September 23, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

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

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

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

Action Items

1. Approval of the agenda for September 23, 2002.

Sindelar made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by Correa. Franks seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the Minutes of September 9, 2002.

Correa requested two minor changes on page 5 (“due process” instead of “process” in paragraph 3 and remove specific references to data information in paragraph 4). Sindelar made a motion to approve the minutes (as revised) of September 9, 2002, which was seconded by Echevarria-Doan. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Discussion of Lastinger Center Concept Paper

Don Pemberton, Director of the Lastinger Center for Learning, is seeking college-wide input regarding the Lastinger Center Concept Paper. Feedback will be used to revise the paper and inform discussion at a meeting of the Lastinger Center Advisory Council that is scheduled for October 4.

Pemberton outlined the following goals of the center:

1. Challenge and enable teachers, principals, schools, and districts to raise student achievement in Florida’s elementary schools;

2. Provide educators with proven strategies that are needed to increase student achievement; and

3. Mobilize and align resources to support Florida’s elementary schools

He cited the center’s four core practice areas:

1. Improving the quality of teaching and learning;

2. Securing and sustaining family and community engagement in schools;

3. Transforming high poverty schools into high achieving schools; and

4. Providing a clearinghouse for effective practices, tools, resources, and initiatives to students, teachers, principals, schools, and communities.

Pemberton elicited input from committee members to assist him with focusing and prioritizing the Lastinger Center initiatives, as outlined in the Lastinger Center Concept Paper (August 19, 2002 revision) and the Lastinger Center Portfolio of Programs.

Pemberton reiterated his commitment to align the work of the Lastinger Center with the research interests of COE faculty members as the center continues its partnerships with the Florida Department of Education, school systems throughout the state, and the business, educational and civic leadership of the state to improve the quality of teaching and learning in Florida’s elementary schools. He indicated that center resources must be focused to ensure their maximum effectiveness.

Sindelar asked about the role of COE faculty in the leadership and governance of the Lastinger center. Pemberton stated that he hopes to identify a core group of faculty that will be involved in identifying, leading, evaluating, and disseminating information about key intiatives. Echeverria-Doan asked how faculty went about bringing ideas for new initiatives to the Center. Pemberton stated that he plans to meet frequently with faculty to provide information about initiatives and collaborative opportunities. He also will be working with the Center’s Advisory Board to come up with a process for considering new initiatives for the Center.

Archer suggested that families receive more prominent mention in the concept paper. He indicated that there is a need for grass-roots involvement with families at each school. He also noted that school counselors are key to connecting with students’ families.

Bondy asked if the center would accept applications from schools and school districts. Pemberton responded that the center constantly seeks partnerships with schools and school districts. She asked about the center’s relationship with the Holmes Partnership. He expressed interest in learning more about Holmes Partnership initiatives, although the center is currently focusing on in-state partnerships. He indicated that policy matters are not the primary objective of the center and noted that the donors emphasized the importance of “effective practices” when they funded the center.

Franks asked if high-performing schools are also involved with the center. Pemberton discussed national research results, such as the Education Trust, that have provided and will continue to provide important information about high-performing schools. Bondy indicated that the DOE Office of School Improvement provides a list of high poverty-high performing schools to Florida’s schools that have been designated as “F schools” as part of a statewide partnering plan.

Sindelar expressed concern about the appropriateness of the “faith in schools” concept in a publicly funded university setting. Pemberton discussed the possibility of recruiting tutors and mentors from many different areas, including businesses and possibly faith-based institutions in order to improve academic achievement. A number of faculty stated that the title of the initiative, “Faith in Schools” seems to imply something very different than recruiting people from faith-based organizations to volunteer in schools. Pemberton stated that the Lastinger Center Advisory Council will carefully explore the implications of such partnerships and establish guidelines with regard to this issue.

Conroy noted the impressive initiatives and inquired, given limited staffing, how he planned to prioritize and mobilize the center’s resources to address the center initiatives. Pemberton replied that this is an important issue. He plans to prioritize initiatives in areas where there is substantial interest and support. There need to be teams of faculty working around each initiative, and discussions with faculty about their role, individual level of involvement, and need for support.

Pemberton noted that he is also conducting discussions as department faculty meetings to receive input about the Concept Paper and proposed initiatives. Faculty are encouraged to e-mail additional ideas and reactions to Pemberton directly.

Reports of FPC Committees

• College Curriculum Committee. Waldron stated that the meetings for the CCC have been scheduled. The first meeting is September 30.

• Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee. Franks reported that this committee tentatively plans to meet on October 9.

• Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee. Echevarria-Doan announced that this committee would meet on Friday, October 18.

• Research Advisory Committee. Conroy reported that the committee has met to establish a preliminary agenda, which includes (a) a continued discussion of the EdD-PhD issue and (b) working with the Dean’s Office regarding the research infrastructure of the college.

• Long-Range Planning Committee. Archer announced that this committee would have to reschedule the meeting that had been scheduled for October 11 at 3 p.m. because of a conflict with the College of Education Fall Faculty Meeting at the same time.

• Ad Hoc Committee on Assistant/Associate Dean Review. This committee has not met yet but plans to meet with Dean Emihovich and Associate Dean Webb.

