Kantrowitz about student debt.

In this installment of the series, DiSalvio talks with Jamie P. Merisotis, president and CEO of Lumina Foundation, about Lumina’s commitment to enrolling and graduating more students from college and the changes needed in higher education to help encourage that goal.

The context

The U.S. ranks ninth in the world in the proportion of young adults enrolled in college and has fallen to 16th in the world in its share of certificates and degrees awarded to adults ages 25 to 34—lagging behind Korea, Canada, Japan and other nations. In addition, while high school graduates from the wealthiest families are almost certain to continue on to higher education, just over half of U.S. high school graduates in the poorest quarter of families attend college.

A Schott Foundation report suggests that without a policy framework to create opportunity for all students, strengthen supports for the teaching profession and strike the right balance between support-based reforms and standards-driven reforms, the U.S. will become increasingly unequal and less competitive in the global economy

In February 2009, President Obama declared that “ ... by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” Around the same time, Lumina Foundation released its first strategic plan in 2009 with the goal that 60% of Americans obtain a high-quality postsecondary degree or credential by 2025—a goal Lumina now calls Goal 2025.

Expansion of undergraduate enrollments and the need to improve degree-completion rates—essential in both the Obama plan and Goal 2025—call for recasting the role of American colleges and universities and system-level change to improve student access and success in higher education.

Merisotis observes that there are significant obstacles that stand in the way of these attainment efforts. Expressing urgency for widespread systemic change, he provides useful insights on what reforms are necessary and offers recommendations on how higher education campus leaders and policymakers can help manage those changes.

The interview

DiSalvio: You have said that the current generation of college-age Americans are on the way to being less educated than their parents. Why is the educational attainment rate so important to America's future?

Merisotis: The drive for American success in the 21st century is going to be talent. Talent is the driver of our economic success, cultural success and social success. What we know from extensive research in this area is that the talent that is required now is different from what it was in the past. The talent that we need as a society is overwhelmingly that which is attained by having a high-quality education at the postsecondary level.

Now that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to enroll in a postsecondary educational institution, because what we know is that there are many different ways in which postsecondary learning is now taking place. But postsecondary institutions, i.e., higher education institutions, are going to continue to be extremely important for the foreseeable future.

I think what we’re facing as a nation is this rapidly increasing demand for talent and the challenge of being able to actually meet that talent demand with our educational system. This challenge is growing more acute, and the gaps between those who have talent with a postsecondary education and those who do not, is increasing. You see it in terms of wages and employment rates and other economic indicators. You see it in terms of quality-of-life indicators, in terms of the way in which communities that have high aggregations of people with college education, postsecondary education, actually drive the cultural and the social well-being of communities. And you see it in the ways in which people who have postsecondary education literally have a higher quality of life. They live longer, their family structures are better, and their quality of life in general is much higher.

So for lots of reasons, increasing educational talent is extremely important to our country’s future. And the challenge before us is to figure out how we’re actually going to get there given the significant challenges that we face at a government level and at a personal level.

DiSalvio: Lumina Foundation's most recent strategic plan released in 2013 identifies two broad areas of action that will help the nation increase the number of college graduates. You have characterized this as another step in the organization's long-term shift away from simply awarding grants as the key strategy for fulfilling its mission. What are these two areas, and how successful has the effort been thus far in helping the nation increase its number of college graduates?

Merisotis: Lumina’s focus is essentially around two imperatives. We think these two imperatives are going to be critical in aligning the country’s efforts on getting to Goal 2025.

The first imperative is mobilizing all of the key actors that need to focus on increasing educational attainment to get to that 60% goal. That mobilization includes policymakers and employers. It includes regions and communities. And most importantly, it includes higher education institutions and their ability to focus on student success. It also includes the broader public, particularly students.

In our mobilization strategy, there are five strategies aimed at helping to support those actors to focus on increasing attainment and to give them tools that they can actually use to help increase high-quality postsecondary attainment.

The second imperative is to help design and build a 21st century higher education system. Here the idea is to help build greater system capacity so that we can actually support that mobilization. Focusing on designing and building that system is an acknowledgement that we won’t be able to supersize the current one. We are actually going to have to help create a better system that takes advantage of all the successes we’ve had but gives us a lot more capacity to increase high-quality attainment rapidly. That includes things like redesigning student finance and the systems that support student financing, helping to create new delivery models and a different business model for higher education and helping to support the advancement of a different system of credentials that are focused on high-quality learning that can actually be better articulated in our labor market and for society at large.

