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 3^rd .

· 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.

Adjournment

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

January 27, 2003

Room 158 Norman Hall

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

Others Present:  Associate Dean John Kranzler

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

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for January 27, 2003.

Echevarria-Doan made a motion to approve the agenda and Yeager seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the January 13, 2003 Meeting.

Clark made a motion to approve the minutes.  The motion was seconded by Echevarria-Doan, and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Reports from FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee.

Waldron stated that the next CCC meeting is scheduled for February 3.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

No report. This committee has not met since the last FPC meeting.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

Echevarria-Doan announced that the next meeting is scheduled for February 7.

· Faculty Affairs Committee.

Correa reported that FAC is in the process of finalizing the draft of the Tenure & Promotion Guidelines for FPC review.

Research Advisory Committee.

Conroy reported that the COE Research Advisory Committee met January 16. The issues that were discussed included:

– Gathering input about the role and services of the CARE office.

– Drafting a policy regarding IDC allocations across departments and colleges.

– A discussion of the “review” of COE dissertations by the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies.

– Obtaining faculty input about the doctoral research requirements. A faculty forum to address this topic is planned for February 24^th.

The next RAC meeting is scheduled for February 13.

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

Yeager reported that the committee would hold its next meeting on February 13.

· Long-Range Planning Committee.

Jones indicated that an LRPC meeting will be held January 29 to finalize plans for the Faculty Forum.

Report from the Dean

• Associate Dean Kranzler reported that Ken Gerhardt of the Graduate School would respond to the College soon about the Graduate School’s decisions regarding graduate admissions criteria as presented in the “Revised Proposal on Continuing Professional Development for Teachers.”

Unfinished Business

·  Feedback on Appointment of Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

A copy of the public e-mail memorandum (Subject: Leadership Development) that Dean Emihovich sent on January 22, 2003 (to announce her appointment of Interim Associate Dean John Kranzler to a permanent position) was discussed. In her e-mail, she also indicated that she might create a new administrative position (Associate Dean for Research and Evaluation), and presented her plans to set up a leadership program within the college.

FPC members discussed her memorandum. Several FPC members indicated the continued need for faculty input regarding appointment of Assistant/Associate Deans and specific requirements of the COE constitution. Individual faculty can respond directly to Dean Emihovich if they have continuing concerns. There was consensus that no additional action by the FPC was warranted at this time.

• Nominees for Assistant and Associate Dean Review Committee

Correa solicited nominations from the FPC and department chairpersons for membership on the review committee for Associate Dean Webb. The composition of the committee was discussed, including the advantages and disadvantages of assigning a department chairperson to this committee. It was noted that the Agenda committee, at the February 10^th meeting, would forward to Dean Emihovich a list of faculty as potential committee members. According to the recently adopted review procedures for Assistant/Associate Deans, the size of this committee and additional membership from other constituent groups in the college is at the discretion of the Dean.

• Faculty Forum (February 3, 2:00-4:00 p.m., Room G506)

The FPC briefly discussed the faculty forum that is scheduled for February 3. The topics that will be addressed are the following:

o  How to increase a sense of college identity; and

o  How to balance doctoral education and research with the demands for service and teacher preparation.

Correa noted that information about the Faculty Forum has been posted on the FPC Website. Jones will send a reminder to faculty members, encouraging them to attend the forum.

New Business

• Discussion of Committee Structures under the Current Constitution.

The section of the COE Constitution that addresses committee structure was distributed. There was an extended discussion about reviewing and possibly changing the COE committee structure as the constitution is reviewed and amended this spring.

The following issues were discussed as they relate to current committee structure and assignments:

o  Committees are small; having a quorum can be difficult at times.

o  Committees do not necessarily have a representative from each department, which hinders communication and feedback regarding policy issues.

o  Committees may not have a cross section of faculty representation by rank and experience.

o  Ongoing functions of the college that require faculty input are currently determined through selection/appointment by deans and department chairpersons for certain committees which are not part of the FPC committee structure.

