24 February, 2003 FPC Meeting Minutes

February 24, 2003

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Jim Archer, Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy, Vivian Correa, Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Bridget Franks, Lamont Flowers, Paul Sindelar, Jane Townsend, Nancy Waldron, Elizabeth Yeager

Others Present:  Dean Catherine Emihovich, Larry Deutsch

Correa called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for February 24, 2003.

Clark made a motion to approve the agenda. Franks seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the February 10, 2003 Meeting.

Sindelar made a motion to approve the minutes. Yeager seconded the motion, and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Reports from FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee.

The next CCC meeting is scheduled for March 3.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

This committee has not met since the last FPC meeting.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

The next meeting is March 7. There are presently no petitions awaiting review.

· Faculty Affairs Committee.

The next committee meeting is being arranged.

·  Research Advisory Committee.

The committee is considering feedback regarding a draft of an IDC policy. The revised document will be sent out for faculty review. Information about faculty recommendations for the activities and support from CARE have been sent to Dean Emihovich.

A faculty forum was held on February 24 with regard to the college research requirements for doctoral programs. There was a good discussion about the topic by a number of faculty that attended.  The discussion explored various issues and perspectives about the research requirements, but there was no clear consensus on the topic.

The next committee meeting is Thursday, February 27

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

In response to the newly adopted admission policy, the committee will be exploring the idea of a viable alternative to the GRE. Discussions will also continue regarding the college wide requirement for GRE and moving admission decisions to individual departments. The committee is interested in polling departments to determine sentiments on these issues.

As a result of the COE strategic planning meeting that was held in December, there was a recommendation to improve graduate student recruitment and retention in the college. An advisory group could be formed to address this issue and work with the Graduate Studies office.

Denise Yates from the Office of Graduate Minority Programs is scheduled to attend the next committee meeting on April 3rd .

· Long-Range Planning Committee.

The next faculty forum is scheduled for March 3. Notes from the February 3 forum will be posted on the FPC website.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich presented a general overview of the 2003-2003 COE budget. A handout of the COE budget was provided. The COE Constitution requires the Dean to provide a budget overview to the FPC in the fall and the spring of each year.  The fall presentation was postponed as a result of delays in budget information being sent from the Provost to College Deans, and also to provide the new Dean time to become familiar with the COE budget.

The Dean noted that the 2002-2003 budget was developed and negotiated by Interim Dean Nelms. Department chairs submitted projections about instructional costs (GA’s, TA’s, adjuncts) for the year. When core instructional costs were covered the remaining money was dispersed across departments for additional areas such as clerical and travel costs.

The budget represents general fund money available to the college, not IDC or development money from the UF Foundation. Also, salary savings held by departments through grants are not represented in this budget.

Emihovich noted that she intends to work with the Deans and Department Chairs to develop a funding formula for future budget allocations. General criteria that will be considered are 1) areas that are productive and 2) assuring that resources flow to that have been designates for growth in alignment with the college and university strategic plan.

There are concerns that the college will be facing more budget cuts before the end of the current fiscal year. Last year, there was a 4% call back of budgeted funds from the provost. Emihovich negotiated the return of a portion of these call back funds when she became Dean. Last year not all units on campus were hit with the call back of funds like the COE. Any future call backs may first occur in units that were not involved this past year.

The college needs to have a contingency plan in place, in case of a call back of funds this year or in the future. If the COE has to come up with cash to return to the Provost, there could be a significant reduction in the summer budget. The goal for next year is to hold a reserve as part of the on-going budget.

The proposed revisions to the FPC committee structure were noted, particularly the addition of a budgetary affairs advisory group. This would allow for timely faculty input through a standing committee that the Dean could call on when in need of feedback about budget issues. Last year, Interim Dean Nelms pulled together a budget advisory group made up of chairs and FPC members to discuss how the college would address budget cuts.

Questions were asked about maintaining current enrollments in a time of dwindling resources. Emihovich stated that it is important to maintain enrollments at present levels as she negotiates with the Provost about needed resources for the College. She noted that we presently do not know our exact contributions to the university in areas such as student enrollment, credit hour production, etc. The Dean has asked Larry Deutsch to develop college estimates in these areas that can be used during future negotiations with the Provost about college resources.

