Inclusivity Changes Lives (Including Mine)

“I came to a roadblock in my life where I had to make a decision whether I wanted to live or not. I come from the streets. I had to learn the streets. I had to survive on the streets. I have been incarcerated before and every time that I have done time I have told myself, ‘This is it. This is the last time.’ While I was doing time, I earned my GED in 1999. That was a turning point in my life. Education came to the forefront of my thoughts.”

I first met Ivory as his advisor in TRIO Student Support Services at Community College of Denver. We were different from one another in many ways: age, race, socioeconomic background, academic preparation, physical ability, vernacular, and life history. I told him that I was glad to see him. I asked him to tell me a little bit about himself. He explained his desire to earn a Bachelor’s degree and work in Human Services.

“Where I was fifteen years ago, there was no love. There was chaos. A person feels trapped with no way to advance, just trying to survive in the jungle. There was danger all around me. But once I came to college it was like my eyes were opened, the shackles were taken off of me. I was able to feel free.”

Over the course of the next four years, I met with Ivory a handful of times each semester in order to answer questions and provide advising. Our relationship unfolded tentatively at first, our conversations focused largely on formal academic matters. However, as I continued to ask open ended questions and listen attentively, Ivory’s responses slowly became longer, more open with the complexities of his life. I felt and communicated an immense respect for the many obstacles he overcame to make it to my door. Each conversation taught me something more about Ivory and about myself.

“Higher education has put me in a bracket that allows me to speak to people that I feel are important. These people have helped me really soar past the doubts that I had in myself. Now I do not feel alienated. I no longer feel like I am unequal to others. It has opened up my eyes to be who I am and have more integrity and respect for myself as well as others.”

Sixteen years after earning his GED while in prison, Ivory prepared to graduate with an Associate’s degree and transfer to a four-year institution. To mark the occasion, we sat down together for one more conversation, the interview cited in this essay. I continue to be amazed by the power of an inclusive educational environment to unleash the dynamism and potential of students facing immense odds.     

“I want to leave a message to my children and others that are still out there in the jungle that anything is possible if you put your heart and mind to it even though it is not going to be easy. I have changed my whole life. I want to be proud of myself. I want others to know that if I can do that then they can do it. Don’t stress on where you were but prepare yourself for where you are going. Appreciate that you are here and have the opportunity. Every day is an opportunity to change your life.”

To be inclusive is to ensure that each individual possesses the freedom to become who he or she is. Awareness of self, culture and socioeconomic systems serves as the foundation upon which such inclusivity is built. From here, we can move forward to implement strategies that liberate us from the binds of unrealized potential, both of individuals and of communities, both of self and of other.

I have been privileged to work in an educational opportunity program, provided the medium to participate in the forging of inclusivity. I have learned immensely from Ivory and many others like him, translating the theories I learned as a student into the experiential practice of a professional.The wisdom I have gained from these experiences informs my everyday professional work - from communication strategies to ethical standards to program development to advocacy. But even more so, these experiences shape the way in which I am present to the world. Inclusivity is a radical hospitality. We uncenter ourselves and open our hearts and minds to hearing all voices and believing in all dreams.

A Meta-Culture of Engagement for an Emerging Future

In his book The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere, author Kevin Carey, Director of the Education Policy Institute at the New America Foundation, confidently expresses a rosy view about technology-driven, unbundled education:

“[B]illions of dollars available to create digital learning environments and matching credentials designed to teach relatively small number of courses and subjects to billions of people...The weight of these large numbers will eventually grow so heavy that it will overwhelm even the formidable barriers of regulatory protection, public subsidy, and cultural habit that protects cathedrals of learning...[T]his is neither an avoidable or a distant scenario. The University of Everywhere is on the horizon.”

Meanwhile, in the blog post “Public Matters: A Response to Kevin Carey,” Matt Reed, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs at Holyoke Community College, forcefully counterpoints that such a vision is out of touch with the learning needs of most students and the mission of higher education:

“If we want a society of ever-increasing economic and epistemic polarization, we can replace colleges with apps.  But to the extent that we believe that average people matter, we need institutions that make it possible for them to succeed...To the extent that the new tools enable educators to serve the entire public better, bring ‘em on.  But if we’re just looking to liberate needles from haystacks, well, I’ve got some brutal unmasking to do.” Matt Reed,

Interesting as it may be to analyze the merits of these competing views of the future of higher education, I find it even more fascinating to compare the cultural milieus from which they emerge.

