,

19 September, 2005 FPC Faculty Meeting Minutes

College of Education
Fall Faculty Meeting
9/19/05
Minutes

 

2:07 Called to Order

I.          Introductions and Announcements

a.  Catherine Emihovich and Jeri Benson introduced new personnel in the “deans’ area.” Jeri distributed an organizational chart of the COE.

b.  The five department chairs re-introduced new faculty members, including tenure-track professors, scholars, and lecturers.

c.  Pam Pallas announced that Baby Gator is the first childcare center in the county to be officially designated a VPK provider. She encouraged research collaborations focusing on young children and families.

II.         Guest: President of the UF Faculty Senate, Kim Tanzer (the COE senators will take turns getting senate news to us)

a.  There is campus wide interest in the COE constitution
b.  Board of Trustees’ goals for UF (Kim is the faculty representative on the Board):

i.  To move into the top 10 of state universities

1 .  the gaps between us and the top 10 have been identified – e.g., UF is ranked #50 of all colleges and universities, #150 in faculty resources
2.  M. Fernandez looked at US News and World Report criteria such as size of faculty and student body (S/T ratio) and alumni giving
3.  conclusions are that class sizes are too large and faculty resources are too lo
4.  goals include to raise pay and hire more faculty

ii.  To develop 150 million for faculty initiatives (currently at 43 million)
iii.  Tuition rates way too low – trustees working to move tuition control to the local level

c.   Shared Governance – trustees endorsed resolution regarding shared governance

i.   3 levels of shared governance

1.   determine – things regarding the academic mission of the university
2.   recommend – issues of importance to the academic mission, but not central to it, possibly beyond our expertise
3.   consult – opinions asked, but decision making in administration’s domain

ii.   we are now positioned to advocate in advance, rather than always reacting

d.  To do:

i.  Be responsible in university shared governance (be there, be prepared, speak carefully)
ii.  Be reasonable (must understand the issues at hand)
iii. Be realistic (this isn’t Harvard; decisions are made in a specific context)
iv. Be collegial (within departments, within colleges, across campus, at national meetings, “peer reputation” score counts)

e.   New information

i.   Attendance will be taken at all Faculty Senate meetings this year – 3:00 pm, 3rd Thursday, see Senate web page
ii.  Newsletter will be distributed to all faculty

f.   Faculty questions

i.   How does the Union overlap with the Faculty Senate – 40% of the faculty senate is in the Union

1.      5 policy councils: academic, research, academic infrastructure, budget, faculty welfare
2.    whatever the union bargains for trumps the Faculty Senate decisions

III.       Faculty Policy Council Update – Hazel Jones

a.       See handout outlining accomplishments of 04-05 and looking ahead to 05-06

IV.       Retreat – September 30, 10:00 – 2:30, Austin Cary Forest

a.  To initiate a strategic planning process related to the COE’s research goal
b.  To identify concrete steps to be taken within the COE’s research priority

V.        Discussion of 3 COE goals

a.  Particularly goals 2 and 3
b.  See synthesized list

Adjourned

/by
,

19 September, 2005 FPC Faculty Feedback Goals

COE Fall Faculty Meeting
Faculty Feedback Goals
9/19/2005
Moving toward Action on the Strategic Plan 2005-2006

What actions must be taken if we are to achieve these goals?

Goal 1: Increase and sustain research productivity

  • There is not enough technology available to professors and doctoral students. For example, there is a lack of labs with statistical software where doctoral studentscan work on statistical analysis
  • We need to recommend, terminate or input more power.

Goal 2: Strengthen key graduate programs in critical areas

  • We should systematically work on the program and also actively go out to make connections and make marketing our program such a job-embedded program targeted to the needs of practitioners and international education.
  • We have to market the program; we cannot wait for teachers to come to us. We need a budget for these connections.
  • We need to identify key areas. We also need to identify areas to decrease and build a cooperative model based on strong programs only. Jettison weak areas.
  • We need to define “key” and “critical” areas.
  • Will the market forces drive this; for example the number of students who apply.
  • How do programs change as the profession changes?
  • We need to consider reinstating requirements for graduate students to take courses outside their departments (a practice was common before the University of Florida Bank).
  • Doctoral programs need to be given more structure because masters programs do not lead to students doing research. The masters’ students only take classes and do not want to get involved in research projects.
  • What are the key graduate programs?
  • What does strengthening mean – extra allocated resources.
  • We have been told to narrow our focus, but creating new programs seems to contradict this initial directive.
  • We need to examine and evaluate administrative barriers to interdisciplinary study.
  • How do we define “key”?
  • How do we determine faculty involvement in determining which programs are strengthened – new program development guidelines.
  • There needs to be a faculty/administrator discussion of how to determine key graduate programs for criteria/open discussion.
  • We need to focus groups to develop criteria – avenues for broad faculty input – for key graduate programs in critical areas.
  • We need strategic planning to account for trends in the program.
  • What data will we use to respond to how we will determine the criteria for key graduate programs in critical areas?
  • What programs do we need that are not being addressed?
  • How will we know that we are positioned to take on these programs?
  • Doctoral students need more financial support.
  • Faculty members need to be marketed better so that we can draw more graduate students in; for example, showcasing the potential of Baby Gator and PK Yonge to be research sites.