Concerns were expressed about the unequal distribution of work to the current committees. Reconsideration of the specific topics and issues that are assigned to the various committees may be necessary, along with granting more flexibility with regard to addressing operating, as well as policy issues.

The FPC members discussed and recommended changes in the current structure of operating and standing committees in order to improve the important areas of work within the college. Specific recommendations included combining the Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee with the Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, eliminating some of the distinctions between operating and standing committees (e.g., connecting the policy and operational functions of current committees by adding an operational role to standing committees and/or possibly eliminating the term “operating committees”), and the advisability of creating new committees, such as a COE awards committee.

Associate Dean Kranzler indicated that certain awards—and the committee structure for granting these awards—are determined by UF (not college) policy. Waldron will meet with him to review such policies regarding specific UF rules and regulations that would impact such committees.

The FPC members discussed the election of members for committees. Questions were raised about how to improve committees by making them more representative of faculty in the college and assuring the presence of individuals that are interested and have experiences regarding committee issues. Possible ways to change the election process: only hold college-wide elections for FPC members, have departments select/elect department representatives to each FPC standing committee, use a process of selection/appointment where names of interested faculty for each committee are forwarded to the Agenda committee who select committee members to ensure diversity (departments, rank, experience).

Waldron and Correa will provide a draft of possible revisions to the FPC committee structure in the COE Constitution. This draft will be presented at a future FPC meeting for further discussion.

Adjournment

Clark moved that the meeting be adjourned. Jones seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:41 p.m.

December 16, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy, Vivian Correa, Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Lamont Flowers, Cynthia Griffin (for Paul Sindelar), Mirka Koro-Ljungberg (for Bridget Franks), Jane Townsend, Nancy Waldron, Elizabeth Yeager

Members Absent:  Jim Archer

Others Present:  Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Dean John Kranzler

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for December 16, 2002.

Conroy made a motion to approve the agenda. Echeverria-Doan seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the December 2, 2002 Meeting.

Associate Dean Kranzler requested two revisions in the section Graduate Admissions—Continuing Professional Development for Teachers. Specifically, ”Gerhardt” should replace “The Provost and Vice President” in the third sentence. He clarified the position of the Provost, who supports the consideration of exceptions for current teachers and for students currently enrolled in the Proteach Elementary and Early Childhood Programs to the UF graduate admission criteria of a minimum score of 1000 on the GRE and a 3.0 upper-division GPA. He indicated that further discussion with the Provost and Graduate School is underway.

Clark made a motion to approve the minutes (as revised). The motion was seconded by Yeager, and the revised minutes were unanimously approved.

Reports from FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee.

Waldron stated that the next CCC meeting is scheduled for January 6.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

No report

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

Echevarria-Doan reported that the committee met on December 6 to consider petitions for seven students (five supported, two denied) and would meet again on February 7.

· Faculty Affairs Committee.

Townsend reported that the committee met December 12 and is continuing to review feedback on the Tenure &Promotion Procedures.

· Research Advisory Committee.

Conroy reported that the committee met with Dean Emihovich on December 10 to discuss her goals for the proposed Collaborative Assessment, Research, and Evaluation (CARE) Office[1] in the College. Several issues related to the new office were discussed, including (a) office infrastructure, (b) support for grants and proposals, (c) building collaborative teams for large grants, (d) seeking fellowship opportunities for students, and (e) evaluation grants.

The CARE office will be staffed by a fiscal assistant, two graduate assistants, a program manager, and a faculty member designated to oversee the work of the office. RAC will assist the Dean in writing a position description for a program manager. The position will be advertised in January or February. The RAC plans to attend department faculty meetings to gather input from faculty on the desired role for the CARE office.

RAC received a small number of responses regarding COE doctoral research requirements. The responses ranged from maintaining to completely changing the current requirements. The RAC discussed the idea of holding faculty forums to allow interested faculty to discuss the issue.

