10 December, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Draft Faculty Policy Council Minutes
December 10, 2007

Members Present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, David Miller, Edil Torres-Rivera, Elizabeth Yeager, Sondra Smith, Ruth Lowery, Diane Ryndak, Bernard Oliver, David Quinn, John Kranzler,

Members absent: None

Non-Members Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Nancy Dana, Thomasenia Adams, Jade Coutts

Meeting began at 2:04 pm.

Yeager asked for a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was approved and seconded. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Yeager motioned to approve the November 5, 2007 FPC meeting minutes. Crockett asked that her name be spelled correctly at the end of the minutes and that changes be made under the UF Faculty senate to reflect that she reported. Dean Emihovich proposed that the minutes be revised in a more formal format for publishing on the website and Yeager proposed that she, Ferdig and Jade would discuss it further. Ryndak moved to approve the minutes and Ferdig seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Information Item- Update on Associate Dean search (Dean Emihovich)

• Dean Emihovich said the committee has presented findings and she is expecting to make a decision before the holidays.

Information Item- Update on panel discussion (Edil Torres-Rivera)

• Regarding hate crimes, an email was sent to the psychology department, anthropology department, and law school in an effort to prevent hate crimes on campus and in order to tie this to education and research. It will also help to make it more cross disciplinary. Many people have said they will participate but planning is difficult. Ryndak asked if a representative was being sent to represent the college. Torres-Rivera chose a representative and the discussion was recorded. Copies are available upon request.

Discussion items

Center for School Improvement, Nancy Dana

• Dana passed around two handouts. One on the Center for School Improvement and another with the mission, staffing and other important information regarding the
Center for School Improvement. Dana introduced the core staff and COE faculty who have worked with the center. Faculty have worked with the center through grants and to enhance teaching. Districts who have worked with the center were noted as were funding sources including North East Florida Educational Consortium and Fred Shewey Excellence in Middle School Education Endowment. It was also noted that the proposal for the NBCT Center has not yet been approved. Dan acknowledged that other funding sources that were not awarded were not listed on the handout. It was explained that On STAAR is an online system to support teachers and provides a resource storehouse so knowledge is shared and used to build on. The difficulty is that the state Dept of Education requires them to provide documentation of professional development and this is one of the places where districts are struggling. Dana stated that they are working on it. The center works mostly with the development of workshops delivered over the school year (see handout for example). Additionally, workshops are offered online and the money from NEFEC has supported these workshops. The teaching, inquiry and innovation showcase will be a 2-day event and it will be Friday night (April 18, 2007) or Saturday morning (April 19, 2007) or both. The Inquiry Institute is new this year. Currently they charge a registration fee and hope to generate money for the Center in future years. Each year they publish a monograph that will be out in February. Dana discussed the CSI database, which has a lot of data and is one of the few searchable websites in the nation of its kind. The database can be searched by school, topic, grade level and many other indicators. The other items on the handout that were briefly mentioned included the partnership with Lastinger Center, recent awards, current research projects, and the many opportunities for faculty and graduate students at the CSI. Yeager asked if there were questions and Ryndak looked at the secure letters and asked about the process for a grant template and mentioned that she is writing a grant where she wants to add a teacher inquiry component. Quinn wants to support the collaboration between the faculty and students so they see research happen and break down barriers between departments.

