Posts Tagged Education

Switching the Education Board

I find many students asking the questions about switching from CBSE to State or ICSE to CBSE or vice versa. Then I wondered why are the students asking these questions on a frequent basis. Are they not following what is taught in the school? Are they unhappy with the Board that they are studying in. Various thoughts were crossing my mind and I was in a state where I felt shakened by the fact that the students are no more interested in the academics alone but are more concerned about their learning curve at such a tender age.

I wondered why most of the students after attaining a certain age say 10-12, start thinking about switching to another education board. I tried to find out the actual reason behind this change. The facts revealed left me stunned. In most of the case I found that parents have enrolled their child with a particular education board in mind. As the days passed the child found it difficult to cope up with the syllabus of that education board. The results were disastrous. Later the parents made up their mind to shift their child to a simpler education board. In another scenario I found some students switching to other educational boards before their 10th grade only to boost up their SSLC scores.

Is this necessary? I would like to share a few things with the students who would like to switch their respective educational board to another. You may feel that this is an easy task but let me tell you that the transition from one Board to another board is not easy. Firstly, the child needs to get adjusted to the school. Secondly the pattern of teaching is different. Thirdly, the educational exposure is on a different line. The child is confronted to all these changes. Needless to say, if this change works out, then it is beneficial to the child else it becomes a burden to him/ her.

It is more or less like merging two different world’s together. If this merging takes place at an earlier stage, then the child has some time to cope up with the new teaching methodologies. At the later stages it seems to be extremely difficult and the child has to tackle the pressure.. But there are a few exception to this statement. So think twice, take advice and decide your option, – change, good marks or pressure?

, ,

No Comments

Service Education Latitude and Flexibility

As the chair of the school of Criminal Justice, each new class presents some unique issues to be addressed. Yet, there are always common questions which recur for each class. One of these always concerns what the modern security professional needs to be aware of in this changing technological era. With each incoming class, and with each graduating class, I have always stressed four key principles that they must beware of if they are to be successful in their new profession. In this article we will take a look at those four parameters and how they impact not only individuals, but the system of security throughout this country as a whole. The need to provide service, to continue education, to remember the need for latitude, and to understand the growing flexibility of the new technological age are the four pillars that will make a successful professional, and a successful system for security.

Service:

In the instruction of college students, we sometimes take for granted that their understanding of the world at large is the same as the professors that provide the instruction. This is seldom the case. In Criminal Justice programs for almost a decade we saw increasing numbers of young high school graduates come into programs with the intent of becoming police officers, or what we have grown to identify as public security officials. Over the last two years this process has change radically. With the economic pressure on states, counties, and cities, we have seen a reduction in number of public security personnel in the face of rising cost. The cost of training and maintaining the average police officer has increased over 415% since the 1980s as indicated in the department of justice and labor statistics. It is this extreme escalation in cost that has forced society away from public security and toward private security professionals for economic reasons. Yet service, a key factor that any security professional or organization must provide, has very different meanings for each of these groups. Police departments are and were created to provide protection to the population at large. This is often a very different type of service, and will continue to be a very different type of service than that provided by the private security professional whose creation and existence is often driven by contract to protect private property. Private security does not have the same posture toward people.

The nature of service is changing dramatically as we make the transition from large public forces, to smaller contract driven private forces in our society. Helping students to understand this distinction can often be traumatic for those that come to the educational institution with only the concept of public service as their vision. The study of contract law and the intricacies involved focuses the student on these differences. The distinction between the two natures of service becomes clear, if not readily accepted. An example occurred recently in Seattle that made national headlines. The City of Seattle operates a public bus system in the city. At one facility where buses would engage in turnarounds, security was not provided by police, but by a private security company. One particular evening, a young lady found herself under attack by a group of young men in this facility. The private security officers responsible for this facility could be seen on camera not responding to the individual who was in distress. A Public outcry resulted from this lack of response and service. Once the investigation was undertaken it became apparent that the contract which allowed these private security forces into this facility restricted their ability to respond to individual attacks. Their responsibility was the protection of property, i.e. the buses, the property of that company to which they contracted. They were providing service in according with the terms of their contract, but not in terms of the social contract that society often expects from public security entities. It is this new change in understanding that the public must grow to understand as we make a shift from public security to private security in many of these areas. In time, we will balance these issues of service but at present it is an area that the security professional must be aware of and understand more fully.