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

Yeager reported that the committee met on December 12 to discuss the proposal on continuing professional development for teachers, minority recruitment strategies, and the College’s options with regard to adopting the UF Graduate School’s policy of not requiring a GRE score for doctoral admission for applicants who hold master’s degrees from accredited programs. The committee would hold its next meeting on February 13.

· Long-Range Planning Committee.

No report.

Correa indicated that she has invited faculty to the spring faculty forums and has placed information about the faculty forums on the FPC Web site for faculty review.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich reported that she has been meeting with potential donors. Attempts are being made to identify areas of faculty expertise and interest and match this information to potential donors. Some common interest areas that are being explored are leadership, and incorporating the arts in learning.

Emihovich briefly discussed David Lawrence’s recent visit to the College and possibilities for collaborative projects. Early childhood education is an area of emphasis for the State that may provide impetus for the development of a state-of-the-art early childhood research center at the COE.

Unfinished Business

1. Procedures for conducting faculty forums [Long-Range Planning]

The FPC discussed the development and facilitation of the faculty forums that are scheduled for February 3^rd and March 3^rd, 2003.

It was noted that assigning certain committees to develop and facilitate these forums would set a precedent for future assignments related to faculty forums.

The following related topics were discussed:

·  Importance of involving the LRPC in the spring faculty forums because the focus of the meetings will relate to College “vision”

·  The importance of “shared governance” with regard to the selection of topics for future faculty forums

·  The involvement of the LRPC and the FPC with the process of planning and facilitating future faculty forums

FPC members agreed that LRPC should have the primary responsibility for planning and conducting the upcoming faculty forums, given the focus on “A Vision for the COE.” Correa reiterated the importance of organizing “successful” faculty forums, and indicated that it was important for FPC to provide support to LRPC by responding to requests related to the development, planning, and facilitation of the forums.

1. Approve Review for Assistant/Associate Dean Evaluation Guidelines

Correa distributed a revised draft document that describes the rationale and procedures for conducting a review of the COE assistant and associate deans. She revised a document that is used by the Indiana University School of Education for the faculty review of academic administrators (Review Procedures for School of Education Academic Administrators – Indiana University).

This document provides procedures for regular review of the performance of administrative officers who hold positions bearing directly on the campus-wide teaching/research mission of the COE, as outlined in the COE Constitution.

This review will apply to the following academic officers/offices who report to the Dean of the COE:

·  Assistant Dean, Student Affairs

·  Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Research

·  Associate Dean, Academic Affairs

The FPC members in attendance, Dean Emihovich, and Associate Dean Kranzler reviewed the draft document. Several possible scenarios were discussed, and some document revisions were recommended, including:

·  A proposed change from two years to three years for the review interval

·  Add a provision for the reviewed official to be able to respond in writing to the review, if necessary, for the record

·  A revision in the process of submitting the Review Committee’s report to the Dean

Dean Emihovich noted that the Dean would share the final copy of the report with the reviewed administrator. She reiterated that the Dean should have discretion regarding the ultimate action that is to be taken with regard to the reviewed administrator.

Correa will revise the document, utilizing the input from the FPC discussion, and present the revised document for final review at the next FPC meeting.

New Business

1. The agenda was reviewed for the upcoming Dean’s Advisory Council/Faculty Policy Council Retreat, scheduled for Thursday, December 19, 2002 [8:30 a.m. – 3 p.m.]

According to the preliminary agenda, Retreat attendees will divide into five groups to discuss how to implement elements of the COE strategic plan. The designated groups are:

1. Strategies for developing more collaborative programs

2. Strategies for increasing student recruitment and retention

3. Strategies for building research infrastructure

4. Strategies for balancing faculty load

5. Strategies for increasing diversity among faculty, staff, and students

The FPC members and committee chairs who plan to attend include Mary Brownell, Sevan Terzian, Jim Archer, Phil Clark, Jane Townsend, Maureen Conroy, Vivian Correa, and Nancy Waldron.