On the one hand, you have the Kevin Careys of the world. The End of College reads like a love story with the people of Silicon Valley and Cambridge. In Silicon Valley, we are introduced to one technologist after another and their clan of venture capitalists, remaking the world by disrupting it as "thunder lizards" would. Meanwhile, in Cambridge we meet the "smartest people" that are capitalizing on new technologies to reshape traditional institutions to create higher ed x. Running slightly beneath the surface of these two scenes is the shadowy but seductive character only known as AI. An immense confidence in if not a borderline infatuation with these characters makes for a compelling read of a determined future - the University of Everywhere.

On the other hand, you have the Matt Reeds of the world. You will often find them digging away in the trenches, fighting inch by inch for student success within the bounds of the norms and institutions of higher education. The story that these individuals tell is one of evidence based practice, budgets, and on-the-ground realities; arguably, this is far less gripping if more prosaic narrative. An immense confidence in if not a slight distaste for the glacial and contingent pace of institutional changes leads these individuals to seek sustaining innovations while brushing aside the “unsubstantiated rhetoric” of “trendy” ideas.

Once again, I will withhold an analysis of the relative merits of these different cultural lenses, as relevant and interesting as that would be. My scope here - what really captures my imagination - is to reflect on how the dynamism of cultural clashes can potentially be harnessed to create vibrant pathways to better ways of doing things.

The short answer is: I have no idea.

I suspect, however, that we may find our way to some possibilities by crafting a meta-culture of engagement. One norm of this meta-culture states that a diversity of culture should flourish in any epistemic space. Thus, it is imperative to step back from the analytical edge of distinguishing correct from incorrect logic, and instead dwell in the places of disorientation and dispute. Perhaps our time spent here will liberate us from our thought-tribalism and hence enlighten us to see anew. A second norm of this meta-culture states that we must be present to how culture conditions the emergence of perception, most notably our own. If we go further with this understanding, we find ourselves in a space of groundlessness. Here too we must abide - at least for a time - in order to free up creative space for engaging cultural dynamism.

None of this is to downgrade rational analysis and implementation. Rather, a meta-culture of engagement cultivates the foundation for open inquiry and creativity, upon which rational analysis and implementation can then proceed within a space of full possibility. The complexity in which higher education operates requires such an approach in order to diversify and thrive into an ever emerging and transforming future.

My Love-Hate Relationship with the Procedures Manual

Measuring in at 165 single-spaced pages and 50,000 words, the procedures manual that we developed for our department is a true administrative tome or tomb, depending on your perspective.

The past year has included both an system audit and a formal self-assessment for our department. Among many positive findings, these experiences have also exposed the occasional inconsistency in procedure, gap in documentation, or unwritten understanding. In response, we shored up our procedures, which doubled the heft of our manual.

I will admit that part of my personality relishes the crispness and clarity of a thorough procedures manual. Following rules can produce a certain beauty, like a well-mown lawn. Following rules can also keep one out of of trouble, which - generally speaking - is a good thing for a department to do. Add to the equation that I (the department director) am preparing to leave the institution. There is both efficiency and comfort in the institutional memory created in the page upon page of the procedures manual. Structure can be empowering.

  Of course, structure can also be imprisoning. As a department director, I could easily spend all of my time and then some simply documenting whether or not we are in compliance with our procedures manual. I would like to think that I have something greater to contribute to the grand mission of higher education than simply ensuring that all of our receipts are in order. The zeitgeist of auditors can quickly mistake the forest for the trees.

  So how can we strike the right chord to harmonize procedures and performance?

Procedures should be driven by the end user. As department director, I set the parameters while engaging the end users to operationalize the structure. Not only does this engender ownership and hence implementation, but it also incorporates the best ideas of the most informed.

Procedures should be clearly demarcated as a means to an end. The purpose of my department is to improve student outcomes, not to follow procedures. It is imperative to structure procedures accordingly. A procedure should support achievement of your goals. This is a simple litmus test.

  A procedure should be reflective instead of additive. It can be easy to simply pile one procedure on top of another as new situations or understandings arise. Soon your department will make a Byzantine labyrinth look like a stroll through the park. Reflect on your procedures manual as an interconnected system and mindfully create, refine or eliminate procedures accordingly.

  Should I print bounded copies of my procedures manual...or should burn it? I have experienced both ends of the emotional spectrum. Approaching the procedures manual as a strategic tool to support the effective and appropriate achievement of outcomes, as opposed to a sacred text for proselytizing and condemnation, is a step toward a healthy relationship.