Unfinished Business

1. Tenure and Promotion Procedures (Faculty Affairs Committee).

The proposal made last year to the FPC by the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) about tenure and promotion procedures in the college was discussed. The FAC spent last year collecting and reviewing information from each department and soliciting faculty input.

One part of the proposal is the requirement for a three-year review of untenured faculty as part of a mentoring process for junior faculty. The task given to FAC clearly specified the need for consistency of procedures and equity across all of the departments in the College. The wording of this proposal was reviewed.

Concerns were expressed about how faculty, particularly junior faculty, would react to the idea of a three-year review. Feedback was received from Townsend, who recommended the insertion of “informal” before “pre-tenure review” (item 4 under the Support for Tenure-track Faculty section of the proposal). The advantages of “informal” versus “formal” reviews were discussed.

Waldron stated that providing formalized feedback to junior faculty members regarding their progress toward tenure would allow them to set goals as they move toward tenure. Archer indicated that he preferred the idea of a formal review. Franks expressed concern about the legal implications of the results of the three-year review, particularly for faculty who are not subsequently granted tenure. Webb indicated that this review process would be designed to assist faculty members and thus should not have liability implications for the college. Conroy asked if similar reviews are done at our peer institutions and other UF colleges. Waldron indicated that pre-tenure reviews are standard at many peer institutions. Webb stated that it is important that such evaluations be formal and consistent.

Correa asked where the evaluative summaries from the three-year reviews should be maintained. Kranzler recommended that these summaries be placed in the junior faculty members’ personnel files as a record that can be reviewed by their department chairs. This would be particularly informative to new chairs, who may not be familiar with junior faculty members’ work.

It was decided to:

– add a clarifying statement in the proposal regarding preparation of documents for pre-tenure review to follow the tenure dossier format. This would allow untenured faculty to begin preparation of the tenure dossier, which can be added to as they progress toward tenure.

– forward the revised proposal to the chairs and to faculty for discussion and feedback. Departments will be asked to discuss the proposal at a department faculty meeting, and faculty will be encouraged to provide individual feedback. All feedback will be sent to the Faculty Affairs Committee to review and forward a final version of the proposal to FPC for adoption.

New Business:

1. Filling Vacancies on Operating and Standing Committees

A vacancy on the Undergraduate Admissions and Petitions Committee was discussed. Correa indicated the need for a formal procedure for replacing faculty members who have been elected to serve on operating and standing committees. This needs to be addressed as revisions are made to the Constitution. Campbell suggested that the faculty member who was the runner-up in the college-wide election should serve on this committee. There was consensus that this procedure should be used in the future to fill vacancies on college-wide committees. The election committee will review the Spring 2002 election results to identify a runner-up for the Undergraduate Admissions and Petitions Committee and forward this name to Correa.

2. Scheduling College-Wide Meetings

The policy of holding Monday afternoons open for college committee meetings was discussed. This was developed to facilitate scheduling of college-wide committees. There have been some issues this semester due to conflicts with department and individual faculty schedules. Department chairs and faculty will be informed again about the need to hold the Monday 2 –4 time slot free. Also, all college-wide committee meetings should be posted via college email.

3. Discussion on loss of faculty lines in the college (Archer)

The change in the UF policy regarding faculty lines (which will no longer be “owned” by departments or colleges) was discussed. Archer asked what the impact on the college would be from the shifting of resources to other colleges and departments as faculty retire or leave UF for other positions. Webb indicated that the new policy is a change for the university, and is part of the President’s Strategic Plan. The college will have to make its best case to the Provost for retaining faculty lines that become vacant. Department chairs have begun discussions with Dean Emihovich about faculty needs in the college and departments and are reviewing priorities and collaborations. The Dean will use this information to make the case to the Provost for retaining faculty lines in the College. This topic may be scheduled as a discussion item for the meeting when Emihovich reports to the FPC about the college budget.

Correa indicated that the college constitution may provide guidance regarding the discussion of this issue among faculty. She suggested that the Long-Range Planning Committee might be alerted at some time in the future to examine this issue. Webb indicated that Emihovich would welcome conversations on these issues with the FPC.

The UF Strategic Plan was discussed. Sindelar stated that the college should have its own strategic plan that would provide guiding principles for the allocation of resources and faculty lines. Archer suggested that the FPC (as the voice of the faculty in the college) should be concerned about specific programs and how resources are allocated.

Correa presented information about the College of Education report that former Dean Ben Nelms prepared as the college’s response to Glover’s Strategic Planning Task Force. This report indicated areas that are strong in the college and that will be further strengthened. Campbell noted that if the College report to Glover’s task force was being used for the purpose of strategic planning, there may be a need for further faculty input on the report.

Discussion focused on whether FPC should take the time to discuss the various reports (College report to Glover’s task force, President’s Strategic Plan), whether it should go to a committee such as Long Range Planning, and the need to coordinate faculty efforts with the Dean’s Office as this area is discussed.

Announcements

1. The College of Education Fall Faculty Meeting

The College of Education Fall Faculty Meeting will take place on Friday, October 11 from 3 to 5 p.m.

Adjournment

Archer moved that the meeting be adjourned. Sindelar seconded the motion. The committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3:58 p.m.