Correa distributed copies of the following two memoranda to FPC members:

·  Memorandum from Jean A. Larsen, Faculty Senate Chairperson (dated November 11, 2002) to President Young and Provost Colburn about UF shared governance proposals (the Faculty Senate report is available at: http://www.senate.ufl.edu/HotTopics.docs/shareColl02.html)

·  Memorandum from Provost Colburn to UF Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs (dated December 16, 2002) requesting the submission of the criteria used by each college/unit during this year’s tenure and promotion proceedings.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:41 p.m.

The CARE Office will foster multidisciplinary and inter-institutional research, identify funding sources, support proposal writing and processing, assist in grant administration, and help in report preparation.

November 18, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

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

Members Absent:  Lamont Flowers

Others Present:  Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Dean John Kranzler, Associate Dean Rodman Webb

The meeting was called to order by Correa at 2:06 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for November 18, 2002.

Clark made a motion to approve the agenda. Sindelar seconded the motion. Archer asked that an item be added to the agenda to discuss the College of Journalism’s response to not being designated a “core” college by last year’s report of the Presidential Task Force, and implications for the College of Education. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 4, 2002 Meeting.

Yeager requested two revisions on page 2 related to the recommendations of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee concerning graduate admission decisions. She indicated that the committee supports departmental decisions regarding graduate admission and the COE draft proposal on Continuing Professional Development for Teachers dated October 22, 2002 (the words “in principal” and the qualification following the draft document date should be deleted). Sindelar made a motion to approve the minutes, with revisions. Echevarria-Doan seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Reports from FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee.

Waldron stated that the next CCC meeting is scheduled for November 25.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

Franks indicated that there was no new report from this committee since the last meeting.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

Echevarria-Doan announced that this committee met on November 8 to consider petitions for three students and would meet again on December 6.

· Faculty Affairs Committee.

Townsend reported that the committee would hold their next meeting on December 2.

· Research Advisory Committee.

Conroy reported that the committee addressed several issues at the meeting on November 12, including (a) revising the committee description in the COE Constitution to better reflect their function, (b) reviewing cost-sharing guidelines for grants, and (c) soliciting faculty input regarding college doctoral research requirements. Dean Emihovich will be discussing the CARE office at the next committee meeting scheduled for December 10^th.

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

Yeager reported that the committee would hold its next meeting on December 11^th.

· Long-Range Planning Committee.

Archer mentioned that the LRPC proposal for faculty forums would be discussed later in the meeting. The committee also reviewed the end-of-year recommendations of the 2001-2002 LRPC, which provide direction for future committee activities. The committee is attempting to clarify their role, and posed the question, “What role should a faculty committee play with regard to long range planning in the College?”

· Ad Hoc Committee on Assistant/Associate Dean Review.

Correa distributed a document that identifies a process for reviewing academic administrators that is used by the Indiana University School of Education (Review Procedures for School of Education Academic Administrators – Indiana University). The Ad Hoc Committee will be developing a similar set of procedures and will be sharing this with Dean Emihovich. The Ad Hoc committee decided to develop procedures, collect a few samples of evaluation scales, and ask the Dean to establish a formal review committee. This committee will develop an instrument and procedures that will be used to conduct the Assistant/Associate Dean review.

Correa reminded FPC members about the timeline for submission of feedback regarding the proposal on Tenure &Promotion Procedures. This topic will be an agenda item at the December 2^nd meeting.

Report from the Dean

An article (Colleges find diversity is not just numbers)[1] that Dean Emihovich sent to COE faculty and staff regarding diversity issues on November 15 was distributed to FPC members.