Dean’s Report, Catherine Emihovich

• Next year’s budget: passed out document on the budget to overview. The document is the 2007-2008 budget to show what was done. Starting with page 3, Dean Emihovich discussed the totals for the departments. Dean Emihovich reported that departments were cut across about $267,000. The alliance is not included because they have their own budget line. CSI and Lastinger were noted as receiving no operation money from the college. Miller asks if there is any logic for why some departments decrease or increase. Dean Emihovich says it has to do with where the cuts are made; instruction, expenses, etc. STL got hit hard with expense money getting cut but they are getting distance education money to balance it out. If the state side is cut, they may get money through other ways. Quinn asked if it includes lines. Dean Emihovich says no. The total budget cut was 4.26%. Kranzler wanted clarification of the differences. Dean said the reason is to ensure that all departments have operational funds to keep going. Someone mentioned that this information would have been more helpful previously to make connections to the conclusions. Dean Emihovich said she will provide a rational if she is presented with questions but
that cannot be done in a spreadsheet. She knows of resources (grants, foundation money, distance education) to take into account to release and to take back. Quinn said that his department also would like to have the clarification. It was explained that departments who have brought in more external money have been cut less and that this is a trend for this current budget cycle. Ryndak clarified that we need to find external funds now because of budget cuts. Dean Emihovich added that we cannot look to the state now (68% is on state support; COE in Oregon is 32%, UVA is 11%). It is a trend around the country. Ferdig asked for total for UF and Dean Emihovich estimated about 40-50% total. If you look at national rankings you can see the differences quickly. In the chair meeting it was said that there is a need to make reductions and all chairs were there. The discussion moved to page 4. Dean Emihovich pointed out two errors. The first is that on page 3, EP reflects a negative difference therefore the Increase/Decrease column should say “decrease” rather than “increase.” The second error is that there are two copies of page 4 reflecting allocations and budgets. On page 4, the first column is salary distributed 16 million. The carry forward balance was $454,000, which saved the college. Dean Emihovich stated that the college was already faced with making up deficit. Next year, we start with reduction in base budget by 678,000. Then, the impact of a further cut of 4.26% was projected (could be more), which equals $1.2 million. If expenses are the same, we will end up with an additional $350,000 in the hole. Ferdig asks if 4.26% will be same cut over next year. Dean Emihovich said that this is an estimate and that the numbers aren’t known but that there will most likely be another cut. All state institutions have been told to expect another cut. The only place left to get money with the deficit is in the salary line because nothing else can be cut from OPS or other expenses. All cuts have been done this year in that area. Salary line does include resignations and retirements if there are any. Retirements are already built in but are not reflected on the chart on page 4. Known resignations include Associate Dean Jeri Benson, Mary Kay Dykes and Rod Webb but there are other potential retirements to include. The second place for funds can come from staff moving to grant budgets. Another place to hold the line is in distance education. Also on the non-tenure track side some people are leaving. Dean Emihovich does not see faculty who are tenured being impacted because we are becoming proficient in distance education budget lines. Money for hiring is from the provost dealing with class size. It is like a gift that wasn’t expected with plans to hire a faculty member for elementary math. The hired faculty must be from critical shortage area. This is where we are now. Ferdig asks where grants fit in. Dean Emihovich says grants produce indirect revenue for PIs and produce salary savings at departmental levels. All chairs are aware if a real crisis happens, that money from salary savings would come back to the Dean’s office. Grants for faculty are an advantage for travel and supply as well as GA funds which have been cut. Funding for fellows are independent from this. Dean Emihovich explains that the college had some surplus from last year to cushion us. Distance education is really helping and is growing in two, possibly three departments. Not a happy picture but it could be worse. Dean Emihovich will be presenting for a possible donor who has expressed an interest in disabilities research. The research in COE is receiving great attention from corporations and individuals. The message that is coming across is that we need to move toward “floating your own boat” model.
Crockett said UF is a land grant institution and she wants to know what that has to do with our outreach mission and our activities. She asked how this situates us and Dean Emihovich responded that public universities are feeling the accountability that they are responsive to communities and schools. Accountability in higher education is a pressure stemming from the federal government to the states. Foundations are also shifting fund raising in that direction and are asking what impact is coming from funding. Publication is not what they are looking for.