August 26, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

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

Other Present: Dean Emihovich, John Kranzler

The meeting was called to order by Vivian Correa at 2:05 p.m.

Correa requested that FPC members introduce themselves by sharing their interests and position duties.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for August 26, 2002.

Sindelar made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by  Correa.  Clark seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.

2. Approval of FPC Minutes

Approval of FPC Minutes for April 29

Archer made a motion to approve the minutes of 4/29, which was seconded by Franks.  The minutes of April 29, 2002 were unanimously approved with the following revisions:

a. Jane Townsend was removed from the “Members Absent” list and placed under “Members Present.”

b. Pg. 2, “Webb stated…” was revised to say, “Webb stated that case studies can be considered Ph.D. work with the appropriate philosophical and theoretical framework.”

Approval of FPC Minutes for May 2

Doan made a motion to approve the minutes of 5/2, which was seconded by Sindelar.  The minutes of May 2, 2002 were unanimously approved with the following revisions:

a. Doan replaces Parker as a member of the FPC for Counselor Education.

b. Sherrard will be the alternate to the FPC for Counselor Education.

Correa remarked that the Agenda Committee (Correa, Waldron, Clark, a Dean’s Representative) formulates the agenda for the FPC meetings. A report from the Dean will be a regular item on the FPC Agenda.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich stated that as part of her report to the FPC she will share information from meetings with the Provost and university administration.

Items of interest to the College:

a.  Two new Ad Hoc committees are being formed that will advise the Dean. The two committees are (1) a Development Advisory Board, which will review and develop fund raising strategies for the College.  This committee will include faculty representatives, as well as alumni and community members. (2) a Technology Advisory Committee which will review the technology needs (computers, operating systems, future purchases, software use) of the College. One goal is to align future technology purchases of the College with the rest of the University.  This committee will include COE faculty and staff, as well as cross-campus representatives.

b. Two graduate assistants will be added to the Dean’s staff by the end of September. These GA’s will work with the Dean’s office on college-wide projects, as well as provide support to college committees. Discussion focused on providing GA’s an opportunity to see faculty roles that involve committee work and administrative policy-making, which may better prepare them for future academic positions.

c.  More support will be provided for research in the College.  A new office entitled, “Center for Collaborative Assessment, Research and Evaluation (CARE)” will be established.  This will occur as the research and graduate education responsibilities of the Graduate Studies and Research Office are separated.  It is proposed that this office will be managed by a director or program manager who will review RFPs, proposals, and assist faculty and graduate students when contracting with agencies across campus and throughout the State of Florida.

Kranzler announced that Judi Scarborough will be leaving the College to accept a position with IFAS.  The duties of this position will be divided between the Fiscal Office and the Graduate Studies and Research Office.  Until offices are reorganized and vacant positions filled, Kranzler will oversee grant submissions. Correa recommended that Kranzler communicate directly to faculty how grants will be processed until CARE is established.

Kranzler announced that a research survey was recently completed by the Office of Graduate Studies and Research. Once results are compiled this information will be shared with the FPC at a future meeting.

Information Items

1. Review of FPC Structures and Operating Guidelines

Correa reviewed the structure for the FPC.  The Chair (a non-voting member) resides over FPC meetings.  There are 10 FPC members (two tenure-accruing faculty members from each department) and 5 alternates (one from each department).  The secretary is a voting member of the FPC.  The secretary becomes the Chair after one year.  A Dean’s representative (non-voting member) also attends the FPC meetings.  The FPC has Operating Committees (Agenda Committee, Steering Committee, Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, and Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee) and Standing Committees (Faculty Affairs Committee, Research Advisory Committee, Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee, Long-Range Planning Committee).  The  Elections Committee and the Parliamentarian are determined by the FPC.

The Operating Guidelines for the FPC include:

· All standing and operating committees shall meet at least twice during the academic year with all meetings being announced to all faculty;

· On all committees, the Dean or Dean’s representative shall be a non-voting member;

· All committees shall submit an executive summary of their proceedings to the FPC.  The executive summary must be submitted in the Spring semester before the last regular meeting of the FPC;

·  At the completion of each Spring semester, each committee will provide the FPC with a three-ring-binder of the committees’ procedures, agendas, and minutes; and,

· For standing committees, the FPC representative will call the first Fall meeting.

Operating Guidelines for the FPC include:

· All committee reports should not exceed two minutes in length.  After each committee report, time will be allocated for clarification of the report.  No new items or discussion should occur during committee reports.  As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda.

· To request that an action item be placed on the FPC agenda, and/or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, non-FPC members should provide a written request to the FPC chair.

2. Review of the 2001-2002 Executive Summaries of FPC Committees

The following issues were identified for continued work this year:

Research Advisory Committee (RAC) – Tracy Linderholm (Chair)

·   Reworded Ed.D. narrative in the Graduate Catalog

· Advising Office of Graduate Studies and Research on setting guidelines for grant submissions

· Advising Graduate Studies Office on dissertation review process

Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee – Ruth Lowery (Chair)

· Alternatives to current college policy for graduate admissions

· Issues related to GRE for graduate admission in the College

· Issues related to doctoral student recruitment

Faculty Affairs Committee – Nancy Waldron (Chair)

· Submitted proposal for procedures related to Tenure & Promotion

· Communication in the COE about criteria for Tenure & Promotion, including promotion from Associate to Full Professor

Long-Range Planning Committee – Jeanne Repetto (Chair)

· Strategies for increasing research infrastructure

· Share the Executive Report (which outlines nine areas for consideration) with faculty.  These areas have not been shared with faculty as of this date.