Goal 3: Create and disseminate a nationally recognized outreach scholarship model

  • How do these work with T&P?
  • Can we find models that relate to particular contexts?
  • The faculty is very interested in recommendations made by STF/Outreach Scholarship.
  • We need to release time and support to do this.
  • We need to be sure that everyone understands the “outreach scholarship” model.
  • Does this mean that one model fits all?
  • What would scholarship look like – a publication in peer journals?
  • We need to define outreach scholarship models.
  • What does the University engagement mean?
  • The implications are connection with T&P and doctoral student participation in projects.
  • “Role” models profile possibilities for research through outreach scholarship.
  • Lastinger Center, UF Alliance, Partnership work conference in Atlanta, Holmes Scholarship, websites, publications and presentations; how do we make all these pieces into 1 meaningful model?
  • We need to examine the reward structure.
  • Outreach involves service, which is not always rewarded, and it involves significant time commitment.
  • Centers – Institutes in the College need to disseminate scholarship in highly visible education/psychology journals; as well as publish monographs that are organized by theme/topic.
  • We need to increase numbers and quality of doctoral seminars, and increase opportunities so that doctoral students can be involved in teaching and research.
  • What ways are there to financially support teachers to participate in teacher education programs beyond graduate training programs?
/by
,

12 September, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
September 12, 2005

Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Elizabeth Bondy, Mary Brownell,
Mary Ann Clark, Ester de Jong, Kathy, Gratto, Cyndy Griffin,
Dave Honeyman, Hazel Jones, Tracy Linderholm

Members Absent: Rod Webb

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Dean Jeri Benson, AssociateDean Paul Sindelar

Jones called the meeting to order at 2:02 pm.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for September 12, 2005

Griffin moved to approve the agenda. Honeyman seconded the motion. The FPC
unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes from the April 25, 2005 meeting

A correction was made to the members absent list: remove T. Scott, add M.
Brownell. Brownell made a motion to approve the April 25, 2005 minutes.
deJong seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Folders

1. Jones distributed folders to the FPC.

Folders contained updated COE constitution (which is also on the website), a
statement from the Faculty Senate Presidential Task Force on Implementation of
Shared Government Structure, April 25 FPC minutes, and today’s agenda.

Announcements

1. Upcoming Meetings
Agenda Committee meetings scheduled for Sept. 19, 2005, Oct. 17, 2005, and
Nov. 21, 2005 at 11:00 AM in deans’ suite
There is no FPC meeting on September 26, 2005 because the College Curriculum
Committee will meet on that date.

2. Election of Agenda Committee Member
FPC unanimously approved M. Brownell for the Agenda Committee

3. Review of Committee Duties

A connection is needed between FPC committees and strategic planning initiative.
Reviewed the role of each FPC committee; reminded committees to announce
meetings publically; need chairs’ notebooks from 2004-2005 year. Discussed
whether or not all policy proposals coming out of strategic planning should go to
the agenda committee. It was decided to see how the first retreat evolves; then it
will be clear how the strategic planning initiative links to the FPC committees.

Discussion Items

1. Paul Sindelar reviewed plans for the September 30th faculty retreat on building
a research culture
Draft of agenda was distributed; the overarching goal for the year is improving
the COE research culture; by December, task forces/committees will develop
action proposals
Example of a critical action – a research conference for Fall 2006 to
showcase what we do; anyone who would like to start planning is
welcome to
Research strategic task force will flesh out the details for Sept. 30

2. Dean’s role in shared governance

Discussed statement that came out of the UF Deans’ conversation with the
president about shared governance. A new challenge is the interface between
shared governance and the faculty union.

Report From the Dean

Three main points for State of the COE

1. Goals for COE
To be presented Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2005 at the Faculty Reception at the Hilton; the event on Sept. 30, 2005 will focus on the first goal

(1) to build a research culture

(2) to build curriculum and programs – shift away from initial teacher preparation
toward graduate programs in areas such as ongoing professional development
and using distance education technologies; recruit faculty and doctoral
students

(3) to create and disseminate a nationally recognized outreach scholarship model
– theme “Children, Families, Diversity and Schooling”

2. Fien Lecture Series
Speakers are being identified and secured for this year.

3. Centennial Events
Plans are still being developed; need a culminating event

4. Other Business

COE budget looks good; Dean will share with FPC soon

Amatea made motion to adjourn. Brownell seconded the motion. Meeting
adjourned at 3:53 pm.

/by