DiSalvio: In 2012, Lumina Foundation made more than 100 grants for a total commitment of roughly $45 million. How will these grants advance that focus on increasing Americans’ success in higher education and increasing the proportion of Americans who have high-quality, college-level learning?

Merisotis: ​The Lumina overall approach is that we see ourselves as a leadership organization. By that I mean that we have a large base of assets … the largest private foundation in the country focused on higher education. Therefore, we have both capacity and expertise. And so we’ve tried to apply that through our work—through our grantmaking, but also through a lot of the other activities we undertake, whether it’s our work in terms of communication in public will building, whether it’s our efforts around informing the public policy process, etc.

Grants are obviously a critical tool for that, and the grants that we’ve made are important in terms of our capacity. But we see ourselves as an organization that does more than simply make grants. Our hope is that we are providing leadership for system-level change. I think that is the key issue. Our efforts, in terms of our grants and the rest of our work, are really aimed at creating system-level change that will help increase educational attainment in the country. Goal 2025, the goal we’ve been operating under for the last five years, is the “north star” for our work. It’s a way of organizing all of those efforts in a very coherent and cohesive way.

The focus of what we’re trying to do is to create system-level change that will improve student access and success in higher education. Toward that end, we hope our efforts will work toward increasing the capacity of the higher education system to serve more students in a better way and to help ensure that there is high-quality learning associated with the degrees and other credentials. That will help the outcomes of higher education to be shared broadly, both from an individual perspective as well as from a societal perspective, particularly from the perspective of employers.

DiSalvio: Most agree that a preeminent higher education system is needed to meet the global economy’s growing need for talent. With that in mind, you have said that the American higher education system is in need of systematic change. What elements of change in higher education are necessary to further America’s preeminence?

Merisotis: I see three elements that undergird the need for change: student finance, new business and delivery models, and new systems of credentialing.

Keep in mind that for student finance, the current tuition and financial aid systems were developed decades ago for a student cohort that essentially doesn’t exist anymore. Only one out of five college students today attend a residential institution where they  go immediately to college after graduating the prior year from high school. The diversity of students is dramatically greater than in the past. And perhaps most importantly, our tuition structures simply are not supportable by a growing number of families. That is, affordability has become a serious challenge for families. So for lots of reasons, creating a different model of student finance is very important.

Similarly, it’s important to develop new and improved delivery models to better serve more students. We need to take advantage of technology and use what we’ve learned from a pedagogical perspective to advance ideas such as competency-based learning. In the area of credentials, I think the current system of credentials has served us well historically, but it clearly falls short now. We need to make sure that each credential has meaning—that is, that what students know and are able to do with their credential is clearly understood by the student, by the employer and by the people who are delivering the higher education. We must make sure that high-quality learning is represented in those credentials so that the learning is cumulative and that students can actually take that knowledge and apply and apply it in work and in life.

DiSalvio: You have expressed urgency in higher education reform and have suggested that business-higher education partnership is a natural extension of the investment that private business already makes on education and training. Are there specific forms of partnership you see as especially effective in increasing the nation’s number of college graduates? How can business leadership help colleges meet the needs of students and employers?

Merisotis: This is really important. We’ve spent two decades in a discussion with employers about what employers need and what higher education does. I think there has been some disconnect in that conversation. We’ve got to be clear with employers about how they can actually contribute to increasing educational attainment in this country.

There are three core ways that they can do that. The first is to literally support educational attainment in their companies or organizations. That is, by actually “walking the walk” on increasing educational attainment, by supporting tuition reimbursement, by helping their employees develop learning plans, and by actually supporting the advancing skills and knowledge of their own employees. That’s one way which I think employers need to be better engaged.

The second way is the idea that companies, organizations and employers have to see increasing postsecondary attainment as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts. That is, they have a social investment, a social obligation to support increasing attainment. Finding ways to support community-based efforts, to work in metropolitan areas to actually advance things on a community level is really important.