Correa prompted FPC members to look at the new FPC website which now displays new links under Archives, and also links which connect to the college committees.

Correa also reported that an ad hoc committee would be formed to review Assistant and Associate Deans, which is required by the constitution every two years.  Webb will be the first Dean to be reviewed by the faculty under this provision.

Correa also reported that during this year revisions will be made to the by laws of the Constitution.  Faculty will be able to review role functions, committee functions and clean-up language. There will be a public announcement of changes.  In March, the faculty will vote on the constitutional changes in person, rather than by ballot, at the Spring Faculty Meeting.

3. Assignment of FPC Members to Committees

Operating Committees

Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee – Paul Sindelar will serve as the FPC member.

Standing Committees

Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee – Elizabeth Yeager will serve as the FPC member.

Long-Range Planning Committee – James Archer will serve as the FPC member.

Election Committee – New committee needs to be formed.  This will be an action item at the next meeting.

Parliamentarian – This position also will be discussed within the FPC meeting.

4. Invitation by the Dean’s Advisory Council to Add the FPC Secretary as a New Member

Nancy Waldron, FPC secretary, has been added to the Dean’s Advisory Council.

5. Consideration of Support Staff for FPC and College Curriculum Committee

It is proposed that two graduate assistants, assigned to the Dean’s office, will assist with minutes for the FPC and College Curriculum Committee.

6. Request from Kay Hughes for Assistance with Faculty Media Matrix

Kay Hughes would like to develop a list of faculty that are interested in speaking to the media on designated topics in Education. It was suggested that information regarding faculty might be extracted from faculty resumes, but often this is not helpful in identifying individuals who are willing to speak on current “hot topics” that do not neatly correspond to research areas. Bondy suggested that Hughes and Vernetson start a list of types of questions asked by reporters and other public inquiries, then FPC members could build on this list.  Clark suggested that the FPC contact Steve Orlando, who is in the UF media office, for some input.  Correa stated that this item could be added to the agenda of department faculty meetings. FPC members could circulate a survey that includes designated topics, and also prompts faculty to add topics that they are willing to speak to the media regarding.

7. Report from Don Pemberton Regarding Lastinger Center Concept Paper

Don Pemberton provided the FPC with a Concept Paper (for discussion purposes only) and a Portfolio of Programs in reference to the Lastinger Center for Learning. Don Pemberton will visit with the FPC in a few weeks and hopes to obtain feedback from the FPC regarding these two papers.

Dean Emihovich reviewed that the Lastinger Center for Learning was donated as a gift by two donors.  The focus of this center is on connecting research (from the COE and nationally) to the work of public school, particularly as it relates to raising the achievement levels of students in high-poverty schools.

Correa requested FPC members to suggest people who they would want to speak before the FPC, such as Mary Driscoll on development.  Information would be discussed before the FPC and passed on to the department faculty.  Correa also stated that open forums may be needed for discussion by faculty on any policies to be voted on or issues of interest to the College.

Clark stated that the faculty need to begin thinking collectively as a college, not just from a department perspective. It is important that we have forums and have various people talk to the FPC so that we know more about the work of the COE. Then FPC members are better able to communicate this information in department faculty meetings.

Clark moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Yeager seconded the motion.  The committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3:45 p.m.

April 29, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present:  Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, David

Honeyman, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Joe Wittmer, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend

Members Absent:  Dick Allington

Others Present: John Kranzler, Rod Webb

Smith called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m.

Action Items

1. Approval of the agenda

Two items were added to the agenda for April 29th:  (1) Waldron will report on the Faculty Affairs Committee regarding Tenure and Promotion recommendations, and (2) a discussion regarding the election of a Secretary to the FPC will be added.  Clark moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded to approve the agenda as amended.  The FPC voted unanimously to approve the agenda as amended.

2. Approval of the minutes of 4/15/02

“Members Absent” on the minutes of 4/15/02 was corrected with the addition of Allington.  Smith-Bonahue moved and Parker seconded to approve the minutes of 4/15/02 as amended.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

3. Research Advisory committee recommendation (Ed.D.)

Elizabeth Bondy’s concern about the language in the Graduate Catalog regarding the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. was discussed.  Differences are related to the focus of the coursework and other program experiences, the nature of the qualifying exams and dissertation, and the kinds of positions for which the student would be prepared.  Suggestions included: (1) make the requirements (e.g., qualifying exams) for the Ph.D. and Ed.D. more generic, giving departments the power to set specific requirements, and (2) make the focus/purpose of the Ed.D. more distinct and clear.

Smith distributed the following DRAFT recommending language which could be used in the Graduate Catalog:

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

The Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree is offered for students who desire advanced professional training and academic preparation for the highest levels of educational practice.  Programs are available in various areas of concentration within the School of Teaching and Learning and the Departments of Counselor Education; Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations; Educational Psychology; and Special Education.