Your Data Experience: Empowering or Paralyzing?

I see data as being used in three primary ways: to account, to inform, and to no end.

I manage a program that is funded by a Federal grant that is part of a division that is part of an institution that is part of a system that is part of the State. Lest we forget, there is also the accrediting body and the U.S. Department of Education. All of these different parties want to see data to account for the success of my program. Are you doing what you say you are doing? Are you following our rules?

I am a self-proclaimed data wonk. I am seduced by the romantic charm of using data to make smart and efficient decisions based on predictive, formative and summative assessment. I am much more comfortable with crisp and clean judgment as opposed to amorphous and transient feeling. To evaluate is divine! I use data in many ways to inform how we do things in my program...and the results are significant.

I believe in the merits of using data to account and to inform. Yet, the view from the trenches often sees data usage masquerading as one of these purposes when in reality its usage is to no end. I will admit that I am often the one beating the drum: data, data, we need more data! But a sea of data can just as well drown as transport. The usage of data can just as well paralyze an organization as it can empower an organization.

How can we best approach the use of data?

One strategy is data prioritization. Those in higher education are familiar with academic prioritization: a systematic review and – hopefully – dialogue focused on aligning programs with the mission and vision of the institution. We need to be doing something similar with our data regimes in higher education. What are the key uses of data according to our mission and vision? What are the most potent and focused data indicators to achieve these purposes? What data usage must we elevate and what can we let go?

A second strategy is to prioritize people. “Results are an effect; people are the cause,” write Vannoy and Ross.* The people of the institution are on the front lines day in and day out, using data to account, to inform, and to no end. How do our data usage strategies meld with their workflow? How clear and straightforward are our data  usage strategies? Do people see our data usage strategies as helpful or hindering? And – we need to be honest – how much of our data usage is to no end?

“Culture eats strategy for lunch,” the authors continue.

As noted, I love data. Yet, in my everyday work with my program and students, my data usage wavers somewhere in the middle ground between empowering and paralyzing. I can only imagine the experience of folks who do not love data. There is a way forward, and it is worth pursuing, but we have work to do.

*Vannoy, S., & Ross, C. (2008). Stomp the Elephant in the Office. Lakewood: Wisters & Willows, Publishers Inc.

Bridging the Faculty-Staff Divide through an Epistemic Community

International relations theory defines an epistemic community as a transnational network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define and address the problems they face. These “scientists without borders” may be able to produce outcomes not easily realizable for national leaders operating in a state-specific political environment. Moreover, by redefining the boundaries of the social group, the network of thought partners gain a different psycho-social perspective that may open new opportunities for problem solving. For example, during the Cold War, American and Soviet scientists forged epistemic communities in the area of arms control in an effort to mitigate the adversarial relations between the governments of the two nations.

To extend a metaphor to higher education, the faculty community and the staff community at an institution can sometimes feel like two distinct nations. Traditionally, each community tends to have their own rules and their own leadership. Each community tends to draw a boundary circumscribed by the classroom, whether inside or out. The mission of the faculty tribe is student learning. The mission of the staff tribe is student persistence/completion. In the worst of times, the international relations between the faculty community and the staff community is perceived as a zero-sum game.

At my institution, I co-chair our Persistence and Completion Committee. From the outset, the committee included “transnational” actors from across the faculty and staff communities. Forming an epistemic community is not as easy as seating faculty and staff members at the same table, however. An epistemic community requires a common point of knowledge expertise. It requires framing an issue in such a way that diverse perspectives are focused on a shared goal. Through open and honest conversations over the period of our first 15 months as a committee, we came to construct a narrative of student success in which student learning, persistence and completion are interdependent. A student must persist to continue learning. A mastery of learning is completion. Student learning, persistence and completion happens inside and outside of the classroom. Though our tribal activities may specific, our global destiny is shared.  We became a trans-institutional network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define and address student success.

Like most human enterprises, interpersonal relationships were at the heart of our success in bridging the faculty-staff divide. We started with a small group of people from many different parts of the college and got to know each other. We each brought our perspective to challenging discussions. We built mutual trust and appreciation. We struggled together to create a wider and more inclusive frame of reference. And now the members of our epistemic community are well-positioned to return to their respective tribe and share our narrative of student success.

Cultural change at the institutional level is incremental. Not everyone will be swayed by our idealism of a common pool. But by bringing together a diversity of individuals to provide a trans-institutional reframing of our various roles in a shared endeavor, we move toward greater collaboration and more porous boundaries.