• UF policy on fellowships: We have a new grad dean from UNC who was associate dean for the graduate school there for 10 years. Henry Frierson is nationally known for his ability to secure funding for increasing graduate enrollment. He has been charged to look at alumni fellowship awards. This is the first time they have been pegged to graduation rates. He met with all deans and presented data. It only refers to PhD not EdD because these are for full-time students only. Adams will share information on how this will be implemented but she wants to wait until she meets with all graduate coordinators. Adams will entertain questions to take. There are two questions currently. First, overall UF has the lowest rate of doctoral graduates than any other AAU school. This is the total number of actual PhDs across UF. Also, the time to degree issue is a problem because it is taking a great period of time for graduate students to graduate. Adams added that the time for our college ranges up to 7 years. Torres-Rivera asks where it starts and Adams said upon admission. Ryndak asked for clarification if they are a Master’s students and Adams said it starts when they are admitted as a doctoral student. In some departments, admission is counted after Bachelor’s rather than after Master’s. Grad 2 is first 32 hours. Quinn asks if we can change the admission time. Adams will ask at the meeting. It is noted that not all new doctoral students have their Bachelor’s and that programs with higher year averages may have outliers who are a result of not asking for progress/production. Oliver asks for departmental differences. Adams says there are departmental differences. Kranzler said there are big differences. Torres-Rivera wants this information. Dean Emihovich added that students who are covered on grants can get more money in this model. Ryndak asked about distributing assistantships across and Kranzler said you can add the top-ups. Ryndak wants to know this information before to recruitment. Adams said these conversations are happening in departments whether or not to give full fellowships or top-ups. Adams said 2002 was a good year so we need to stay at higher levels. Dean Emihovich said that there will be a meeting with chairs on Dec 20 to look at data and FPC should map out directions to be opened in January. What they are looking at are applicants, admission and enrolled students in COE graduate school. Adams stated that an application is considered to be an application when the fee is received. The data state that the college loses 50% in admissions. Adams proposes that we need to look at this and find out why students don’t enroll so we can increase enrollments. We are losing students. We need to question why students aren’t getting admitted and what criteria are denying students. For some programs it is criteria that is not flexible (counseling criteria characteristics). But, what are the reasons why for other programs? With the recent relaxation of the GRE, this is something we need to look at. Ryndak asks for clarification of special education data and state that they don’t match her recall of her students and other students enrolled. Dean Emihovich said this is data from the
departments. Ferdig asks about educational technology and whether is reflects online or face-to-face. Adams said it is just for doctoral students in the areas that were submitted from graduate coordinators. Dean Emihovich said that this data needs to be accurate at the departmental levels because that is where applications are. There has been some thinking about a centralized admission program to make it right. Yeager asks who to talk to in order to fix the discrepancies in the data. Adams said to talk with the graduate coordinator. Torres-Rivera asks if there is a breakdown of ethnicity, race, gender and Dean Emihovich said the graduate coordinator should have this data. Soon this data will be tracked. If we take distance education out, we would be in deep trouble for graduate enrollment for the past two years. The papers passed out do not include DE. SCH dropped by 400 without DE. ProTEACH at the graduate level is has been the bread and butter but some students are leaving after 4th year and we need to worry about this shift. Oliver asks Adams about goals that are set for students to admit by capacity. Adams states that some programs have capacity limits (school psych and ProTEACH) based on faculty and accreditation. Quinn says educational leadership is having discussions about high FTEs and low faculty support numbers. Yeager asks for a wrap up. Dean Emihovich said this is one piece of data and discussion on Dec 20th will move to how we do what we are doing in the context of the current budget scenario and whether or not we need to make changes with less resources or get leverage to create new resources and or configurations. She will return in January with an update to share where we are going next and what role FPC should play and how. Dean Emihovich will be here for the Jan 14th meeting. Kranzler added that his department expressed concern about a focus on quantity rather than quality of training and Dean Emihovich added that professional practice doctoral students and research doctoral students need specific curricula items and we need to decide if they are different. Dean Emihovich also asked if we can we sustain large numbers in both if they are.