A minimum of 90 credit hours beyond the bachelor’s degree is required for the Ed.D. degree. All master’s degrees counted in the minimum number of credit hours must have been earned in the last seven years.  Specific course requirements vary with the department and with the student’s plan for research.  With the approval of the supervisory committee, the student may choose one or more minor fields of study.  The qualifying examination and a doctoral dissertation are required of all candidates for the Ed.D. degree.

See material presented under the heading Requirements for the Ph.D. for information relating to transfer of credit, minors, leave of absence, supervisory committee, language requirement, campus residence requirement, qualifying and final examinations, admission to candidacy, dissertation, guidelines for restriction on release of dissertations, and certification.  These statements are applicable to both the Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees.

There was a suggestion to review Linda Crocker’s language regarding the Ed.D. and Ph.D. differences.  Kranzler reminded the FPC that Crocker’s language is not related to the Graduate Catalog, but refers to dissertations only.

Kranzler remarked that Crocker’s language regarding the quantitative and qualitative research requirements can be found on the Graduate Studies and Research web site.

Webb stated that case studies can be considered Ph.D. work if based on an appropriate philosophical and theoretical framework.

Correa remarked that the review process regarding dissertations was on the agenda for the Research Advisory Council, and added that further guidelines are needed.

Smith stated that recommendations from the RAC needed to be discussed and other internal documents needed to be reviewed by the Agenda Committee.

Kranzler recommended that a change be made regarding the context of the qualifying exam so it will be more in line with the Ph.D. requirements.  Kranzler asked, “What is the requirement of the minor and what is the process for the qualifying exam?”  Possibly more flexibility needs to be granted to departments and committees regarding the Ed.D.

Clark addressed a comment regarding changing the residency requirement.  He stated that no changes have been made to date.

Wittmer stated that clarity was needed in paragraph #2 of the Draft regarding the student’s choice of one or more minor fields of study.  He asked whether this required at least one minor.

Smith suggested that the discussion be tabled until the fall 2002 FPC meeting.  Clark stated that the FPC needed to vote on the Draft.

Smith-Bonahue moved and Clark seconded the motion to approve the language as presented in the Draft with provisions for the concerns raised by faculty regarding procedures and guidelines related to acquiring an Ed.D. and that these concerns be forwarded to next year’s Agenda Committee. The FPC unanimously approved the motion.

Discussion Items

1. Student Recruitment and Admissions committee recommendation (wrap up and transition)

Issues concerning the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee focused on (1) Proteach admissions where more flexibility in the admissions process are needed at the departmental level, and (2) the issue of the Dean’s screen needing to be changed in all departments or none. Even if students already have a master’s degree, are not required to go before the Admissions and Petitions Committee, and the student is capable of doing work at the doctoral or specialist level in the Proteach area, the student’s name still needs to be forwarded to the Dean’s Screen on NERDC to complete the admissions procedure.  The main issue for Proteach students is the faculty in the department are already familiar with the student’s performance academically.  If these students do not do well on the GRE and are denied admission by the A&P committee on that basis, the department has issues with this decision.  Wittmer brought up the 48-hour on-line program in Counselor Education.  How will these students be monitored?  Kranzler stated that the Graduate Studies office will continue to monitor acceptance to all degrees until a final decision is made.  Correa stated that the FPC needs to find an alternative assessment method, collect data for master’s only and Proteach candidates, and place this information on the agenda for the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.  Kranzler stated that the process can be changed, while retaining the Dean’s screen in the Graduate Studies office.

Correa suggested that this issue be broken into smaller pieces:  Proteach, other master’s programs, and doctoral programs.  These three different issues need to be brought to the table and referred to the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

Clark made a motion and Smith-Bonahue seconded it to divide the Graduate Admissions and Petitions issue into three different topics:  Proteach, master’s only, and doctoral admissions.  The FPC unanimously approved the motion.

Information Items

1. Associate Dean Review

Section 2 – Associate and Assistant Deans:  “…The service of the Associate and Assistant Deans shall be reviewed every two years by the faculty.”

Smith stated an internal process needs to be developed regarding input in reviewing Associate and Assistant Deans.  The Provost or Board of Regents has in the past evaluated the Dean every five years.  The College Development Committee prepared an evaluation form for the purpose of evaluating the Dean.  Dean Webb stated he could locate one of these forms.  Associate and Assistant Deans are reviewed every two years.  Clark suggested that the faculty form a review panel to poll the faculty and find out if the faculty actually know what the duties of the Dean are.  Correa suggested that the FPC work with the Dean on this survey.  Webb recommended that this is a time that faculty give information regarding the evaluation of the Dean.  Clark stated that the FPC should review the positions of the Associate and Assistant Deans as part of their responsibilities.  Smith raised the question as to why faculty evaluations were posted on the web, and not dean’s evaluations.  Waldron asked, “What are the roles of the deans?  Could a survey be developed which points out what the faculty desire from the deans?”  Clark suggested an ad hoc group be developed to sort through the data and present it to the FPC.  Correa suggested that the FPC maintain archives of these surveys.

Note:  Clark stated that all colleges are being asked to develop shared governance structures.  Clark also stated that this is a good opportunity for our Dean to display how well the College of Education’s shared governance is working.

