Thoughts on Higher Education: Policy, Learning, & Retention

When I began watching the video (DeVoogd, 2018) and reading Lipsky (2010), I realized I wasn’t sure what the definition of a street level bureaucrat is. I thought it was the same as the as the “anonymous bureaucrat” described by Rippner (2016), but when I looked it up and got the definition, I found I was incorrect. I am clearly an anonymous bureaucrat, but I don't think I’m a street level bureaucrat. According to Lipsky (1969), street level bureaucrats are the intermediaries between the government and the public; their jobs are to implement policy but rarely have formal responsibility for the development or evaluation of it. In public higher education, these are the people who work directly with students and parents, particularly in places like service centers where people buy parking passes, get IDs, and add money to debit cards; financial aid offices; and student health centers. I’m convinced that unlike public school teachers, faculty are not street level bureaucrats as they d...

Education research has important impacts on all four stages of the policy process. In the first stage, policy context and information gathering, policymakers may commission research and/or use existing research. In the second stage of policy definition, policymakers use research as they draft the policy. During the third stage of policy implementation, transparency and communication about the policy, including the research it’s based on, is crucial for all stakeholders. The fourth stage, policy evaluation, is education research in an of itself. Yet, challenges persist. Rippner (2016) explains that “making connections between policymakers and researchers is not simple” (p. 154) and each party tends to distrust and blame the other. She suggests that “university departments, colleges, and/or centers could have dedicated professionals experiences in translating research for lay audiences and identifying appropriate communication channels” (p. 168). This is a fascinating suggestion, in...

Rippner (2016) explains that “government leaders want to ensure that a quality education is being produced at an efficient rate” (p. 144), which I believe is often in direct conflict with what university faculty believe is their goal. She recognizes that “faculty do not always identify themselves with their institution, but rather feel more loyalty to their fields” (p. 118). They are scholars first, tied to their discipline with responsibilities beyond teaching that include research or creative activity, service to the university usually in the form of shared governance structures, and occasionally, as at my institution, community service. Some faculty are also concerned with civic outcomes, such as participation in our larger democratic process, in addition to academic learning outcomes, and in my experience, are not focused on “higher completion rates and greater perceived employment prospects (e.g. jobs and salaries)” (p. 115). While they tend to be concerned about the achievement g...

McGuinn and Manna (2013) define policy as “the array of initiatives, programs, laws, regulations, and rules that the governance system chooses to produce” (p. 9). In the California State University (CSU) system, the governance system refers to all three branches of the federal government, as well as the US Department of Education, the Constitution and various laws such as Title VI and Title IX. Additionally, all three branches of the state government make policy that impacts us. Internally, the Board of Trustees and Chancellor make policy, sometimes in response to federal or state initiatives, and sometimes on their own. Sometimes these policies are directives to campuses to make a specific policy, such as executive orders requiring each campus to have a field trip policy and internship policy. At the campus level, policies are made by administration and by governance structures such as Associated Students, Faculty Senate, and committees. Policies are also made through less formal mech...