Education:

Twenty years ago the average police officer needed little more than a high school education, and some well cultivated connections on a local police force before being accepted for training in a state sponsored academy. Likewise, a private security officer needed the same educational background to be accepted into a program that provided minimal training before being allowed to carry a firearm and to use lethal force. Those days are long gone. Today the modern security professional, weather in the public sector are the private sector, faces a growing pressure for increased levels of education. At the institution where I teach, we hire a number of adjuncts to teach classes each year. Many of these people come from police departments, and others from private security companies and the court systems in terms of prosecutors both Federal and state. The minimum requirement to teach a course at our institution, and many other institutions is a master’s degree as a minimum. We see the same trend in companies looking to hire new graduates.

In many segments of the security industry, especially those dealing with information systems, the Bachelor’s Degree is the minimum requirement to get in the door of the company. The American Society of Industrial Security, the largest organization in the country for security professionals, has been one of the leaders in establishing higher educational requirement for all private companies across the nation. Likewise, public security agencies such as sheriff’s departments and police departments who for years have used the associates degree as the minimum requirement for entry level

positions, have slowly begun to back away from that position. An associate degree may get you an entry level job with a police department or a sheriff’s department, but you will not be promotable. Over the last decade, as evidenced by U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, which keeps educational statistics for all colleges across the country, Criminal Justice programs had moved significantly away from certificates programs and associate degrees toward full bachelor’s degree programs for their students. This is driven in part by the complexity of technology graduates must face. This will not change in the foreseeable future.

Latitude:

Latitude as a concept is very difficult to explain to students, and often just as difficult for professionals in the field to grasp. Latitude deals with political astuteness, and the ability to have room to maneuver in current societal situations. The security professional whether in the public sector or the private sector must deal with individuals that represent different strata’s of society. They may be discussing issues with the CEO of a large multinational conglomerate, a politician, or dealing with a highly sensitive issue for a single family. Each of these requires a certain degree of latitude, or political astuteness. The professional must be aware of the political realities of changing situations. They must be comfortable in a wide range of political situations and understand what room for maneuvering is available to them in order to address the problems they may face.

Flexibility:

In the world of today, and tomorrow, the security professional must be the ultimate utility person. They must be comfortable with a range of technological systems, and be comfortable with these systems. Whether they are dealing with psychological profiles to help them understand their community, or the personal data they will safeguard for that community, they must be capable of dealing with a bewildering array of technology. The security professional of today must have unparalleled flexibility to move seamlessly, and flawlessly between a large number of systems and to be proficient in their use.

Conclusion:

In understanding what will be required in the changing economic, political, social, and technological environment of the future, security professionals must understand and add here to these four fundamental pillars of success. To succeed, the successful security professional, irrespective of whether in the public or private sector must understand the important and changing nature of service in the future. They will likewise be aware of increasing educational goals with in their areas and adjust their educational goals according. Finally they must obtain a firm grasp of the need for latitude, and its political subtleties as well as flexibility which is being driven by technological need in a changing world. If they adhere to these four pillars, that will be successful and society will be the better for it.

, , ,

No Comments

Twice Told Tales in Education

For most of the past decade, I have discussed with classes of graduate and undergraduate students the impact of unions in the private and public sectors. Although providing a number of important benefits to the modern work force, the use of seniority as the controlling measure of a worker’s value has created problems to their continued growth in this age of fiscal austerity. Unions and the public have recognized this and are moving toward systems of performance based measures of rating employees. While the rest of the world is moving toward performance based measures, it is strange in the extreme to find that the Federal Department of Education and Institutions of Higher Education are making evaluation of instructors for performance illegal.

