Meeting Minutes

,

19 November, 2002 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Members present: Dr. Vivian Correa, Dr. Harry Daniels, Ms. Mary Driscoll, Dr. Kathy Gratto (for Dr. James Doud), Ms. Cheryl Howell (for Dr. Michael Bowie), Ms. Kay Hughes, Dr. John Kranzler, Dr. James McLeskey, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Mickie Miller, Dr. Linda Jones (for Dr. Dorene Ross), Dr. Theresa Vernetson, Dr. Nancy Waldron, Dr. Rodman Webb, and Dr. Sandra Witt

Information Items

Committee members reviewed the November 5, 2002 meeting minutes. Dr. Waldron made a motion to accept the minutes, Dr. Vernetson seconded the motion, and the committee members agreed unanimously on their acceptance.

Dean Emihovich distributed copies of a document—2002-2003 University of Florida Committees, Boards and Councils–that was compiled by the Office of the Provost and lists University-wide committees, committee responsibilities, members, and contact information.

Guest Speaker

Lynn Frazier, UF International Center

Dr. Lynn Frazier, the Executive Associate Director of the UF International Center (UFIC), presented information about two issues:

  • Changes at the University regarding international students.

Major executive and regulatory changes affecting the international population in the U.S. became law on September 11, 2002. Many of these laws directly impact UF international students, including the following:

  • Full-time Enrollment. The role of the UFIC has changed with regard to international students. In the past, its main task was to assist students with their visa status. The U.S. Department of Justice has assigned reporting requirements to the IFIC, including the monitoring of students who are not enrolled for 12 or more credits (or full-time enrollment). She recommended that colleges contact the Graduate School if they have programs/disciplines for which nine credits should be considered full-time semester enrollment for graduate students.
  • Health Insurance. The State and UF require that all international students document health insurance coverage. Insurance co-payment requirements have changed for international students. Dr. Frazier noted that the policy for international students is less expensive than a comparable policy for domestic students.
  • Service Fee. The UFIC has enacted a service charge of $50 Fall and Spring semester for all international students.
  • Procedures for UF faculty to set up a “study abroad” program

The UFIC invites faculty to contribute to the expansion of UF’s international programs and develop new opportunities for students to study abroad. Dr. Frazier distributed a Faculty Primer for Study Abroad that describes the steps involved in developing a study-abroad program. The steps include:

  1. Faculty member develops the academic content for the program and seeks approval to offer it as a short-term study program or summer study-abroad program.
  2. Obtain department approval.
  3. Obtain college approval.

 

  • The UFIC works with the faculty member to develop a program budget. Faculty salary and reimbursement are provided through program fees and student tuition.

Faculty members can find additional information at the following IFIC Web site: http://www.ufic.ufl.edu/ipd/index.html. A new IFIC initiative has begun that promotes interaction between domestic and international students at UF.

Discussion Items

  • Space Issues

Associate Dean Webb indicated that some pending space decisions must be made in the College. He requested input from DAC members about current or anticipated space needs and concerns. Space needs related to several grant-funded projects and College initiatives—including a graduate research office for the Collaborative Assessment, Research, and Evaluation (CARE)[1] staff—were discussed.

In order for the available space to be re-allocated appropriately, Dean Emihovich requested that department chairpersons poll their faculty about space needs and provide this information to Associate Dean Webb as soon as possible.

  • Dean’s Advisory Committee Retreat

Dean Emihovich proposed the possibility of holding a retreat on December 19 at Kanapaha Botanical Gardens. Although no specific topics have been determined, a diversity workshop is tentatively planned for the morning. Issues related to strategic planning initiatives, College “vision,” and/or other issues may be addressed in the afternoon.

Additional information will be provided at the next DAC meeting. Dr. Miller indicated that it would be helpful for retreat attendees to have advance copies of the retreat agenda.

  • College Strategic Plan Draft

Dean Emihovich will meet with Provost David Colburn on December 2 to discuss a report that she will prepare that addresses the College of Education’s Strategic Planning initiatives. She will revise the document that was prepared last year by the College of Education to outline the College’s strategic directions in response to the UF Presidential Task Force. She has requested that the FPC and DAC review her draft report—which is intended to represent the beginning of a discussion with the UF administration—and provide guidance to her about what to include before she submits it to the Provost on November 26.

