A few weeks ago, a proposal to radically change the Education Library was made public. This proposal called for the physical collection housed in Ruffner Hall to be relocated to Alderman Library. It also called for library services and resources to be significantly cut. Within the past week, a plan to remove the public desktop computer lab from Ruffner Hall also came to the attention of students. As you can imagine, the reaction of the Education School student body was strong. Some students felt humiliated that they had no input into these proposals. Many were angry that they could return to Ruffner Hall in the fall to no books, no public computers, and reduced space for student study and research. All felt alarm that big decisions had been made that adversely affect the Education School student experience.
The problem is, the decisions I have outlined above have been based on one-size-fits-all calculations that fail to take into account the nature of the Education School student experience. The University Library has based their decision to close the Education Library on declines in circulation and gate counts. These calculations do not take into account factors unique to Education School students. Because the Education School is a professional school, a large number of its students conduct observations, teach classes, or make assessments at local schools each week. Furthermore, many Education School students have full-time employment and/or family obligations, and some travel all the way from Richmond or Lynchburg to attend classes once or twice a week. Consequently, a significant number of Education School students do not set foot on grounds outside Ruffner Hall. Expecting Education School students to utilize Alderman Library as their primary library does not take into account the transient reality of student life at Education School, and the need for students to have a “home base” in Ruffner Hall, where they can have reasonable access to print holdings in their subject area. Finally, our students need space and tools for collaborative knowledge production. Professors at the Education School employ active learning pedagogies that include group assignments which require access to digital information and software programs such as Microsoft PowerPoint and SPSS, a statistics program. Education School students simply cannot meet their course obligations without sufficient space and resources for academic collaboration.
The Information Technology and Communications office has based its decision to close the public desktop computer lab on the second floor of Ruffner Hall on two metrics: laptop ownership rates among the University’s 2008 incoming first-year class and software usage rates in public computer labs. ITC concludes that because 99% of first-year students arrived on Grounds this fall with laptop computers, and software usage rates indicate that students are using public labs for commodity or free programs 95% percent of the time, the current desktop computers are unnecessary. While the library’s calculations fail to take into account the Education School student experience, the metrics chosen by ITC don’t even apply to the Education School student body. To my knowledge, there are no first-year students in the Education School, so the laptop ownership rates ITC cites are irrelevant. The desktop redundancy argument hinges largely on the laptop ownership assumption, but even so, distinctions regarding software usage in the 18-computer Ruffner Hall lab could easily be lost in the shuffle of university-wide statistics.
Education School students don’t understand why they were not consulted regarding these administrative decisions in the first place. They are frustrated because they are expected to be very careful with data in their own research. Moreover, they suspect ulterior motives when data is used so sloppily to justify policy, especially when their personal experience runs totally contrary to what the numbers supposedly say.
In order to resolve this crisis, representatives from the three major student groups at Education School — the Student Virgnia Education Association, Education Council, and Students in Education Engaged in Diversity Scholarship for Change — should be appointed to a planning committee along with representatives from the Education School dean’s office, the University Library, and ITC. All previous plans that have not included student input should be taken off the table. The committee should begin with the understanding that current budget shortfalls necessitate change, but those changes will be defined together by students and administrators. Student representatives must have the power to reject cuts in resources and services that they believe unduly impact them negatively. Many more difficult decisions lie ahead for administrators facing the prospect of dwindling budgets. It is important that students establish early that they deserve a meaningful voice in these decisions.
P. Jesse Rine is President of the Education Council in the Curry School of Education.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Virginia’s political parties have left our universities boarded up
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThe destabilizing consequences of the present appointment process have revealed critical and unsustainable fault lines that rest within our political system.
DUTTENHOFER: Cutting research cuts out students
By Lucy Duttenhofer | 3 days agoKneecapping the foundation of the country’s research enterprise just to follow nativist principles is an absurdly self-defeating, short-sighted strategy that is a threat to us all.
KURTZWEIL: Big Brother is infiltrating immigration enforcement
By Paul Kurtzweil | 6 days agoWhile this law does work to restrict the camera use, the data is still very loosely regulated, leaving it exposed to outside interference.