Some issues that will be considered during budget planning for the coming year are:

·  Raising stipends for TA’s and GA’s to a more competitive rate.

·  Release time for new faculty hires to provide support for more research time and lower teaching loads.

·  Developing a formula that provides resources for future investment in the college

Unfinished Business

·  Tenure & Promotion Guidelines

Initial discussion focused on whether to forward the T & P Guidelines to the COE faculty for vote or to proceed with an FPC vote on the policy. Members spoke in favor of proceeding with an FPC vote due to the extensive process used over the past two years to solicit and respond to faculty input on the proposed policy.

The committee report on the proposed Tenure and Promotion Guidelines constituted the main motion for approval. Clark seconded the motion.

It was noted that the T & P Guidelines are consistent with university policies presently under consideration by the UF Faculty Senate.

A friendly amendment to the motion, presented by Waldron and seconded by Townsend, suggested a rewording of the first full sentence on the last page of the document. The amendment passed by unanimous vote.

“….. supports that the department and college will should provide in order to help the candidate address the committee’s recommendations.”

The FPC voted to approve the Tenure & Promotion Guidelines, with 10 voting in favor of the motion and 1 abstention.

  • Final Graduate Admissions Policy

Dean Emihovich recently sent a message to the faculty regarding the revised Graduate Admission Policy. Correa recognized the work of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee over the past two years with regard to issues addressed in the final policy that was presented and accepted by the Graduate School. The FPC saw an initial version of the policy, and subsequent revisions were reviewed by the SRAC. It was noted that the FPC needed to approve the final policy accepted by the Graduate School.

Archer made a motion to approve the policy on Graduate Admissions – Continuing Professional Development for Teachers.  Yeager seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.


Clark moved that the meeting be adjourned. Townsend seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.


18 February, 2003 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Members present: Dr. Michael Bowie, Dr. Vivian Correa, Dr. Harry Daniels, Dr. James Doud, Ms. Mary Driscoll, Dean Catherine Emihovich, Ms. Kay Hughes, Dr. John Kranzler, Dr. James McLeskey, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Mickie Miller, Dr. Donald Pemberton, Dr. Dorene Ross, Dr. Fran Vandiver, Dr. Theresa Vernetson, Associate Dean Rodman Webb, and Dr. Sandra Witt.

Member not present: Dr. Nancy Waldron.

Information Items

Dr. Fran Vandiver made a motion to approve the February 18, 2003 minutes. Dr. Michael Bowie seconded the motion, and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Dean Catherine Emihovich made the following announcements:

  • The College will host a Scholarship of Engagement Banquet on April 29 from 6 to 9 PM. All DAC members will be invited to attend. In addition to honoring the COE scholarship award winners and donors, awards will be presented to persons whose research efforts have embodied the concept of the scholarship of engagement. Several different categories of “Scholarship of Engagement” awards will be presented, including separate recognition for UF faculty, COE faculty, P.K. Yonge faculty (for instructors who engage in action research), school districts, and persons in the community. Dean Emihovich will solicit nominations for these awards.
  • She indicated that there must be another name change for the CARE Office. The Child and Family Institute—created by Provost David Colburn and directed by Betsy Shenkman (Institute of Child Health Policy) and Barbara Woodhouse (College of Law)—will be renamed the Institute for Child and Adolescent Research and Evaluation, or ICARE for short.

Because the College has invited this institute to share space in the office where the CARE office was to be located, a different name must be chosen for the CARE office. Dean Emihovich has solicited suggestions for a new name that reflects a commitment to research support for faculty members and evaluation work for schools. Several recommendations have been submitted. She will work with the Faculty Policy Council Research Advisory Committee to obtain their feedback on the entries and the process for determining the new name.

  • Dr. Vivian Correa distributed a draft document that lists several amendments to the COE Constitution (Amendments) that have been proposed by the Faculty Policy Council for consideration at the Spring Faculty Meeting on April 14, 2003.