She indicated that the framing piece of the College report would address issues related to (a) children and families and (b) the preparation of high quality teachers, instructional leaders, and other professional educators. The impact of recent election results should also be noted. She presented preliminary information about topics that might be included in the report.

She requested input from the DAC members about specific ways in which the College can achieve excellence under the UF Strategic Plan with regard to Provost Colburn’s questions in his October 4 memorandum to her, Discussion of the Strategic Plan in Your College.

  • What are the core strengths in the College that align with the strategic plan that the university must fund? How far is each core strength from the “top 20” nationally, and what level of resources, period of time, and intensity of efforts would realistically be required to raise it into the top 20?

The College of Education has identified four programs that align most closely with the UF Strategic Plan and contribute significantly to the University’s emphasis on children and families. The four programs that contribute most significantly to the College of Education’s reputation, productivity, and rankings are Counselor Education, Special Education, School Psychology, and Unified Teacher Education. In last year’s report to the Presidential Task Force, the College documented the strengths of these programs.

  • What are the core strengths in the College that do not seem to align with the strategic plan, but which you, nevertheless, believe should continue to be funded (and why)? How far is each of these core strengths from the “top 20” nationally, and what level of resources, period of time, and intensity of effort would be required to raise it into the top 20?

In answering these questions, she will indicate that the faculty are aware of the academic needs of the College to improve programs and academic ranking. They are also aware of the State’s critical need for teachers and administrators, and the expectation that the College will respond to those needs responsibly and quickly. In this section she will review programs that contribute significantly to the College mission and to the University’s strategic priorities (including children and families), improving program and college rankings, and the importance of strengthening graduate education.

  • Where can the College interface successfully with the University’s interdisciplinary priorities and strengthen them and the College simultaneously?

The interdisciplinary priorities outlined by the UF Strategic Plan include children and families, brain research, internationalization, aging, ecology/environment, biotechnology, and cancer and genetics.

Dean Emihovich plans to note that teacher education is broader than College program issues alone, as evidenced by the College’s ongoing and proposed collaborative initiatives with other units, including the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Department of Pediatrics, the Brain Institute, Engineering, and the Institute of Child Health Policy.

She presented several collaborative models that cross the boundaries of traditional disciplines, programs, and paradigms, including models that address the following broad concepts: (a) the social ecology of education, (b) language, literacy, and culture, (c) curriculum and instruction/arts in learning, and (d) integrated services in communities and schools.

After an extended discussion, DAC members recommended that the response to the Provost’s memorandum clearly reflect the priorities listed in the report that the College submitted to the UF Presidential Task Force last year. She indicated that she would focus on the priorities that the College identified in the earlier report, and that the faculty would be asked to provide additional input about how all programs might advance UF’s interdisciplinary priorities.

Dean Emihovich indicated that she would revise the report based on (a) the input that she received at the DAC meeting today and (b) additional comments and suggestions that she receives from the faculty before she submits the report to Provost Colburn.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

/by
,

18 November, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

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 10th.

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

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

· 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 2nd 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 2nd 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. How to balance doctoral education and research with the demands for service and teacher preparation
    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).

/by
,

5 November, 2002 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Members present:  Dr. Michael Bowie, Dr. Vivian Correa, Dr. Harry Daniels, Dr. James Doud, Dr. Kathy Gratto, Ms. Kay Hughes, Dr. John Kranzler, Dr. James McLeskey, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Mickie Miller, Dr. Don Pemberton, Dr. Dorene Ross, Dr. Theresa Vernetson, Dr. Nancy Waldron, Dr. Rodman Webb, and Dr. Sandra Witt

Information Items

Committee members reviewed the October 15, 2002 meeting minutes. Dr. Pemberton made a motion to accept the minutes, Dr. Bowie seconded the motion, and the committee members agreed unanimously on their acceptance.

Dean Emihovich circulated packets of information from the University of Southern California, Lehigh University, and Michigan State University that contain descriptions of academic programs, centers, and related information for review by committee members. She reported that Ms. Hughes is in the process of creating a similar packet to showcase programs in the College of Education. She also circulated an announcement about the Professional Development School Conference that will take place at Towson University in Baltimore on March 27-29, 2003.