Observations from a First-Time Lobbyist

Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. is abuzz with activity, a frenetic and hectic movement of people. I was there speaking to U.S. Congresspersons about the importance of supporting educational access and success for low income and first generation students.

In Congressman Coffman’s high-walled office adorned with photos of veterans and diplomats, I told stories of student success. In a sunlit hall outside of Congresswoman DeGette’s bustling office, I invited her to attend a student roundtable. In the only space we could find available - a basement floor cafeteria - I told Senator Gardner’s legislative aid:  we need to invest in support programs in order to protect Pell.

It was surreal, almost an out of body experience. Governance is far from perfect, but I experienced nothing of the "gridlock" or stasis that you hear about in the media. Progress may or may not be happening as you see fit, but things are certainly happening. And the overwhelming message that I received from the numerous Congresspersons over six days in D.C. was plain and clear: the voice of constituents matters.

Public policy and appropriations play a huge role in impacting higher education and our students. There are a number of effective strategies for communicating your message:

•  Contact the District Office of your Congressperson and invite him or her to attend a roundtable discussion with your students at your campus. Pay attention to the particular interests of the Congressperson, which may be college affordability, student debt, specific student populations (first-generation, Veteran, minority), college completion, et cetera. 

• Identify the Congressperson's Legislative Aid responsible for Higher Education and form a relationship with this person. A phone call or e-mail is appropriate. State the value in supporting specific policies or appropriations for the Congressperson's constituents. 

•  Do not assume that a Congressperson is for or against your position based solely on his or her political affiliation. Again, pay attention to the particular interests of the Congressperson and use these to frame the value in supporting specific policies or appropriations.

• Do not get discouraged by a particular vote or decision by your Congressperson. Nothing happens in a vacuum on Capitol Hill and there are many - yes - political calculations. A Congressperson may support your position even if a particular action seems contrary to your position. 

• Connect with your professional organization or your institution's government relations office to visit Capitol Hill in person. When there, do not get discouraged if you find yourself advocating with a Legislative Aid (who may be half of your age). Legislative Aids meet directly with the Congressperson on a frequent basis. Your meeting with a Legislative Aid is the real deal; don't take your eye of the ball. 

• Position yourself as a content expert in Higher Education. Ask how you can support the policy-making process of your Congressperson. For example, is there a specific type of data that would be useful? 

• Speaking of data, be prepared with both quantitative data that demonstrate program effectiveness as well as qualitative data (e.g. student stories) that provide the context for how the program impacts the lives of constituents. 

• At the end of the day, your Congressperson is just that - a person. Feel confident in your ability to communicate with this person. Accept that each of us have limitations and that the ideal does not always align with the possible. Let your Congressperson know that you value his or her hard work to improve the lives of constituents. 

Education Technology: The Dialectic of Utopia and Dystopia

With advances in education technology, the future of higher education looks great or terrible, depending on who you read.

In one camp you will find the zealots. This tribe sees education technology producing a grand disruption in which massive online competency-based learning - unbundled from calcified institutions and guided by sophisticated privatized data science - creates robust educational outcomes determined strictly by merit at a fraction of the cost. A true utopia.

In another camp you will find the luddites. This tribe views such a vision of education technology as truly dystopic, as a fanciful illusion so enamored in political expediency and its own zeitgeist that it ignores the social and interpersonal structures long-proven to effectively educate students, in particular those most vulnerable (low-income, first-generation, and non-white students).

In the middle ground stands many others, taking careful stock of the unfolding dialectic.

The technological determinism of the zealot tribe asserts that because we can do something with technology, it is a foregone conclusion that a) the outcome will be better when using technology and b) technology is unstoppable.

The interpersonal determinism of the luddite tribe asserts that because humans are social learners, it is a foregone conclusion that a) the outcome will be better when using personal interaction and b) technology makes us less human.

The dialectic of thesis and antithesis between these two tribes enlivens the potential for evolutionary movement within higher education. Higher education has the opportunity to draw on the strength of its humanistic roots while moving creatively into the future through emergent technologies.

For the dialectic to lead to such a synthesis, those in the middle ground must be careful and balanced arbiters of both evidence and values. What constellation of practices most effectively produces specific educational outcomes? What constellation of practices most effectively enlivens the human experience?

Technology is a human enterprise. There is more to the human enterprise than technology. Education needs neither disruption nor restoration, but - somewhere in the middle - evolution.