2. Tenure and Promotion Procedures (Report from the College of Education Faculty Affairs Committee)

Waldron presented the report from the Faculty Affairs Committee regarding the Tenure and Promotion procedures.  After a summary of the background of the process the FAC used to develop their proposal, Waldron discussed the proposal before the FPC.  The primary issues identified by the FAC were the following:  (1) no written policies exist within departments to specify the procedures used for tenure and promotion decisions, (2) there is considerable variability across departments in the college as tenure/promotion decisions are made:  role of the department chairperson, process used to identify external reviewers, whether department meeting are held to discuss candidate, time lines for conducting department votes, (3) tenure and promotion criteria are unclear, (4) the role of the college-level committee is unclear, and (5) limited support is provided to non-tenured faculty from the point of  hiring through the tenure/promotion process.  The proposed changes you will see in the attachment to the minutes are recommended to:  (1) assure equity across all departments and candidates, (2) establish a clear set of procedures to be used for all tenure and promotion decision, (3) establish procedures that are consistent with other faculty governance roles in the COE, and (4) provide non-tenured faculty consistent communication and support as they are preparing for the tenure and promotion process.

Correa suggested that the proposal be posted on the web so departments could discuss them and the FPC could receive faculty input.

Clark then moved and Townsend seconded to accept the report of the FAC and that the proposed changes be addressed by the new FPC in the fall 2002. The FPC unanimously voted to accept the motion.

3. Election of the FPC Secretary

Correa stated that a new secretary for the FPC needs to be selected prior to August in order to establish the .25 percent of released time by their department chair.  Faculty eligible for this position include:  Waldron, Conroy, Archer, and Yeager.  The FPC will convene on Thursday, May 2nd, from 8 – 9 am in room 158 to vote on the new secretary and have a transitional meeting.  Correa also stated that the new FPC members will all serve a two-year term.  She also stated that the secretary “released-time” was not a total buy out of time.  It is what the department chair and FPC secretary agree on (e.g., one course).  Correa stated that the old FPC secretary will become the new chair of the FPC.

Other Information Items

Clark questioned how well the funding went for the purchase of Dean Nelms picture of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings home in Cross Creek.  Smith stated that approximately $400 was generated of which a portion was used to purchase the picture, the frame, a $75 gift certificate for Vivian Correa, and three flower arrangements.  Smith stated that Larry Deutsch has the bookkeeping on these expenditures.

Smith stated that he was pleased with the achievements and accomplishments of the FPC and the committees and commented that the FPC’s performance would be even better next year.  The FPC members thanked Smith for chairing the FPC during it’s first year of operation.

Clark moved and Wittmer seconded the meeting be adjourned.  The FPC unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:51 a.m.

February 18, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Lamont Flowers (alternate for David Honeyman), Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend

Members Absent:  Joe Wittmer

Others Present:  Rod Webb

Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m.

Action Items

1. Approval of the agenda for February 18, 2002

Correa moved and Franks seconded to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the February 4, 2002 Minutes

Modifications in the minutes were discussed:  (a) Elections Committee Procedures [Page 6, Attachment A, #2]:  this statement should read “One member of the COE shall be appointed chair of the committee by the COE Agenda Committee,”  (b) The correct name of the reporting committee is “The Elections Committee” and should be modified in the minutes and on the attachment to reflect the correct name with “NEC” being removed from all sections, (c) the FPC suggested extending the duties of the Election Committee so in the future they could be considered the “Nominations and Elections’ Committee,” (d) Page 5, The vote under #4 was “8 against and 1 abstention”.

Clark moved and Jones seconded to approve the minutes of February 4, 2002 as modified.  The FPC unanimously voted to approve the minutes.

3. Approval of Elections Committee Procedures

Smith suggested that the Elections Committee procedures:  (a) under “Elections”, # 1, “a minimum of four (4) work/business days” be modified to read, “a minimum of seven (7) work/business days.”  Also, it was suggested that under “Ballot Counting”, #5, “runoff election to commence within one week”, the wording should be modified to ensure that a four-week time frame after the nominations procedures was adequate for voting and runoff procedures; (c) the official name of this committee is the “College Elections Committee (CEC) not the Nominations and Elections Committee (NEC) and will be corrected throughout the document.  Jones moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded that Attachment A of the minutes be accepted with modifications.  The FPC unanimously voted to accept this document.

Discussion Items

1. Constitutional Revisions

Possible amendments were discussed:

(a) Departmental chair eligibility on committees

Smith reported some concern related to more than one chair serving on committees.  Clark suggested that a conflict of interest might occur if more than one chair was on a committee.  Franks stated that the FPC should review what each committee does to avoid a conflict of interest.

(b) Rename Elections Committee to the Nominations & Elections Committee and extend the  function for all elections in the College.

B. Elections Committee – Each year, an Elections committee of three persons shall be appointed by the Agenda Committee (who shall not appoint themselves).  Its duties are to set the time, procedures, tellers, and other mechanisms for conducting elections to the Faculty Policy Council.

Section 5 – Elections.  Elections for faculty representation on the Faculty Policy council shall be held in the spring by ballot.  Newly elected members shall take office immediately after the last meeting of the academic year, according to the procedures set forth under Elections Committee above (Article II, Section 4(b).