Associate Dean Webb reported that diversity is an issue he and Dean Emihovich would like the college to consider in the coming months. The issue is not just one of recruitment (attracting students and faculty from diverse backgrounds), but also how we make the COE a more inclusive community in welcoming a diverse student and faculty population. To begin considering this issue, conversations have occurred between Dean Emihovich, Michael Bowie, and the UF Counseling Center. The Dean’s Advisory Council will hold a retreat in December on the topic, facilitated by the UF Counseling Center. Webb requested additional suggestions and involvement from the faculty regarding how best to proceed to address this important issue. Concerns were raised that the proposed process seemed to emphasize administrative input. Webb reinforced that the intent is to invite participation from the entire College – faculty, students, and staff. Meeting with the DAC is simply a first step. Correa recommended meeting with COE students, whose multiple perspectives and experiences might be helpful. Various types of diversity were discussed, including the preponderance of female faculty and students in the COE, and issues related to international students.

Dean Emihovich reported on several issues that impact the College of Education, including the following items:

• The recent Statewide elections will impact the policies related to the rewriting of the Florida School code by the Legislature (“devolution”); specifically, the passage of Amendment 11 will result in a transfer of the authority currently vested in the K-20 Board to a new board that governs the State University System.

• Presidential Search: A subcommittee of the Board of Trustees has met to set up the initial search process for a new president for University of Florida. College deans have provided input for the presidential search and have recommended that the candidates have strong academic credentials (AAU background is an important issue) and have experience in a large, diverse university (including diversity of academic units). The deans also recommended a smaller search committee—that must include faculty representation—and suggested that the candidates do not necessarily have to currently serve as a university president.

Dean Emihovich asked for additional FPC input about the College Strategic Planning. She will meet with Provost Colburn on December 2^nd to discuss the College of Education’s Strategic Planning initiatives. She will revise and update the document that was created by the COE to outline the College’s strategic directions in response to the UF Presidential Task Force. She reiterated that the document that she submits will represent the beginning of a discussion, not a blueprint for what would necessarily unfold.

She discussed the impact that the recent elections would have on COE initiatives. The emphasis that will be focused on early childhood education may provide the impetus for the development of a state-of-the-art early childhood research center at the COE. The core strengths of the College revolve around issues related to children and families and the preparation of highly qualified professional educators.

Dean Emihovich and FPC members also discussed (a) current and proposed linkages and partnerships with other colleges and units and (b) the problems related to designing innovative collaborative programs and university rankings.

She requested that the FPC members review a draft document that she is preparing for Provost Colburn and provide input before she submits it to him on November 26.

New Business

1. Long-Range Planning Committee Proposal for Faculty Forums

Based on the concerns and issues that were cited at the Fall Faculty Meeting, the LRPC has recommended topics for Faculty Forums that will take place on Monday, February 3, 2003 and Monday, March 3, 2003, from 2-4 PM.

Clark moved that the committee accept these dates. Yeager seconded his motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the FPC.

The topics recommended by the LRPC included the following:

1. 1. How to balance doctoral education and research with the demands for service and teacher preparation

1. 1. How to increase a sense of college identity

These topics were discussed at length, including the advisability of combining both topics into one topic for the February Faculty Forum. Recommendations included the following:

·  The focus of the February meeting should be “college identity.”

·  The focus of the March meeting should be determined by the issues and concerns that are identified at the February meeting.

·  The importance of “shared governance” with regard to the selection of topics for future Faculty Forums

·  The involvement of the LRPC and the FPC with the process of planning future Faculty Forums

·  Responsibility for hosting/sponsorship of the Faculty Forums

·  Responsibility for the facilitation of such forums

Clark recommended that Correa send an e-mail to faculty members inviting them to the February Faculty Forum—hosted by the FPC and attended by the deans—that will be a continued discussion of issues and concerns that were identified at the Fall Faculty Meeting. There will be a Faculty Forum in March that will build upon the discussion at the February Faculty Forum.