She noted that most of the proposed revisions address FPC committees. These proposals recommend a streamlining of the committee structure (to allow all committees to have both standing and operating functions), a change in the way faculty are assigned to committees (adding a “selection” process that will ensure balanced departmental representation on each committee), and the possible addition of several new committees, including the following committees:

o  Technology Committee;

o  Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee (to replace the Faculty Affairs Committee); and

o  Lectures, Seminars and Awards Committee.

There was discussion about the impact of the proposed committees on existing College committees (including the broad-based COE technology committee and several existing College award committees). Associate Dean John Kranzler noted that some UF awards have restrictions about who must serve on the selection committee.

Dr. Correa indicated that the Dean could assign non-voting designees to FPC committees. The possibility of assigning a voting designee from the Dean’s Office to the Tenure and Promotion Committee was discussed.

Another proposed constitutional amendment is a recommended change in the language of the section that addresses the review of assistant and associate deans. The proposed amendment recommends a change in the review process from a two-year cycle to a three-year cycle.

  • Dean Emihovich distributed a brochure to DAC members that was sent to her by Joan K. Smith, Dean, College of Education, University of Oklahoma and President, Association of Colleges and Schools of Education in State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and Affiliated Private Universities. The title of the brochure is Increasing instructional capacity in our schools: Preparation and development of principals and superintendents for learner-centered schools.

Discussion Items

  • · 2003 College Program Review

Dean Emihovich distributed a “2003 College Program Review” draft document that she will submit to Provost David Colburn.

In the 2003 annual review, she outlines the progress that the COE has been made since last year’s report, and clarifies new steps that she plans for the future. The major goals that she lists for the College for the next three years include:

  1. Increase focus on graduate education and support for doctoral students.
  2. Increase research productivity by increasing the research infrastructure within the college.
  3. Support outreach to public schools across the state.
  4. Improve academic technology and distance learning.
  5. Continue to improve faculty quality, productivity and diversity through strategic hiring.
  6. Focus more intensively on alumni outreach, communication, and development fund raising initiatives.

In the report, she also addresses the strengths in the College, certain areas that need improvement, and ways that both areas are addressed. The College of Education’s programs that align most closely with the strategic plan are those that contribute significantly to children and families and to the College’s reputation, productivity, and rankings. In the U.S. News & World Report’s rankings of the best graduate schools in 2003, the College of Education is ranked 19th among AAU public universities. This rank is higher than any other college in the state, both public and private.

She also presents strategies that are currently in place for each department—utilizing information from each department’s mid-year report—to maintain top-rated programs and to increase the visibility of unranked programs. She outlines plans to develop new programs that will meet pressing state needs. Included in this discussion are references to consolidation, the possible restructuring of certain programs, and the status of current faculty searches in the College.

Additional issues are addressed separately in the following sections:

  • Strategies for Pending Budget Cuts
  • SACS/NCATE/DOE Accreditation Process: Goals and Changes for Assessment
  • Internationalization of Programs

Dean Emihovich solicited DAC input about the issues that are addressed in the 2003 College Program Review document.

The DAC members agreed with her recommendations regarding strategies for pending budget cuts. Several DAC members recommended that a statement be added to the report about College faculty productivity and that she consider including a table that Associate Dean Kranzler presented at the DAC meeting on February 4, 2003 (that compares COE resources, research productivity, and teaching productivity between the fiscal years 1997-98 and 2001-02) in the report.

She indicated that she would send a final copy of the 2003 College Program Review to Dr. Correa, who will post it on the FPC Web site for faculty review.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 AM.


10 February, 2003 FPC Meeting Minutes

February 10, 2003

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Jim Archer, Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy, Vivian Correa, Lamont Flowers, Hazel Jones (for Paul Sindelar), Bridget Franks, Jane Townsend, Nancy Waldron, Buffy Bondy (for Elizabeth Yeager)

Members  Absent: Silvia Echevarria-Doan

Others Present:  Associate Dean Rod Webb, Associate Dean John Kranzler, Kay Hughes

Correa called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for February 10, 2003.

Clark made a motion to approve the agenda and Franks seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the January 27, 2003 Meeting.

Archer made a motion to approve the minutes. Sindelar seconded the motion, and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Reports from FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee.