(c)  Need language in the duties of the Faculty Affairs Committee section to include faculty load issues.

(d) Need language added to all standing committees’ work to include “or other duties as recommended by FPC”.

(e)  Need to change the language on the College Curriculum Committee from Associate Dean of Graduate Studies to Associate Dean for academic Affairs.

2. Status of Tabled Items

Smith spoke with Ann who will attend the next FPC meeting and discuss her tabled item.  Jones stated that her item is still tabled.

3. Dean’s Search

Smith reported that the faculty should have more access to the Dean candidates than before under the new FPC format.  It was suggested that an informal round-table discussion be scheduled with each Dean candidate for faculty members to ask questions and meet the candidates.

4. Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee

Smith distributed an email from Dr. Ruth Lowery, Chair of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.  Smith-Bonahue reported that two things were considered at the meeting:

(a)  A discussion regarding the PRAXIS:  Committee members visited the graduate school and were informed that the reason the graduate school turned down the proposal for substituting the PRAXIS for the GRE was the college did not provide sufficient evidence that it is a suitable substitution for the GRE.

(b) A report on the status of alternative admissions test for entry into Proteach masters program:  Committee members received information from ETS and they have suggested that the PRAXIS should not be used as an alternative test for the GRE.  Committee members will be getting additional information on another test (the PPST) that is being used for admissions by other universities.

(c)  With respect to other graduate admissions decisions, the committee proposed the following:

1. Recommendation to the FPC to consider a policy that places responsibilities for graduate admission decisions at the level of the departments and within the policies of the graduate school.  The Committee also recommends that the major responsibility for the Petitions committee be defined as representing due process review in cases of denial.

2. Recommendation to the FPC that for students who do not meet the graduate school entrance requirements yet are admitted to an entry level graduate program, departments will specify that their admission does not guarantee admission to the doctoral program.

3. Although not a recommendation, the Committee would like to encourage departments to consider raising the minimum GRE score for admission to doctoral programs to reflect and promote excellence in our doctoral programs.

The FPC discussed how to communicate these issues to the faculty and to make them action items on the next agenda.  Clark suggested that the FPC submit these recommendations as proposed, discuss them at department faculty meetings, and have department chairs respond by email.  Faculty can also attend the meeting at which these recommendations will be discussed as an action items and voted on.

FPC members stated that appropriate wording and guidelines regarding the University’s policies about petitions for admission were necessary prior to communicating these proposals to the faculty.  Clark stated that the FPC needed the current University policy and the current College policy regarding admissions.  He also stated that we should notify the Graduate School that the FPC was considering a policy change that would place responsibility for graduate admission decisions at the departmental level.

Smith and Smith-Bonahue will draft a statement by Wednesday, February 20th, which will be communicated to the faculty.  The statement will ask the departments to discuss the issue and provide the FPC with a departmental response by March 13th.  Smith also will make sure the faculty understand that departments will need to develop additional administrative procedures related to admissions (e.g., sending materials to the Graduate School), 10% of all admission may be waived on one or both exceptions, and departments may make “Masters Only Admission” decisions.  However, in other cases, departments may admit students conditionally (e.g., “No grades of “Incomplete,” maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or above over the first two semesters of coursework”).

Information Items

Agenda Committee Report

Smith reported that the Agenda Committee was having some difficulty meeting.  Agenda Committee business had been successfully completed via e-mail.  The Agenda Committee requested that Webb and Witt offered assistance to Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee to redefine their charge and to change the language of their duties.  In an email from Ryndak (as reported by Franks), the wording might state, “or other duties as recommended by the FPC.”  The committee might serve to handle due process upon a student’s denial of admission.  Jones suggested that the committee change its name to “Undergraduate Petitions Committee.”

Long-Range Planning Committee

Allington reported that the committee plans to draft a document for public comment in the near future.  Issues being considered are what the College of Education at UF might do to enhance their national reputation.  The committee is considering multiple recommendations based on the college’s strategic plan and the previous report on doctoral studies.

There were no other committee reports.  Allington moved and Clark seconded to adjourn.  The FPC unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:50 am.

January 14, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend, Joe Wittmer

Members Absent:  David Honeyman, Max Parker

Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for January 14, 2002.

Correa moved and Clark seconded to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.

2. Approval of the 12/10 Minutes

Corrections to the minutes of December 10 were recommended as follows:

a) Page 3, Information Items, Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, 2nd sentence:  “…graduate students after a department had recommendedadmitting a student.”

b)   Page 4, 2nd sentence, “He also serves as a member on the Shared Governance Committee…” eliminating “on the Committee on Committees that supervises all senate committees, and…”

Clark moved and Jones seconded to accept the December 10th minutes as modified. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as modified.

Discussion Items

1. Update on COE policy search and archive

Smith reported that the FPC was in a “wait and see” situation.  The standing committees were working on their assignments and action items were expected from the committees. He also reminded FPC members to remain on topic and limit conversations to the agenda items.