Interim Associate Dean Kranzler distributed copies of the College of Education Fact Book, 2001-2002, a document compiled by the Office of Graduate Studies and Research that reports comprehensive information about student enrollment; faculty issues related to teaching, research, and service; degrees, grades, and attrition; and provides a 2001-2002 fiscal analysis. Associate Dean Kranzler will disseminate this document to the department chairpersons and deans. He will also post it on the Office of Graduate Studies and Research Web site.

Dean Emihovich and Ms. Hughes have met with Ms. Jackie Levine, managing editor at the Gainesville Sun, and several other Sun editors and staff members in an effort to increase the future visibility of College initiatives through publication in the Sun.

Dr. Vernetson distributed handouts from a UF workshop on the Buckley Amendment that was held on October 22. She indicated that she would welcome input and questions about the Buckley Amendment and confidentiality of student records from the departments.

Drs. Doud, McLeskey, Ross, Vandiver, and several local principals will participate in a meeting that addresses issues related to “redesigning the principalship” at Innisbrook Conference Center in Tarpon Springs next week.

Dr. Correa will address a Blue Ribbon Commission on doctoral leadership in special education programs in Washington, D.C. this week.

Discussion Items

  • Proposal for Continuing Professional Development for Teachers

The Provost has requested that the College of Education submit a proposal that outlines the ways in which the College can meet the needs of teachers. Dean Emihovich and Interim Associate Dean Kranzler met with Provost David Colburn, Vice-President for Research and Graduate School Dean Winfred Phillips, and Graduate School Associate Dean Ken Gerhardt in September to discuss ways in which the College could respond to the continuing professional development needs of teachers.

The College of Education and the Graduate School have agreed to develop a proposal for the Provost’s approval. The College of Education proposal—drafted by Associate Dean Kranzler following consultation with Dean Emihovich and the Faculty Policy Council—addresses three separate issues:

  1. Teachers Pursuing the Master’s of Education (M.Ed.) and Educational Specialist (Ed.S.) Degrees
  2. Postbaccalaureate Status for Teachers
  3. Minimum GRE Requirement for All Graduate Students in the College of Education

Associate Dean Kranzler referred the draft proposal to the Faculty Policy Council (FPC) for review. The FPC referred it to the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee (SRAC). The SRAC endorsed the draft proposal and supported it in principle with respect to the admission of students for doctoral-level graduate programs. The SRAC referred the proposal to the FPC with its recommendations. At the FPC meeting on November 4, a motion was made to approve the proposal so that it could go forward for further deliberation with the Graduate School and Provost. The FPC did not support the motion; four committee members voted for it, five voted against it, and one abstained.

Issues pertaining to the draft document were discussed, including the following:

  • Dr. Correa indicated that the proposed changes in the third section—specifically, the 900 minimum GRE score for admission—would negatively impact the students in the five-year Proteach Program, especially minority students.
  • She also reported that the minimum GRE score requirements have been historically a contentious issue for many Proteach students.
  • The importance of teachers’ professional development, including the possibility of providing professional development courses through distance education, was discussed.
  • A reconfiguration of the College’s undergraduate teacher education programs will have to be considered.
  • Pending changes in teacher certification, including a proposed national examination, will impact professional preparation programs throughout the nation.
  • The proposal would result in discrepant graduate admission standards for (a) practicing teachers and (b) students in teacher-preparation programs.
  • It was noted that the College should be allowed to set graduate admission standards that are professionally defensible and ethical; Dr. McLeskey cited the low correlation between “good teachers” and their GRE scores. He also suggested that Section 3 (Minimum GRE Requirement for All Graduate Students in the College of Education) should mirror Section 1 [Teachers Pursuing the Master’s of Education (M.Ed.) and Educational Specialist (Ed.S.) Degrees] more closely.
  • Issues were discussed related to valid documentation regarding the “success” of our graduates.
  • The costs involved in the successful recruitment of and competition for minority students were discussed.
  • There was discussion of the Graduate School requirement that an externally validated measure, such as the GRE, be used for admission decisions. Other options that have been presented for consideration have not been accepted.
  • Dr. Vernetson recommended replacing the term “teachers” by the term “professional educators” in the title of and in the first sentence of Section 2 (Postbaccalaureate Status for Teachers).
  • Options for alternative admission criteria were discussed, including no longer requiring the GRE for students in five-year professional preparation programs. Dr. Ross recommended reexamining the Proteach Program GRE-GPA data, using different data configurations (e.g., students who present a 3.4 GPA and a score of 850 or higher on the GRE) before the proposal is submitted to the Graduate School.
  • Associate Dean Webb asked whether it would be possible to add an option for allowing students to petition in the third section.
  • Dean Emihovich asked each of the chairs how their programs would be affected by setting a minimum standard of 900 on the GRE, apart from the impact it would have on the Proteach program. Each chair acknowledged it would have little effect since they do not typically accept students below this score.