Waldron stated that the CCC approved several new courses at its February 3rd meeting. The next CCC meeting is scheduled for March 3.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

This committee has not met since the last FPC meeting.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

There was only one petition for the February 7th meeting. Committee members reviewed the petition file individually instead of holding a meeting.

· Faculty Affairs Committee.

Committee members met with Dean Emihovich to discuss the issue of faculty loads. The Dean indicated that she did not see a need for a college policy addressing this issue. A second meeting for FAC to continue discussion of this issue will be scheduled.

Correa reported that she has received the final draft of the Tenure and Promotion guidelines from FAC. The document will be sent to FPC members for review and discussion at the next meeting. A question was raised about the relationship of the COE draft guidelines to the university guidelines on tenure and promotion that is presently being considered by the UF Faculty Senate.

·  Research Advisory Committee.

Conroy reported that the next COE Research Advisory Committee meeting would be held on February 14. A faculty forum would be held on February 24 at 1 PM to address issues related to doctoral research requirements.

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

The committee will hold its next meeting on February 13.

· Long-Range Planning Committee.

Archer reported on the faculty forum that took place on February 3. He noted that one of the recommendations that resulted from the forum was that the COE increase its public information efforts. Hazel Jones has notified faculty of the next faculty forum.

Report from the Dean

  • Webb reported that Dean Emihovich is receptive to the issue of reduced faculty load for new faculty members (e.g., a course reduction in the first or second year). She is also considering the possibility of making this assistance available to non-tenured faculty members who are beyond their first or second year at UF.
  • Deam Emihovich will provide a budget report to FPC at the next scheduled meeting.
  • Kranzler reported that Win Phillips, Dean of the Graduate School, has approved the COE proposal regarding minimum admission requirements for graduate students. Of particular importance is that Proteach students in the unified elementary education and early childhood education programs will be admitted to the graduate school if they have either a 1000 GRE or a 3.0 GPA. Also the college will continue to enroll post-baccalaureate students when they are interested in certification only programs or recertification. Phillips encouraged the College to continue to explore alternative testing options to the GRE.

The Graduate School has indicated that the Dean must approve any double exceptions for COE graduate admission. Specific information about the Graduate School decision will be posted on the COE website for the review of faculty members.

Kranzler noted that all COE departments and programs have the option of setting higher admission criteria than the minimum admission criteria permitted by the Graduate School and COE.

  • Kranzler reported that he would present information at the next FPC meeting about a document that the College submits to the Provost’s Office every three years that provides UF-COE comparison data with colleges of education from nine other comparable public AAU universities.

Unfinished Business

·  Selection of Associate Dean Review Committee

The FPC Agenda committee has forwarded the names of the five faculty members that will be considered for membership on the review committee for Associate Dean Webb. The faculty members are:

  • Elizabeth Yeager (STL)
  • Diane Ryndak (Special Education)
  • Art Sandeen (Leadership)
  • Dave Miller (Education Psychology)
  • James Pitts (Counselor Education)

The Dean is now responsible for appointing the committee, and has the discretion to determine its size and exact composition. It was noted that in addition to faculty, COE staff will also be selected for the committee.

  • Results from February 3 Faculty Forum

The FPC discussed the faculty forum that was held on February 3. Approximately 25 faculty members attended the forum. The topics that were addressed included the following: (a) How to increase a sense of college identity; and (b) How to balance doctoral education and research with the demands for service and teacher preparation.

Archer reported that the discussion of College identity led to consideration of the visibility of the faculty members within the College and the University, as well as across the state and nation. Several strategies for increasing the COE visibility and improving its image were discussed. One of the recommendations that resulted from these discussions was that the COE increase its public relations efforts.

Kay Hughes, the COE Interim Director of Educational Outreach and Communications, attended the meeting and presented information about the services that she and her office could provide that would increase COE and faculty visibility. Specifically, she indicated that she plans to work closely with the faculty, staff and administration to provide a comprehensive public relations plan for the College of Education. Included in this plan are activities that are designed to disseminate information regarding the College and its faculty members, their research, COE programs, funded projects, and current and proposed collaborative initiatives.

Hazel Jones will send an e-mail summary report about the faculty forum to the faculty.

