EHE News
"Responding to Urban Crisis: Creative Collaboration"
The Penny Karlsberger Memorial Lecture, October 4, 2006
By: David W. Andrews, Dean College of Education and Human Ecology
I'd like to start by thanking Mr. [Ray] Karlsberger for his generosity.
I'd also like to thank the faculty, staff, students, and invited guests who are with us today. Thank you for joining us.
And, last but not least, I'd like to thank our president, Dr. Karen Holbrook, for the fine introduction. It is indeed an honor to be introduced by the 13th president of this great urban university.
I saw that. I saw a few raised brows when I used the "great urban university."
Why? What is there to question? It's certainly no longer appropriate to question our self-proclaimed status of "great." OSU has risen to be the 19th-ranked public college by U.S. News and World Report, and the No. 9 spot as ranked by the National Science Foundation. Furthermore, the campus now houses an undergraduate student body that is the most academically talented group of young people to ever attend our institution, and very likely the most talented to ever attend a public university in Ohio. OSU's academic strength combined with the size, scope, and reputation of our programs clearly warrant the title "great."
So if OSU is unquestionably great, maybe it is the term "urban" that raises a brow. This is Columbus - Cow Town! And, isn't this the land-grant institution in Ohio? Aren't most land-grants located in small towns with agricultural roots - towns like Corvallis, Stillwater, Bozeman, Fayetteville, or Brookings? Unless the school is named after the town, like my alma mater Auburn - or unless it has recently hosted ESPN's Gameday - it is likely that you've never heard of the towns that house our land-grant universities. Land grant universities are by definition in small towns - aren't they?
The traditional portrait of land-grant universities
Picture Columbus, Ohio, in the year 1870, the year that the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College was created along with land-grant institutions in every northern state.
Situated a full two miles outside of town on the old Neil Farm, the college would not begin offering classes until three years later, in 1873. Five years later, it would confer degrees on its first graduating class - six men - and change its name to The Ohio State University. A year later, in 1879 the university would graduate its first female student.
Picture Columbus in 1870 with a population of 31,274, which is approximately 6,000 students short of our current undergraduate population. Picture the number of children in public schools, a fraction of the size of our Ohio State 2006 freshman class.
And, just for fun, picture Ohio with the first major league baseball team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, playing in their second year as professionals.
Now picture the United States in 1870: Five years after the 13th amendment to the United States abolished slavery, and with the final southern states just being readmitted into the union. A still war-torn nation is trying to keep up with the technological innovations that would rapidly "urbanize" much of the country.
The land-grant institutions of the United States, including The Great Ohio State University, were born out of this context. The mechanism for establishing these novel public institutions was the allocation of 30,000 acres of land per congressional delegate to be sold to create an endowment in support of the creation of an institution of higher education. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, would come to be known as the Morrill Act of 1862.
This act provided the land to create:
The "…endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanic arts…
and
"…To promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life."
It should be noted that while the Morrill Act was passed during the second year of the Civil War, in 1862, the act was first introduced in 1857. It received inadequate support until a large number of southern delegates left Congress at the start of the Civil War. The point being, the rationale for the creation of the land-grant system was as closely tied to the ideals of equality and access to opportunity as it was the promotion of agricultural, military, and mechanical sciences.
Speaking at the Massachusetts Agricultural College in 1887, a full 25 years after passage of the law, Senator Morrill reiterated the general purpose of the Morrill Act in the following words:
"The land-grant colleges were founded on the idea that a higher and broader education should be placed in every state within the reach of those whose destiny assigns them to, or who may have the courage to choose industrial locations where the wealth of nations is produced; where advanced civilization unfolds its comforts; and where a much larger number of the people need wider educational advantages, and impatiently await their possession . . ."
The Ohio State University was founded on the need to reach out to those whose geographic, social, and economic isolation previously precluded their participation in higher education.
The higher education needs in the late 19th century were a dose of the classics wrapped around an understanding of the practical skills necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing industrial technology. New methods of farming and advanced industrial engineering yielded new opportunity. Higher education brought access to a higher earning potential and a better quality of life.
The modern role of urban land-grant universities
At the time, the most geographically, socially, and economically isolated sector of the population lived in rural America. Fast forward to the first five years of the 21st century. Picture your backyard - Columbus, Ohio.
Picture Columbus with a population of more than 730,000 residents, as the largest city in Ohio, and the 15th largest city in the United States. Picture central Ohio with a population of 1.8 million people.
Picture an urban area where 11 percent of its families live in poverty and a full 45 percent of its households--headed by females with children under 5 years of age--live in poverty.