Smith updated the members of the council on preliminary findings of the archival search of the minutes of the Department Chair meetings of 1996-1997.  Listed below are the notes from Smith’s findings:

a)   A third-year review process for non-tenured faculty members was recommended.

b) The College Development Committee would serve as only a fact-finding committee regarding the tenure and promotion nomination process and the suggestion of a written college-wide policy was discussed.

c) A Sustained Performance Evaluation process in which annual reports would be required by all faculty members was discussed.  If no evidence of satisfactory performance were available, the evaluation letter would reflect an “unsatisfactory” performance by the faculty member.

d) A COE policy on culminating experiences during week 17 of the semester was discussed.

e) A discussion on tuition waivers and grants was noted in which tuition waivers were to be increased by 10% each year to offset increased tuition expenses.  Any grant would need to state that “the remainder of the tuition will be provided by the College…” with the college name indicated.

f)  Department Chairs were to consider service assignments of faculty members who serve on committees or task forces with the federal government.  These appointments would not count toward faculty workload service assignments.

g) Graduate teaching assistants’ assignments must be consistent across departments.  Also, twelve hours of student contact time per faculty member is a minimum, not a maximum as stated by the 12-hour rule regarding faculty assignments.

h) Search committees must consist of three faculty members from the department, one college representative, one university representative, one outside representative, one student and a chairperson.”

The goal of the archive search being conducted by Smith and Correa is to document past policies and procedures of COE, which will be reviewed and compared with current policies, and procedures.

Allington stated that there are four sources of policy and procedures that should be reviewed:

a)   Database of Administrative Council and Department Chairs minutes;

b) University Board of Regents policies  (which may no longer be in effective);

c) University of Florida and the Collective Bargaining Agreement policies; and

e) Departmental policies.

Allington suggested that, parallel to the archive search process, two other searches be developed – one on departmental policies and one on university policies.  Correa supported Allington’s suggestion and commented that the parameters of the old BOR, University of Florida, and COE policies be researched for clarity.

Although the university is experiencing a tremendous amount of transition and change including the newly established Board of Trustees, a new administration, and changes in the graduate school and division of sponsored research, it is hoped that the review of past COE policies and procedures will assist the FPC in developing new policies and provide a new dean some guidance in implementing the COE policies.

As an example of policy investigations, Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee was in the process of interviewing department Chairs regarding their Tenure and Promotion guidelines.

There was discussion of the January 23^rd meeting, which will include the Provost, deans, FPC members and department chairs.  It is scheduled from 1:30 – 4:30 pm in Room 158 Norman Hall.

2. FPC procedures (suggestions from last meeting)

Smith handed out procedural guidelines on how the FPC would consider action items from standing committees or from non-FPC members during the meetings.  The first guideline stated that, “All committee reports should not exceed two minutes in length.  After each committee report, time will be allocated for clarification of the report.  No new items or discussion should occur during committee reports.  As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda for the next FPC meeting.”  This guideline was modified to read in the last sentence, “As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda.”

The second guideline stated that, “To request an action item on the FPC agenda, or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, faculty should provide a written request to the FPC chair.  This guideline was modified to read, “To request that an action item be placed on the FPC agenda, and/or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, non-FPC members should provide a written request to the FPC chair.”

Smith will rewrite the two guidelines and present them to the FPC for a vote at the next meeting.

3. Upcoming Spring elections

Smith will request that Dr. Loesch develop a timeline for the Spring elections and present it to the FPC as soon as possible.

Items Tabled from October 1 Meeting

Smith did not communicate with Dr. Anne McGill-Franzen and requested that the item remain tabled.  Jones suggested that the item on linking with the College’s Staff Council remain tabled and she will report on this item at a later date. Clark suggested that the FPC remove the tabled items from the agenda until a report was available for review.

Information Items

Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee

Smith-Bonahue reported that the Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee would meet with Dr. Ken Gerhardt, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, on January 17th to discuss the GRE and Praxis assessment as a requirement for admission to the College of Education.  FPC members suggested the following questions also be discussed with Gerhardt:

What is the University’s policy regarding the GRE?

How can the COE model itself after other units that may have different admissions criteria?

To what extent do multiple policies exist?

How many graduate credits are students allowed to transfer into a graduate program?

Could criteria for graduate students in certification only programs be different?

Following the meeting with Dr. Gerhardt, the committee will have their normally scheduled meeting to discuss recommendations and suggestions made by Dr. Gerhardt.

Faculty Affairs Committee

Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee was in the process of investigating the faculty workload across departments.  This committee also will address the issue of intellectual property.

Research Advisory Committee

Smith reported that the Research Advisory Committee is in the process of discussing the consistency of the language in the Graduate Catalog regarding the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. degrees.  This committee also will review grant proposal deadlines, the dissertation review process which now flows through the Graduate Studies Office, and the role, function, and purpose of the Center for School Improvement.

Smith stated that two items would be included at the next Agenda Committee meeting: (1) revisiting the purpose of the Undergraduate Admissions and Petitions Committee, and (2) reviewing the process of the Graduate Admissions and Petitions Committee.

Long-Range Planning Committee

Allington reported that this committee will be meeting today.

Clark announced that the next University Senate meeting was scheduled for Thursday and minutes would be posted on the web.

Clark moved and Correa seconded that the meeting be adjourned.  The FPC members unanimously voted to adjourn the FPC meeting at 10:50 am.