And the last way is that employers need to engage in public policy advocacy. We’ve seen employers have a measurable impact on the K-12 debate and efforts in increasing educational attainment at the K-12 level. They have to weigh in on a public policy level around the issues of financing higher education, about student learning outcomes, and about productivity of higher education. In all of these ways, they can actually add value and be more than just a bystander to this conversation. They can truly be advocates for systemic change that will lead to increasing educational attainment for a much larger number of Americans.

DiSalvio: As trustees and campus leaders, what specific steps can be taken to help mobilize those who must act to implement that change?

Merisotis: I think it’s vital for campus leaders and trustees and policymakers to be actively engaged. The engagement is important because changes in higher education are occurring rapidly, and we want higher education leading the charge, not playing defense. So I want to see higher education institutions and their leaders focus on such issues as increasing innovation to deliver more high-quality learning to larger numbers of students. I want to see campus leaders focus on mission reinvention and find ways to either focus more tightly on an existing mission or consider a new mission focus. I want to see campus leaders focus on improving equity and making sure that there is equity of opportunity for low-income students, for first-generation students, for students of color and for the large numbers of adults needing to be served by higher education. And the focus on equity should include both creating more opportunity and helping more of those students actually succeed in our higher education institutions. Those kinds of things, I think, are really important in terms of trustee and institutional leaders to better articulate the attainment agenda for the nation.

—Cristle Collins Judd Dean for Academic Affairs, Bowdoin College

Though ...]]> “When both of the partners meet our standards for excellence in teaching and research, and where they can both make contributions to the curriculum, it’s a great way to both recruit and retain. ... It also brings us the greater richness of what two people bring.”

—Cristle Collins Judd
Dean for Academic Affairs,
Bowdoin College

Though Dean Judd is referring to faculty couples, she could be speaking about any dual-career couple recruited to a college or university. Our institutions want to bring the best talent we can onto campus. Increasingly, that means anticipating and responding to the needs of the spouse or partner in the recruiting process.

Recent research from Stanford University and the University of Virginia supports the experiences many of us have had: Job opportunities for the partners of recruited faculty are key to successful recruitment and retention. As the provost at a Midwestern research university put it, "The main reason they say no is because their spouse can't find a good job here. And the main reason they leave is because their spouse never found a good job here.”

What can we do to maximize our institutions' return on the resources invested in faculty recruitment? One possibility is establishing a dual-career couples support program. According to the International Higher Education Dual-Career Association (formerly the Higher Education Dual-Career Network), more than 50 colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad have some level of staffed initiatives ranging from printed materials and simple websites to extensive job support assistance for partners.

Most faculty have spouses employed outside the home

Nationally, dual-career couples are common in higher education. A survey by Stanford University's Clayman Institute indicated that 72% of the full-time faculty at the U.S. research universities have partners working outside the home. Those working partners are equally divided between academia and other industries. Of the faculty surveyed, 10% were brought on in their position as a "dual hire" with their partner.

For institutions trying to diversify their faculty, the research confirmed that women are more likely to refuse a job offer because of their partner's lack of appropriate job opportunities in the area. This issue can be even more pronounced for women in the natural sciences of whom 83% reported being partnered with another academic scientist (versus 54% of their male peers). This "disciplinary endogamy" creates another layer of complexity to hiring efforts. The University of Virginia study conducted in 2010 looked at recruited faculty who rejected the institution's offer for a tenure track position from 2006 to 2009. The researchers found dual-career issues to be the foremost concern for the respondents. This was particularly true for underrepresented minorities (83%) more so than whites (53%).

These results suggest that addressing the work needs of the "accompanying partner" may be critical to the successful recruitment of the top talent, particularly women and minority faculty.

Establishing a support program for dual-career couples 

Several years ago, researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education tallied a "back of the napkin" estimate on the cost of recruiting a professor at $96,000. Around that time, the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimated that it was spending an astonishing $1.2 million across all disciplines to replace a faculty member. No matter which figure is used, faculty hiring takes significant resources. In addition to the bottom-line impact, there are myriad benefits of retaining professors at all stages of the tenure track, including recouping start-up outlays, generating grants, fostering research collaborations and boosting department morale. This last benefit, while less tangible, is important. Dual-career couples support staff often hear from faculty: "Why weren't you around when [my spouse and I] were moving?" The development of this kind of resource resonates very positively with stakeholders throughout the campus.