Picture an urban area that is ranked the seventh most dangerous among large cities in the United States, with 102 murders reported in 2005.
Picture an urban area with such mobility that nearly half of its third graders will not be in the same school in which they were enrolled as first graders. Picture this mobility having serious and negative impact on attendance, discipline contacts, and perhaps most importantly, academic achievement. A recent study of the Columbus Public Schools indicated that fourth-grade proficiency scores were as much as 20 percent lower for children who had changed schools multiple times.
Picture a rapidly improving urban school district, but one in which only 35 percent of its students pass all five sections of the Ohio Graduation Test. Picture the surrounding suburban districts with nearly 90 percent of their students passing the five sections of the same exam.
And the inequities could go on and on…
This ain't your great, great grandmother's Columbus, nor is it her Ohio.
In Great-Great Granny's day, inaccessibility to higher education was likely a function of gender inequality, geographical isolation related to distance and transportation, and the absence of great public universities.
Today, the inaccessibility of higher education is largely limited to those who are unprepared to take advantage of its availability. There are 14 four-year universities in Ohio with 23 additional branches or regional campuses. In addition, there are 24 technical and community colleges receiving public support. In total there are over 60 locations receiving public support for higher education. Add to that 73 independent colleges, and you end up with 133 different locations offering opportunities for higher education. Combine this availability with millions dollars of support through federal loans and scholarships, and accessibility to higher education is no longer an exclusive function of availability and cost.
The young people who are least likely to participate in higher education are those who are not academically prepared to participate and who are more likely to have experienced other health and social or emotional barriers that interfere with their overall development. Our society is such that these unprepared youth are more likely to be poor, minorities, and living in either our most dense, economically challenged urban areas or our most remote rural locations.
Our most challenged families and their children live in very urban and very rural settings. The following graph represents what, as a highly trained academic, I call, "the generalized distribution of 'Bad Stuff' across places where folks live."
'Bad Stuff' includes, but is not limited to, hunger and food insecurity, inadequate housing, poverty (adjusted for cost of living, of course), and access to high-quality education. In short, living in high-density, economically challenged areas is hard, and it's not much better in our most isolated rural areas.
In order to fulfill the obligations of a 21st century land-grant institution we must channel a substantial portion of energy into our urban areas.
Rural areas have rightfully received the attention of our land-grant institutions for well over a century, and they should remain a priority. Agricultural and mechanical traditions should be further refined with a focus on rural areas where poverty and geographic isolation create significant disadvantage and educational inequity. One need only look at our shamefully imbalanced funding of education in our poorest rural areas to understand the importance of maintaining this focus. Addressing such rural inequities, through restructuring the funding of public education in Ohio, may actually trump the importance of production agriculture as we move deeper into this century - we can always hope.
However, a new and comprehensive focus must crystallize around the holistic needs of individuals living within our inner cities. The "great" land-grant institutions of the United States, including The Ohio State University, have been somewhat reluctant to plant a firm stake in the ground and create a meaningful, comprehensive urban agenda. Dialog occurs, committees are formed, and white papers are distributed. The distribution of important resources, however, remains largely unchanged.
Federal support for land-grant institutions through the Cooperative Research, Extension, and Education Service is administered through the United States Department of Agriculture - and that explains more than a few things. This historical stream of support for research and outreach in the land-grant system espouses an interest in a wide range of economic and social issues, but continues to allocate the vast majority of its resources to agricultural concerns.
We must make higher education accessible to our urban populations through a targeted focus on urban issues and firmly address what really matters in terms of access. Creating more universities with lower tuition will not assure that urban children and youth are fully prepared academically, physically, and socially to take advantage of the higher education system that has been inadvertently designed for, and is being accessed by, their more advantaged peers.
The answer is in higher education's full and creative collaboration with local, state, and national partners in the preparation of young people that will enhance their eligibility for higher education.
Comprehensive preparation is more than instructional curriculum
In writing about the history of land-grant colleges, Allen Nevins points out,
"A fundamental emotion gave force to the principle that every child should have free opportunity for as complete an education as his tastes and abilities warranted. . . . No restrictions of class, or fortune, or sex, or geographical position - no restrictions whatsoever--should operate."
The most pertinent phrase in this passage being "… and abilities warrant."
Enhancing the ability and preparation required to participate fully in higher education is one of the most significant ways that the modern land-grant university can respond to our urban crises. The focus, however, must be much broader than a token attempt to strengthen our traditional K-12 schools systems.
Preparation is not just about strengthening primary and secondary education. It is insufficient to exclusively focus on preschool through twelfth grade education in formal public school settings. While the gold standard may be high academic achievement, and formal evaluations of academic achievement may remain the ultimate indicator of preparedness for higher education, many of the approaches that will lead to success have very little to do with the quality of our schools.
