I spent twenty years as a community college administrator, directing an NSF center of excellence from 1998 to 2018. We partnered with industry leaders to bring emerging technologies - fiber optics, wireless communications, network security, advanced data systems - to community colleges nationwide. We trained hundreds of faculty, helped establish cutting-edge programs at hundreds of colleges across the country, and built frameworks that are still shaping technical education today.
That work was essential. We accomplished things that couldn't have been done from inside a single classroom.
Then I returned to teaching students full-time.
That work was equally essential. And it revealed a truth every educational leader needs to understand.
The Power of National-Level Work
At the NSF center, we operated at a scale that created real change. We worked directly with telecommunications companies, security firms, and system integrators - networking, fiber optic manufacturers, cybersecurity leaders. They showed us what was coming: 5G deployment, fiber expansion, evolving threat landscapes, mobile infrastructure. We translated that into curriculum frameworks, faculty development workshops, and equipment standards.
We helped hundreds of colleges launch programs that didn't previously exist. Networking programs. Cybersecurity tracks. Fiber optic technology courses. We connected campuses with industry partnerships. We created pathways that led directly to employment.
Faculty attended our workshops supported by institutional budgets and professional development funding. They returned to their campuses with new skills, current knowledge, and industry-aligned curriculum. The impact rippled across the country.
This work mattered enormously. You cannot build that infrastructure from a single classroom.
What Only the Classroom Can Teach
But you also cannot build effective educational systems without understanding what happens in that classroom.
Students face different questions than faculty do. Many work full-time while taking 15 credits. They raise children. They choose between an associate degree that gets them earning quickly and transfer preparation that might open more doors later. They often make these choices in their first semester, before they fully understand what the careers involve.
I met the student who can configure a router beautifully but struggles with signal processing mathematics. She needs to decide: get her network technician AS degree now, or push through two more years for university engineering transfer? The framework we built doesn't answer that question.
I worked with the student who could transfer to computer engineering but needs income immediately. His Cisco certification could start him at $80K. He also needs to pay rent next month. The equipment standards don't address that reality.
I encountered the student who didn't know network administration existed as a career path. We'd built hundreds of these programs nationwide. But this student - sitting in my classroom - had never heard of this field until his advisor suggested this intro course.
The Questions That Shape Policy
The student who emails at 11pm asking whether he needs Calculus for networking if he's just pursuing Cisco certifications.
The single parent who misses lab occasionally because childcare fell through.
The returning adult who asks whether a two-year security degree will limit her options if she wants to advance later.
These aren't edge cases. These are community college students. They often work 30-40 hours weekly. They wonder whether they belong in STEM at all. They need someone who can answer not just "what's the curriculum" but "how does this fit my actual life?"
You cannot design programs for these students solely from administrative offices, no matter how well-intentioned or industry-informed those designs may be.
Why Leaders Need Both Perspectives
The NSF center work gave me systems thinking. National reach. Industry connections. The ability to see patterns across hundreds of institutions. Understanding of how emerging technologies should flow into curricula. That perspective is invaluable.
The classroom work gave me something equally invaluable: understanding what students actually need from those systems.
Both matter. Both are necessary.
But here's what I learned: educational leaders who stay disconnected from classrooms make decisions based on incomplete information. They design beautiful systems that don't account for the 11pm email. They create pathways without understanding how students actually choose between them. They implement policies that assume students have the resources, time, and knowledge that faculty in professional development workshops have.
When I returned to teaching, my perspective shifted immediately. I stopped thinking exclusively about cutting-edge protocols and started asking why students struggle to afford textbooks. I stopped only designing pathways based on industry needs and started helping individuals figure out which pathway fits their actual circumstances. I started understanding the difference between "this program exists" and "this student knows this program exists and understands whether it's right for them."
The Call to Action
Educational administrators and leaders need both perspectives. The national view and the individual view. The systems design and the human implementation.
Attending conferences matters. Presenting at professional meetings has value. Working with industry partners creates essential connections.
But teaching an introductory course to students who work full-time, whose last technical course was in high school, who will lose financial aid if they don't pass—that's equally essential leadership work.
Do this and you make better decisions at every level. Your policy discussions become grounded in reality. Your program designs account for actual student lives. Your resource allocation reflects what students truly need, not just what looks impressive in a grant application.
The administrative work I did was valuable - genuinely valuable. We changed technical education across the country. But I would have made better decisions during those twenty years if I had remained connected to the classroom throughout.
Other administrators might benefit from the same reminder.
A Practical Proposal
Educational leaders should teach at least one course every two years. Not as a guest lecturer. Not as an administrator observing. As the instructor of record, responsible for student outcomes, answering the emails, navigating the same systems students navigate.
NSF center work taught me how to build systems at scale. Teaching students taught me whether those systems actually work for the people they're meant to serve.
Both lessons are essential. Neither is optional for effective educational leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment