XplanaZine

By the time an education provider realizes that it has lost focus on learning, they may have already suffered severe, possibly irreparable damage. This a danger faced by almost every education institution, as it strives to accommodate new demands for flexible delivery technologies, trendy curriculum and course content, and student-friendly financing options. Consequences can range mild chaos and lack of direction to total collapse. Damage can result from faculty and staff disenchantment and low morale, a massive out-migration of students as the institution fails to live up to the promised educational vision, and financial pressure as tuition revenues fail to flow in, and donors refuse to continue to contribute to the organization.

The loss of vision is almost a natural outgrowth of rapid change, particularly if the institution’s leadership has been in flux. As education providers scramble to meet the needs of their constituencies, an unconscious shift of emphasis can occur. Rather than making sure that the stated learning outcomes are the outcomes that are really being achieved, production and delivery milestones take center stage. Statistics gathered on enrollment, revenues, course completion, support services utilized, and even learner satisfaction can be specious, and provide deceptive results. They often do not really provide an accurate sense of whether or not students are emerging with educational outcomes that have any bearing at all with the institution’s mission, vision, or objectives. The education provider easily loses sight of its own sense of identity as production-centered activities keep day-to-day operations mired in details.

Warning signs that an education provider has lost focus on learning are many and complex. For simplicity, this article will narrow them down to a “top ten” list.

1— Mission Measured in Numbers.

One of the surest signs of a learning provider that has lost its way is a focus on numbers, without any regard to the quality of the outputs that accompany the numbers. This is a negative sign in any organization — from producing widgets, to providing service for widgets. However, when the “production” involves people’s lives and the futures of their family, community, and coworkers, to disregard the qualitative aspects of desired outcomes is tantamount to an ethical outrage. People matter. Education must concern itself with learning outcomes — the tangible proof of concept, measurable in human terms. A word of caution must be applied here, however. It is a dangerous step to connect learning outcomes to employment, since in times of economic downturn, not every graduate may immediately find employment.

2—Growth for Growth’s Sake.

Indiscriminate growth and the pursuit of revenue without any connection to the institution’s vision or mission can lead to a complete lost of focus and direction.

3—Vision Means Different Things to Different People.

A good sign that the institution’s vision is not being implemented on a grassroots, or department level, is a failure to be consistent about what constitutes the vision. If one asks ten departments to define the institution’s vision, one should expect some uniformity of response.

4—Cookie Cutter Courses and Delivery.

Assembly-line production without building in flexibility to accommodate diverse learner needs or access issues is a sure sign of an emphasis on quantity rather than quality. A “one size fits all” approach to delivery leads to a rigid approach to content as well as learners.

5—My Way or the Highway.

Autocratic decision-making and environments that cannot tolerate an open discussion of dissenting opinions or approaches can indicate that the education provider is in a panic mode, and struggling to meet production deadlines, rather than seeking innovative and learner-responsive ways to assure the attainment of learning objectives.

6—Reactive Rather Than Proactive Decision-Making.

An education provider that feels pressured, out of control, or without clear direction can start to take on a “cornered rat” persona. Instead of thoughtfully considering suggestions or making decisions in accordance with a strategic plan, decisions are made because it is perceived that the survival of the organization is at stake.

7—Cult of Personality Subsumes Democracy.

A clear warning sign that an education provider has moved away from thinking of itself as a learning organization centered around the needs of a constantly evolving base of learners, is the presence of petty tyrants and autocrats who dominate through coercion or intimidation. The fear factor may be instilled when a temporary cash flow makes individuals panic, or results in individuals willingly giving up their personal autonomy in exchange for a promise of security. What results is a closed system, where a charismatic leader exploits the insecurities of individuals within the organization. Needless to say, the focus goes inward rather than outward, and toward the learners and society’s educational needs.

8—Lots of Queens , but Few Worker Bees.

When a educational provider starts to make huge structural changes, add curriculum, change delivery methods, and to expand its flexible learning options, it must add support staff and technical specialists at a higher rate than it adds administrators. Ironically, this is not always the case, and an institution faced with the need for rapid change often attempts to do it on the cheap, and to maintain or increase the number of administrators, while using graduate assistants, interns, or temporary contract labor for the lion’s share of the work. This is not a strategy that works, so it is not unusual for an institution in such straits to seek to outsource. Either way — local low-paid labor, or outsourced labor — what results is an academic sweat shop.

9—”Square Peg and Round Hole” Retrofit Planning.

A clear red flag that things are amiss in the educational institution appears when learners are presented with programs inappropriate to stated learning objectives. This does not happen overnight, but happens when programs, delivery methods, and content are developed in blissful ignorance of the true needs of learners. Instead of finding out how the organization’s mission and vision can accommodate change, and developing a plan to creatively evolve the educational programs to attain desired learning outcomes, units find themselves dressing up their old dogs in cool cat clothing … (!) No one — least of the learner — is fooled.

10—Emergence or Hardening of Institutional Silos.

Flexible learning requires shared resources. Although units may want to safeguard their budgets by hoarding information and/or resources, ultimately this strategy is counterproductive. Silos will doom an organization. Instead of creating silos, education providers should be thinking of appropriate and innovative ways to partner, share, or forge associations that will result in symbiotic, mutually beneficial and sustaining relationships, leading clearly to meeting learner and programmatic needs.

Granted, these problems can be severe. The institution can seem hopelessly doomed. However, there is definitely hope. The solution is to bring in leadership that acknowledges collaborative work, with “coordinated autonomy” between units, unified by a renewed vision. Leadership must emphasize accountability and individual adherence to the institution’s mission and vision, and it must reward creative ways of bringing the unit’s activities in line with the institutional vision and mission. Vital in this is a clear sense of when and how activities are failing to lead to desired learning / institutional outcomes.