Approximately half of the influences on graduation rates from high school, the acquisition of a college acceptable grade point average, and even a winning SAT/ACT score are found in factors that reside well outside of the school house. Research estimates that 49 percent of the variance in academic achievement can be explained by factors that are totally beyond the control of a traditional "school."
Some of these factors include but are not limited to:
- Poor nutrition
- Family stress
- Family conflict
- Peer influences
- Exposure to violence
- Abuse, neglect
- Attention deficits
- Behavioral problems
- Depression
- Anxiety
- Social problems
- Trauma reactions
- Neighborhood crime rates
- Lack of parental support
- And a basic lack of family resources
And once set into motion, many of these factors are in turn negatively influenced by the poor academic achievement that they helped create.
Here's a scenario prompted by a recent report from the Columbus Public Schools.
Early in this presentation I mention student mobility.
There is ample evidence that academic achievement is negatively related to low attendance and high discipline contacts. In other words, if you aren't in school and when you are in school you are acting out, you are not likely to be learning - as the kids say, that's a no-brainer.
It also was not a major surprise to find out that the report from Columbus Public Schools noted that attendance declines and behavior problems are greater for students with high mobility. That is, changing schools more than once is a major factor correlated with both decreased attendance and increased discipline contacts.
And what is a major correlate of mobility?
Unstable housing.
And what is a major correlate of unstable housing?
Parental unemployment
And what is a major correlate of unemployment?
Academic credentials
And what is a major correlate of academic credentials?
Academic achievement
And what is a major correlate of academic achievement?
Low attendance and discipline problems
And what is a correlate of low attendance and discipline problems?
Mobility
It's a bit like the never-ending nursery rhyme, There's a Hole in the Bucket.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it.With what should I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I fix it, dear Liza, with what?With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, with straw.But the straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long.So cut it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So cut it dear Henry, dear Henry, cut it!With what should I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I cut it, dear Liza, with what?Use the hatchet, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Use the hatchet, dear Henry, the hatchet.But the hatchet's too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The hatchet's too dull, dear Liza, too dull.So, sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So sharpen it dear Henry, dear Henry, sharpen it!With what should I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I sharpen, dear Liza, with what?Use the stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Use the stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, the stone.But the stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry.So wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So wet it dear Henry, dear Henry, wet it.With what should I wet it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I wet it, dear Liza, with what?With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, water.With what should I carry it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I carry it dear Liza, with what?Use the bucket dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Use the bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, the bucket!There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.
It's a maddening circle of relationships among variables that are nearly impossible to untangle, and that can render one paralyzed in futility. If you can't get into the "hole in the bucket" analogy, try [imagining] a dog chasing its tail.
Learning what is necessary to live cannot be untangled from living in a manner that allows you to learn. Learning and living are inextricably linked.
Collecting evidence on holistic approaches
Unfortunately, we have very little definitive evidence about the most effective place to punctuate the entanglement of the learning and living factors that lead to academic failure, social problems, health challenges, and economic demise. And rather than resort to chasing our tail, it is in our nature to point a finger, and most often it has been pointed at our public schools.
Why are we so quick to point in this direction?
The simple answer is: Because we can.
Schools are physical locations where children spend a large portion of their time. We are stakeholders through our tax contributions - whether we have children attending or not - and we demand accountability because we can. It is much more difficult to demand accountability from parents, health and human service providers, or get this - a child's peers. I know parents who would love to hold a perceived deviant peer accountable for the behavior of their child, but it is very difficult if not impossible to accomplish. So we point at our schools and hold them accountable for the ultimate outcome even though we know that, in a best-case scenario, they can only influence roughly half of that outcome.
The fascinating phenomena of parents' willingness to move children into clearly ineffective charter schools (not that all charters are ineffective) supports the notion that failure, or perceived lack of performance, is first and foremost attributable to the school. We need to better understand how the outward migration of students runs counter to much what we know about consumer behavior, but we also need to consider what this behavior implies about consumer expectations and confidence in our public schools.
This is not to say that our urban public schools do not need to improve. They do - and they are. Public schools across the nation are making steady, but only gradual progress. Columbus Public is demonstrating significant academic improvement, as are many of our urban districts statewide. The new district report cards are promising.
And it's not that we have no clue what to do: Hire the most qualified teachers; set great expectations, and use outcome-based data to drive decision making; create a supportive school climate; and, if you really want to hedge your bets toward success, figure out a way to eliminate students who are not academically talented. (I jest, but you would be surprised at how many times 'program success' is based upon 'student selectivity.')
In fact we have multiple small-scale models around the country that are achieving phenomenal results. But it's a school here, a school there, a small district here, part of large district somewhere else. And if you dig deep enough into the most impressive outcomes, the positive results often boil down to a matter of passion, leadership, and firm parental and community commitment - things that are very difficult to "scale up" in a large urban setting.
It is clear to me that if we just focus on schools, it won't be enough. There is absolutely no way that a singular focus on what schools can do better will yield the kind of progress that will leave "No Child Left Behind." There will be a clear ceiling on improvement. If we abandon our schools and put them on an island to do our work for us, we will fail.
We cannot neatly compartmentalize the well-being of our children into academic, social, and physical domains and say to our public education system, "You are on your own with the academic side. Have at it. We will check back at the end of the year and give you your report card."
Nor can we, in their current configuration, ask public schools to assume full responsibility alone for the academic, physical, and social emotional well-being of all of our children.
Take the issue of childhood obesity. Is it within the scope of schools to assume full responsibility for this pressing national problem? No, we know that school-based interventions combined with intensive family involvement can be part of the solution, but it is entirely unrealistic to think that schools are solely responsible for remedying this growing problem.
Bold collaborations for educational success
We must create a system of collaboration that addresses the holistic needs of children, youth, and families directly within the context of their community, regardless of the challenges offered by that community.
A school is a place, and perhaps it is the right place to address the comprehensive needs of children and families. But, we need new models of collaboration to make that place capable of helping families with serious, and seemingly insurmountable, non-academic barriers to achievement - with achievement being broadly much more broadly defined as academic, social, and physical.
The bold, creative collaborations that are necessary to accomplish this will require us to move beyond the "parallel play" that normally defines a partnership. Parallel play, as defined long ago [by researchers studying] preschool children, is being in the same general area, using the same materials, yet not sharing materials or working toward a common goal. We have far too many examples of things that we call collaborations or partnerships that are nothing more than parallel play.
So what will it take to create such innovative collaborations? Simply put creative collaboration requires three things:
1. An unequivocal commitment to a shared goal.
For example, The Ohio State University collaborated in the development of the new Metro High School with Battelle and the Franklin County Educational Council. The Metro School is a small high school designed as an incubator for advancing math, science, and technology education. Battelle, OSU, and the Educational Council drove this initiative forward with complete support from their highest levels of administration, and it clearly required [the partners'] unequivocal commitment to contribute to a better system in support of math, science, and technology education. The school was up and running less than a year from the time that this unequivocal commitment was articulated.
2. The ability to bring something meaningful and accountable to the collaboration.
An example: The new Early Childhood Development Center and the elementary school at Weinland Park [in Columbus] are a great example of collaborators having something meaning to bring to the table. In this case, The Ohio State University is bringing a $10 million new early childhood facility to the table, Columbus Public Schools is bringing a $10 million elementary school, and the City of Columbus helped assemble the land and is providing much-needed green space and recreation areas through a reconfiguration of park land. We all clearly had, and have, something to offer this wonderful project. My rather callous observation is that people who complain about not having anyone interested in being their partner don't have much to offer the partnership. Now our challenge is articulating the same balanced contributions to the programmatic side of the collaboration.
3. Finally, willingness to reconfigure central elements of the participating organizations.
Sometimes the collaboration is so compelling, and so necessary, that it requires significant modification to the basic structure and operation of the participating organizations. The newly formed College of Education and Human Ecology is a classic example. Two strong, long-standing colleges at The Ohio State University determined that they could do more together than they could apart, and that the best mechanism for achieving our shared goals was to form a new college and dedicate our focus to inspiring innovation in learning and living. We decided to fundamentally change our structure in order to address the complex issues of learning and living that cannot be extracted from one another.
None of these collaborative projects have been easy. "Playing well with others" is not play - not play at all. It is hard work. Solitary play is simple and offers complete control. Unfortunately, it does not offer solutions to complex problems and can no longer be afforded.
You are sitting at one of the great land-grant institutions of the 21st century - and with that comes the responsibility to be one of the world's great urban universities. Our aspirations are to be the greatest! We will only achieve our aspiration through creative collaborations. Our long-standing mission remains unchanged: it is to bring the strength of this great university to the people of Ohio, especially those who are the most difficult to access.
Together, in true collaboration, we can inspire incredible innovation in learning and living.
xhtml | css | 508 © 2008 The Ohio State University - College of Education and Human Ecology. All Rights Reserved.
If you have trouble accessing this page and need to request an alternate format, contact the webmaster.