“The Chicago Teacher’s Union plans to take legal action against the city for trying to increase Chicago Public School classroom sizes to 35 students.
It’s an unprecedented move that hinges on a decades old municipal code, according to the Sun-Times.
A code passed in 1958 — after the Holy Angels School fire that killed 92 students –requires that all classrooms have at least 20 square feet of space per body.
That means classrooms”
Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Unions-Plan-to-Sue-CPS-95853409.html#ixzz0qHCQMLIw
This action strikes me as offering a very important lesson for the UW faculty. This Union is taking action to preserve good instruction, not just to preserve jobs or pay. In contrast, many in the public saw the actions of our Senate as focused on pay. That was not the case. The focus was, as it should have been, on the role the faculty should play in deciding how to retain as much excellence as possible of the academic functions of the UW.
We need to change the public perception of the UW. They need to see the faculty as standing up for academic excellence.
The Administration is not well qualified to make that sort of decision. President Emmet, while he may have great managerial skills, has never worked as a teacher or researcher and never written about either aspect of academic excellence. His administration, moreover, has continued the practices of former President McCormick .. adding increasing layers of attorneys to the administration and peripherating the UW’s high level academics from the processes of governance.
About a year ago the AAUP of Oakland University took a similar approach to the union in Chicago Public Schools. The State of Michigan, like every other state mandated cut backs. Though the Oakland AAUP does have bargaining power, the AAUP focused instead on academic quality .. the effects of cut backs on the all to real issues of what courses can and can not be taught. (http://www.oaklandaaup.org/)
Our Senate should do the same. Emmert, whatever else he may be, has never functioned as an academic in a role other than as an administrator. His enthusiasm for football, including use of tax money for a new stadium, certainly has not helped our image. Someone with a central focus on the students and on how we can maintain the quality of the UW should take the lead.
Obviously, that someone ought to be the UW President. Unfortunately, the search committee for an Emmert replacement is striking in the abundance of advocates of different interest groups and the absence of prestigious researchers and teachers. The lesson there seems to be clear, the Regents may see the UW more as a pork pie than as the State’s essential center for intellectual activity.
Unlike the Chicago Public Schools, the UW (or Oakland) is not likely to get funds to offer more, smaller classrooms. However it ought to be the faculty’s responsibility to draw the line and say that some courses can not be taught under these conditions.
I feel especially strongly about this in relationship to “general” education. Evert time I hear of the admin’s actions, their default seems to be th short sheet the humanities, social sciences and introductory hard sciences. At Tacoma and Bothell this has gone so far as to replace a UW level of general education with community college classes. Is the implication is that we, the UW, no longer offer introductory classes at a University level? In my own career as a biologist, the role of gen ed (Harvard) has been immense. The Senate should act .. well .. like a Senate and insist on the faculty’s role in making academic decisions.
Someone should stand for excellence.