At the next FPC meeting there will be a discussion of the process/procedures for the forums, as well as information that will be shared with faculty in advance.

1. Research Advisory Committee Proposal for Change in Constitutional Language

Conroy reported that the RAC has proposed the following revision of the committee’s function as outlined in the College Constitution:

F.(2)(b) The Research Advisory Committee shall give advice on address policies and matters relating related to research within to the College of Education Office of Graduate Studies as requested.

Conroy made a motion to approve the revisions. Clark seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the wording of the proposed revision. The proposed revision will be presented at the March FPC meeting that will address changes in the College Constitution.

1. The Impact of the Declaration of the College of Journalism about its Role as a “Priority” College at UF

Archer proposed that the FPC discuss the impact of a recent statement made by the College of Journalism regarding its designation as a “non-core” college. The statement was issued in response to the report by the Presidential Task Force on the Future of the University of Florida. The discussion focused on the impact of this declaration on other colleges—specifically the COE—that had not been listed as UF “core” colleges.

Discussion topics included the following:

·  Colleges not designated as “core” colleges face certain challenges, and need to demonstrate to the UF administration what they are capable of accomplishing.

·  Dean Emihovich has clearly communicated to the UF President and Provost the important role that the COE plays regarding children and families and in training professional educators.

·  Education is a key issue in the state and nation.

·  The COE needs to make our accomplishments more visible.

·  All of the colleges listed as “core” colleges have approached Dean Emihovich to request COE participation in collaborative efforts.

·  The COE differs in many ways from the College of Journalism with regard to such strategies. Journalism used a “media” response format, we should respond in a manner consistent with educating others about our perspectives and contributions to the university.

Adjournment

Clark moved that the meeting be adjourned. Franks seconded the motion. The committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

[1] The article was reprinted from the New York Times (November 12, 2002 issue).

October 21, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

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

Other Present: John Kranzler, Rod Webb, Dean’s Office

Correa called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for October 21, 2002.

Echeverria-Doan made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by Correa.  Townsend seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the October 7, 2002 Minutes

Yeager made a motion to approve the minutes of October 7th, which was seconded by Sindelar.  The minutes of October 7, 2002 were unanimously approved with the following revisions:

a. Delete the name Pace and replace with Sindelar in the section of the minutes that involves discussion of Graduate Admissions (page 4).

Reports of FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee

Waldron reported that the CCC will meet on Monday, October 28, 2002.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee

Franks reported that the committee met on October 9, 2002.  Presently, there are no plans to prepare a constitutional amendment regarding committee role and focus. The committee will continue to provide due process to undergraduates who are denied admission. The committee plans to stay informed of current undergraduate admission policies and work in collaboration with other COE committees.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee

Echeverria-Doan reported that the GA&P committee met on October 18, 2002.  Some policy changes were recommended:

· Single exception master’s or specialist degree applicants with a GRE of 900 or above and an undergraduate GPA of 2.5 or higher will be admitted by the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies.

· All double exception applicants will be seen by the GA&P committee.

· All doctoral applicants who do not meet the admission criteria will be seen by the GA&P committee.

·   Any master’s or specialist applicant that the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies identifies for review will be brought to the GA & P Committee.

· Faculty Affairs Committee

Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee met.  Brownell is the chair of the committee and Behar-Horenstein is the secretary.  Townsend stated that the committee recommended they explore the question:  What rights and responsibilities do faculty have in making decisions?  The committee will investigate the degree of faculty voice in matters pertaining to (1) faculty load, (2) course and program development, (3) merit, and (4) tenure and promotion.  The next two meetings are scheduled for November 4th and December 2nd.

· Research Advisory Committee

Conroy reported that the RAC met last week. The following issues were discussed:

– The role of the proposed CARE office. RAC would like to get faculty input on the types of research support the CARE office may provide.

– The results of a faculty research survey completed by Office of Graduate Studies and Research this summer were reviewed.