  • Amendments to the Constitution

Faculty members will be asked to review the COE Constitution in the next few weeks in preparation for the Spring Faculty Meeting on April 14, at which a vote will be taken on proposed amendments to the Constitution. In accordance with the directives in the COE Constitution concerning amendments (see Article VI below), the FPC must provide any proposed revisions to faculty members at least one month prior to the meeting.

College of Education Constitution, ARTICLE VI – Amendments

These articles may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the faculty in tenure accruing ranks present at any regular or special meeting, provided that written notice and the text of the proposed amendments are sent to the faculty at least one month prior to the meeting at which such action is to be taken.  Amendments shall be effective when written notice of the adopted changes is sent from the Chair of the Faculty Policy Council to all faculty.  Such notice must be given within two weeks after the date the amendments have been adopted.

Proposed constitutional revisions must be submitted to the FPC by March 7. They will be incorporated into a draft document that will be posted on the FPC website for faculty review and sent to faculty as an e-mail attachment by March 14, which will allow one month for consideration before the Spring faculty meeting and vote takes place.

  • Committee Structures

The FPC plans to propose several constitutional amendments that address recommended changes in the structure of and assignments to FPC committees.

Two handouts that address COE committee structure were distributed:

  • College of Education Committee Structures (a document that lists committee names for the colleges of education at UF, USF, IU, and OSU); and
  • A list of COE committees that are appointed/selected by administrators.

Previous FPC recommendations regarding possible changes in committee structure that might be presented for consideration as amendments to the COE Constitution were discussed.

Specific recommendations included combining the Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, the Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, and the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee into one committee, possibly called the Student Recruitment, Admissions and Petitions Committee.  FPC members have recommended eliminating the distinction between operating and standing committees, connecting the policy and operating functions of current committees by adding an operational role to standing committees, and eliminating the term “operating committees” altogether. There have also been recommendations regarding departmental elections for committee membership, and the advisability of creating new committees, such as the following:

  • COE budget committee;
  • COE technology committee;
  • COE awards committee; and
  • COE diversity and equity committee.

Correa and Waldron will review these recommendations and prepare a written report that summarizes the proposed new committees and their functions. This report will be reviewed and considered at the next FPC meeting.

  • Spring Faculty Meeting – April 14, 2003 – 2-4 PM

Correa indicated that faculty members have been notified about the Spring Faculty Meeting, and that further updates would be provided as they become available.


Clark moved that the meeting be adjourned. Sindelar seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:59 p.m.


3 February, 2003 FPC Faculty Forum Minutes

Faculty Forum Notes

The first faculty forum was held on February 3, 2003. Twenty-three faculty attended and all departments were represented. The Long Range Planning Committee facilitated and began the forum with a list of questions around the two topics:

How do we increase a sense of college identity?

How do we balance doctoral education and research with the demands for teacher education and service?

Much of the initial discussion focused on the importance of a college identity given the current political climate and societal views of teacher education. Several ideas for promoting our identity with both internal (UF) audiences and external (legislators, public, school districts) audiences were discussed including:

Have a public information officer who can promote the college highlighting:

  • What graduates say about their education at UF.
  • The quality of the teacher education program.
  • Current research related to evidenced-based practices.
  • Current research in teacher education.

Promoting these highlights through:

  • Issuing white papers on current “hot” topics.
  • Linking the dissemination of research and practices to educational policies.
  • Holding regular press conferences to speak to critical issues.
  • Having an exhibit board available for events that highlights projects, grants, and outcomes.

The discussion around balancing doctoral education and research with the demands for teacher education and service was a bit less focused but some ideas did emerge.

  • It’s probably too difficult to have a large undergraduate program and do the amount of high quality research expected from Research 1 institution. Several ideas were considered around this notion:
  • Evaluate faculty loads especially related to supervision of practicum and intern students.
  • Recruit the support of all department faculty in the discussion around teacher education.
  • Reevaluate PROTEACH
  • – Have we designed a program that we can’t really do?
    – Have we prioritized and looked at what has the most impact for kids?
    – What roles can “clinical” faculty have in helping relieve the heavy workloads in the teacher education program?