Action Item- COE policy on the GRE

• Adams said in October the graduate school sent an email with policy changes. The new GRE language score minimum has changed because the ETS position is that it is an inaccurate way to use GRE. UF’s policy is to use and publish minimums for program admissions. The graduate school left it open for programs to have multiple criteria to admit students so we don’t rely on piece of data. In regard to minimum, we have a range of 450 on both verbal and quantitative sections within departments however higher minimum have been proposed CE (550 for both) and research methodology (500 verbal and700 quantitative). For the college as a whole we can ask for 450 minimums on both but in program should scores be higher? Adams’ concern is that without something we will have everything (for example scores of 300). Do we want this for doctoral students? Ryndak asks if we differentiate between Master’s and PhD. Adams said STL minimum is 450, 450. Crockett asked if there is a petition function. Miller questioned where these numbers came from and Adams said it came from Grad coordinators. Quinn said the presented data from his department is old. Adams stated that this information should be put on websites for potential students. Yeager said not to go below 450 minimums. Ryndak is hesitant to vote because she is unsure of where the data is coming from. It was said that SE is waiting to see what college is doing. Ferdig asked again about petition process. Adams said it is still standing but that college will decide how low. Torres-Rivera said we should make individual cases and Adams said departments can do that. Oliver asked about range for the college and Adams said range doesn’t make sense because we don’t want to create maximums. The college minimum is not published and it should save time with applicants sent to departments. Kranzler reminded that the graduate school level was 1000 and that the level was minimized to 900 unless special circumstances were presented. Yeager asks if this is ok and if we can vote or if it will be put off until the next meeting. Miller said that discussion may not happen by next meeting. It is stated that this minimum only impacts departments if they try to go lower. Torres-Rivera says that anything below 500 on each section will affect national rankings. Yeager addresses scheduling again and restates that this cannot be put off for two months. Yeager asks if this can happen via another format? Miller suggests to proceed with it now because of time constraints. Ryndak said that resubmission may be looked upon poorly. Torres-Rivera brings up professional practice and PhD issues that will be looked at later on and states that this will be revisited later anyhow. Miller says below 450 is too low. Oliver asks if we can submit a pending decision. Adams said it is always changeable. Kranzler said what is in place is OK now we have a chance to change it and that we should get input. Torres-Rivera motions to postpone this vote pending discussion in departments. Lowery seconds. Postponement of voting pending discussion within departments is unanimously approved.

Action Item- Composition of COE Market Equity Committee

  • Yeager if others discussed the Market Equity Committee. Kranzler said he did and they wanted to know what would go to committee. Yeager stated she doesn’t know. Kranzler asks to ask Dean Emihovich. STL feedback was that COE tenure committee could be tasked with this and the policy could be that departments have flexibility with those members of that committee. The thinking was that promotion work could be done in the Fall and market equity matters done in the Spring so it would balance the tasks out. Lowery confirmed this summary. It was mentioned that Associate Dean Jeri Benson wants to proceed because there is a deadline soon for applicants to be considered after the break. Oliver said last year there were 4 cases. Yeager asks if giving responsibility to tenure and promotion committee is approved. Torres-Rivera is on the committee and wants to know why this is their responsibility and not the Dean’s. Miller commented that committees were not department wide, rather the Merritt committee looked at it in his department. It is not clear who is deciding. Yeager asks if we should recommend that the Dean would decide who is on the committee with one representative from each department. Ferdig said that T&P is decided by election (3 members) and appointment (2 members) with a rotation. Miller said not all rights should be given back to Dean. Miller motions that COE T&P be given this task this year only and that in the future a formal process is put together to use from now on at the department and college level. Kranzler and Crocket second. Ferdig asks if the FPC should further discuss and Miller said yes. Motion carries all accept, with the exception of Torres-Rivera.

There was a motion by Yeager to address the discussion item below as well as committee reports at the next meeting in January. The motion was seconded. The motion was unanimously approved

Discussion Item- Do we need a COE policy on the definition of a course release at various levels for grant application?

Meeting adjourned at 4:15- motion by Yeager. Torres-Rivera seconded the motion.

Next meeting: January 14, 2-4pm