– The RAC is reviewing ways to disburse the $15,000 the Dean has allocated for faculty travel. A draft plan will be developed to establish general criteria for disbursing the travel funds.

The next meeting of the RAC is November 12th.  The issues to be discussed at this meeting include:  college research requirements for doctoral programs, faculty input on the research office, and the constitutional description of the RAC.

· Student Recruitment and Admission Committee

Yeager reported that this committee would meet on October 31st to discuss the graduate admission proposal.

· Long-Range Planning Committee

Archer stated that this committee would meet on November 6th.

· Ad hoc Committee on Assistant/Associate Dean Review

Correa stated that the ad hoc committee would meet on November 4th to consider existing assessment instruments that might be used as a part of the review of Assistant and Associate Deans.

· Agenda Committee

Correa stated if faculty need to have something considered at the FPC meeting as a discussion or action item, they should contact one of the three Agenda Committee members (Correa, Waldron and Phil Clark) in advance of the meeting.  A second way for faculty to bring an action item before the FPC is to have a representative present it during the meeting, and the FPC will vote whether or not the item should be added to the agenda.

New Business

1. Continuing the Conversation on “Vision” in the College:  Next Steps

Correa stated that there was support in the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) to continue conversations regarding a college “vision” that began at the Fall Faculty Meeting. How do we continue the momentum from the fall faculty meeting and engage a broad range of faculty in further discussion about a vision for the college?  What should the role of FPC be in this effort?  The role of the Dean’s office?

The suggestion was made to hold one or a series of faculty forums. Specific discussion points could be pulled from the minutes of the Fall Faculty Meeting.  The faculty forum could be co-sponsored by FPC and the Dean’s Office and probably should be held during the Monday, 2-4 pm time slot that is designated for college meetings.

The following comments were made while discussing the focus for the faculty forum(s) and the question presented during the fall faculty meeting, “Do we have a tacit vision in the College of Education?”

· The vision of the College needs to reflect current directions and the strategic plan the University.

· Last year the COE Long-range Planning Committee generated a list of issues and directions that should be shared with faculty as we discuss a common vision.

· The COE should consider working in coordination with Florida State University. This could allow for more effective lobbying efforts and increase our voice in Tallahassee.

· The issue of internal perception assessment and external perception of the COE was brought up at the Fall Faculty Meeting.  Do we want to collect this information? What instruments are needed for us to collect this information?

· A survey of the faculty should be conducted to determine specific issues to be addressed at the faculty forums.

· We may want to survey students who are presently enrolled in COE programs.  Why did you choose UF for graduate work?

· Faculty forums may be needed at least once a month to establish an on-going conversation about important issues and directions for the College.

· What is the difference between a “mission” and a “vision”? A mission identifies the major tasks of an organization.  A vision identifies where the organization is going to be in a specified time period.  Some comments that we have a mission statement, but no clear vision statement.

· A comment that either there are some “tacit” visions in the COE or we don’t have any “tacit” visions.  But there is a desperate need to have more focused conversations about this topic.  We may not have a single vision in the College, so we need to prioritize our visions.

· Over the past ten-year period, the COE has largely followed whatever resources were available. There is the perception that we have often reacted, and thus moved in multiple directions in response to the initiatives of others. At this point, the COE appears fragmented. A vision may help us to prioritize future directions for the College.

· Do we have a common vision?  If so, we need to lobby for our issues.  We need to have open forums on specific issues.  What are common themes we need to discuss:  teacher education, graduate education?  Outreach to state and local constituencies?

· We need to prepare open-ended questions and disseminate them in advance of the faculty forums.  Many of these questions can be pulled from the Fall Faculty Meeting minutes.

· We need a purpose for our discussions and we need a specific outcome.  What happens at the end of the session?  Possibly a list of college priorities, common assumptions, a policy statement is the result.