During the week of April 4, 2011, I was summoned to a town hall meeting for my school to discuss the new regulations being implemented in July of 2011. The meeting was scheduled for 8:00AM, which was a significant problem if you had classes until 11:00PM the day before. None the less, I stumbled into the meeting at 8AM only to find out it really did not start until 8:30 AM. The early start time was to be sure we would be there for the teleconference start. That’s right, it was a teleconference. After waiting with a room full of sleepy and grumpy people for half an hour, the administration (Campus Director and Corporate Representative) entered the room.

They announced that due to recent changes in Federal Department of Education regulations, we would no longer use performance to determine compensation. Merit raises were outlawed, as were performance awards, except for time in position. Each year, and once a year only, all employees would be eligible for a single salary adjustment based on a, “cost of living adjustment” or “COLA”. There would still be performance factors attached to each job position, but meeting those performance factors could not be used to establish your rate of pay. As long as you are employed, your pay would be uniform, based on a calculation of the national cost of living for the country. There would now be two ways of getting increases beyond the “COLA”. Once each year, employees that qualify for advancement may, “voluntarily”, request promotion. If the request is made and the person making the request meets all the requirements for the job, they will be granted that position. Their salary will be adjusted during the next annual salary adjustment period. However, if they take the promotion, they must satisfy all of the new job requirements, or face corrective actions up to and including termination. There was no provision to allow employees to be demoted. If you elected to request promotion, it was succeed or…. well, you know the rest.

The room erupted in a chorus of questions for clarification, out of which came the following verbatim response:

We are revising our compensation and performance programs to comply with the Department of Education’s new Incentive Compensation regulation that goes into effect July 1, 2011. The Incentive Compensation regulation bans all payments of value, other than a fixed salary or wages, to covered employees for services rendered based in any part, directly or indirectly, on activities engaged in at any point in time through the completion of a student’s educational program for the purpose of the enrollment of students or the award of financial aid to students. The regulation also states that multiple (i.e., more than one) adjustments in any calendar year to a covered employee will be presumed to violate the prohibition.

As the realization of this change sank in, my mind flashed back to the many classes in which I had discussed this very problem with my students concerning unions, where performance was far less important than longevity. The young energetic employee, full of new ideas and eager to try them out, is often frustrated by a system that values longevity over innovation. Now, after years of arguing against such systems, I found myself in just such a system. I spend an enormous amount of time writing, studying, belonging to professional organizations to stay current, as well as working with advisory boards, and boards of directors for various businesses, so I can provide my students the best possible education. All that effort would now be considered wasted. If I sat at my desk watching movies and playing video games rather than preparing for classes, I would get the same pay as everyone else.

This strange twist of events was brought about by the effort of the Federal Department of Education to force for profit colleges to not base the pay of their recruiters on the number of students they brought into the institution. Over the last few years there has been growing concern over methods employed by these schools to attract students that use federal dollars to finance their education. While representing about 11% of total student populations, they account for 48% of student loan defaults. These figures appear ominous on the surface, until you understand the make-up of student populations in these schools. Most are students that could not, or would not survive in more traditional institutions. They are returning veterans with physical or emotional impairments. They are single mothers, or fathers, struggling to find the path to a better life. Some are mentally ill, with conditions that make it all but impossible to function in a traditional setting. Or, they are just old and uncomfortable with the college environment. These students require additional tutoring and additional attention that they will not receive in traditional settings. It is no wonder their failure rate is outside the norm.

Regulation of all educational institutions is good. In the present economic environment, every dollar is and will be precious. Safeguarding this dwindling resource is the responsibility of all of us, but instituting a regulation that institutionalizes mediocrity is not the answer. When the meeting ended, one individual made a statement that had the clarion ring of truth to it. He said, “We all have just become employees of the state.” Many of my colleges and me joined for profit institutions to avoid being encumbered with the archaic system of tenure. A system that rewards staying in the job, rather than innovation. At a time when our country desperately needs new ideas and perspectives, the promulgation of this rule by the Department of Education was a bad idea.

, , ,

No Comments