Compare those dollar-figures with the potential expense of increasing the support for dual-career couples on your campus. The budget for dual-career couples support typically consists of a part-time staff member, office, computer, phone and publications. The truth is that most campuses are already offering job search assistance to recruits and new hires, but perhaps by word-of-mouth that may not reach all the potential beneficiaries such as recruits, new faculty, deans, provosts and search committees. By appointing a "gatekeeper,” the institution's academic and administrative areas share a single source of useful, current information.

An entry point and clearinghouse for information

The staff member acts as an entry point to a web of services and contacts on and off campus. Services can include: resume and cover letter review, interviewing practice and networking support. Contacts usually involved provosts’ and deans' offices, academic department chairs, and human resources and career services. Importantly, faculty who have used dual-career couples services themselves are usually wonderful resources.

The dual-career staff person should extend the support already being offered by the hiring department in several ways:

• Offering in-house expertise. If the partner is an academic, arranging a meeting with the department chair in their discipline for an informational chat can go a long way. This is usually done by the academic department head. However, if the partner is not an academic, but works in higher education currently or has transferable skills, introducing him or her to a senior staff member in a relevant department is an easy and valuable benefit to offer. At a minimum, the introduction helps provide a warm welcome and recognizes the important role the spouse plays in the recruitment process. It also benefits the department by: providing another opportunity to set expectations of what the institution can and cannot do for partners; defining and limiting the time commitments for everyone involved; and gathering helpful information about candidates' needs (e.g., childcare and relocation issues).

• Sharing information on local job resources. In addition to job boards like Monster.com and indeed.com, there are more specific ways to find new opportunities in a region. The New England Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (NEHERC), a partner of the New England Board of Higher Education, works to support dual-career couples and to diversify the faculty and senior staff at 70+ member institutions. NEHERC aggregates all faculty, staff and research openings at www.neherc.org, a free job board with typically about 3,000 positions posted. (Information on joining the NEHERC can also be found on its website.) A recently relocated spouse used NEHERC, college and university websites, higheredjobs.com, Facebook and LinkedIn to help her conduct a remote job search in Boston. A good dual-career support program can share ideas quickly between recruits and new hires to enable them to gather good information.

• Connecting recruits and new faculty with peers. If faculty in the hiring department are of similar age or life stage as the potential hire, it may be natural to make a connection to share experiences about relocation and off-campus life. Often, however, new faculty hires are few and far between. Helping the search committee chair find another recently relocated faculty spouse with whom the partner can speak provides a valuable resource and community link. Conversations with other spouses allow the accompanying partner to ask questions they might hesitate to pose with search committee members about transitioning to a new environment, difficulty of a job search in the area and quality of schools. Faculty families who used the dual-career couples support program in the past are usually a great, and eager, pool of volunteers for this role.

A "back of the napkin" estimate

Depending on the types of services offered and level of involvement with search committees, a dual-career couples program can be run on as little as 10 hours per week by a program manager in the office of the provost, dean or human resources. Determining and maintaining information about services offered, regional and online job search supports and engaging with various stakeholders are the key responsibilities. The staff person needs office space, a computer and basic office supplies as well.

Finally, program evaluation can include: Return-on-investment analysis focusing on financial results (reduced recruitment costs and grants received by dual-career faculty who used services); productivity (see J. Woolstenhulme's working paper 2012); and "customer satisfaction" (use of program by recruits and new faculty, search committee feedback).

Laurel Sgan Kibel is program coordinator with the New England Higher Education Recruitment Consortium and the former dual-career couples support manager at Washington University in Saint Louis.

For more on dual-career couples in higher education:

Higher Education Dual-career Network An international association of colleges, universities and affiliated institutions which have dual-career couples programs.

The Dual-Career Mojo that Makes Couples Thrive by Monique Valcour, Harvard Business Review blog, 2013.

On the Cutting Edge: A NAGT Professional Development Program for Geoscience Faculty A source of articles, profiles and other information for all dual-career academic couples, not only in geosciences.

Related Posts:

Academic Couples (Book Review)