· A plan of action is needed – just meeting is not enough.  We need public relations with the state, university, and we need specific outcomes from the forums.  A discussion with the Dean and Provost would be beneficial.

· Need to utilize the FPC and Long Range Planning Committee to assist with the organization of one or a series of faculty forums.  At the end of the year, documents could be submitted to the FPC for review.

It was suggested that the Long Range Planning Committee should work with Correa as chair of FPC to further develop ideas for the Faculty Forum(s). Correa stated that she and Archer would meet and develop a proposal regarding dates/times and possible themes/questions for the faculty forums.  This will be brought back to FPC for discussion at a future meeting.

2. Collaboration with Santa Fe Community College on Critical Teacher Shortages

Correa opened a discussion on a proposed new initiative regarding collaboration with Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) to provide a teacher education program that would address critical teacher shortages in science, math, and special education.

Webb stated that this initiative is the result of recent state legislative action to address critical shortages in areas such as nursing and teacher education.  In response to this initiative, some community colleges have developed their own four-year programs (Miami-Dade Community College), while others have collaborated with a four-year university to provide a joint program (St. Petersburg CC).  The President’s Task Force has proposed that the College of Education collaborate with SFCC.

At this point, there is no specific plan about how a joint program might operate.  SFCC could teach students for the first two years, and the COE could teach the junior and senior years, as well as the 5^th year.  At the end of the program, a student would be granted a UF degree in education.

To provide additional information, an issue paper from AACTE regarding university and community college collaborative programs was provided.  As well as notes from a Dean’s Advisory Council meeting where this issue was recently discussed.

Comments from FPC members regarding the initiative:

· Community colleges should be two-year programs that articulate to the four-year institutions for the junior and senior years.  Currently, many students who enter our teacher education programs already do this. How is this new initiative differerent?

· Will this become a parallel program? The joint program with SFCC will provide a 4 year bachelor’s degree and UF will continue providing a 5 year Master’s degree?

· There are already issues with alternative certification in teaching.  SFCC providing a four-year degree on their own may raise new issues. We need to be clear about our perspective on alternative programs.

· SFCC could act as a feeder to the COE.  Following the BA/BS degree at SFCC, students could come to UF for the master’s degree or for the 5th year program.

· This collaborative program could provide a dignified alternative to people who leave early from our 5 year program. We have students who are not admitted into graduate school at UF and others who leave because of life circumstances.

· Faculty most directly involved with the critical shortage areas, secondary, and special education need to discuss this initiative. This initiative will be on the agenda for the Secondary Proteach meeting scheduled for November 4th.

· A four-year program at SFCC might protect the fifth-year program at UF.

· Is this initiative an opportunity for the COE to becoming a graduate only program?

· This initiative could increase the enrollment in traditional master’s programs.

Webb and Correa stated a need to convene a small group that could consider this issue further and develop a specific proposal.  If we are to proceed with the initiative an application must be forwarded to the Florida DOE sometime in March.  The requirements for the application are unclear.  May simply need a general description of the intent to collaborate on a joint program, but developing a specific plan will likely take additional time. Other colleges and programs across the university will also be involved, specifically Engineering and Nursing.

Correa noted that the minutes from this discussion will be forwarded to the Dean’s Advisory Council.

Unfinished Business

1. Tenure & Promotion Guidelines out for Review

Waldron reported that the proposed Tenure and Promotion Guidelines have been posted on the FPC Website.  A general notice has gone out to COE faculty to review the guidelines and provide individual feedback. Additionally, FPC members and department chairs have been asked to facilitate a discussion of the guidelines at upcoming department meetings.  Each department has been asked to provide written feedback by November 22^nd.  All responses will be assembled and forwarded to the Faculty Affairs Committee for review. If extensive revisions are not required, a final proposal should come to the FPC in December or January.

Adjournment

Archer moved the meeting be adjourned.  Echevarria-Doan seconded the motion.  The Committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3:50 pm.