Associate Dean Kranzler indicated that this proposal must go forward soon for consideration by the Graduate School.

After an extended discussion, Dean Emihovich agreed to amend the draft proposal in the following ways:

  1. Add the phrase “to include undergraduates students currently enrolled in the Unified Early Childhood and Elementary Education programs” after “certified teachers” in the first sentence of Section 1 [Teachers Pursuing the Master’s of Education (M.Ed.) and Educational Specialist (Ed.S.) Degrees]. The rationale could include that these students are close to teacher certification status. The teacher shortages in Florida and other states could also be cited.
  2. Delete all references to Proteach students in Section 2 (Postbaccalaureate Status for Teachers).
  3. Delete all references to Proteach students in Section 3 (Minimum GRE Requirement for All Graduate Students in the College of Education) since they would be covered by the changes in Section I.

Dean Emihovich indicated that she intends to present the draft proposal to the Graduate School by November 18. She also indicated that she and Associate Dean Kranzler would advise the Graduate School and Provost that the faculty are not completely supportive of the draft proposal, at least not for students in professional preparation programs.

  • Cost Sharing on Grants

Dean Emihovich plans to establish a policy (with review by and input from the FPC) that will provide for the sharing of indirect costs with the College for grants that are awarded with other units. Such cost sharing will be used to provide for the costs involved in funding College grant-related expenses. She discussed this idea at the FPC meeting on November 4, and reported that she needs the support of the faculty before she can present a proposal to the other UF deans.

  • College Strategic Planning

Dean Emihovich will meet with Provost Colburn on November 19 to discuss the College of Education’s Strategic Planning initiatives. She will revise the document that was prepared by the College of Education to outline the College’s strategic directions in response to the UF Presidential Task Force. She has requested that the FPC and DAC review this document and provide input before she submits the final version to the Provost.

She indicated that the framing piece of the College strategic plan would address issues related to children and families. She requested specific input from committee members about how the College’s programs are important for the UF strategic planning initiatives in three separate areas (a selection of responses is included under each area description):

  1. Core strengths in the College that align with the strategic plan that the University must fund.
    • External funding for children and families
    • College of Education rankings (higher than other UF units)
    • Outreach
    • Collaboration
    • Translating research into practice in different contexts
  2. Core strengths in the College that that do not seem to align with the strategic plan but should continue to be funded.
    • Partnerships
    • New instructional technologies
    • Models of cognition and learning
  3. Where the College can interface with the University’s interdisciplinary priorities and strengthen them and the College simultaneously.
    • Teacher education is broader than College program issues alone, as evidenced by the College’s ongoing and proposed collaborative initiatives with other units, including the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Department of Pediatrics, the Brain Institute, Engineering, and the Institute of Child Health Policy.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

/by
,

4 November, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

November 4, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

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

Others Present:  Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Dean John Kranzler

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

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for November 4, 2002.

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

2.  Approval of the Minutes of October 21, 2002.

Echevarria-Doan requested two changes in the minutes on page 2 regarding recommendations by the Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee for graduate admission policy changes. The minutes should read a “GPA of 2.5” instead of “3.0” in the first bulleted section, and deletion of the second bulleted section. Archer made a motion to approve the minutes (as revised), and the motion was seconded by Townsend.  The minutes were unanimously approved.

Reports from FPC Committees

· College Curriculum Committee.

Waldron stated that the CCC met on October 28th and will next meet on November 25th.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

Franks was not at the FPC meeting. There was no report for this committee.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.

Echevarria-Doan announced that this committee would meet on November 8th.

· Faculty Affairs Committee.

Townsend reported that the committee held their second meeting today. After receiving written feedback from the departments about the Tenure and Promotion Proposal, they will review the feedback and make recommendations to the FPC. The issues of faculty “voice” and load were also discussed; Mary Brownell will meet with the Dean to discuss this matter further.

A question was raised about how FPC policy items may move to a full faculty vote, as compared to an FPC vote. In the constitution it specifies that the FPC makes the decision to either vote on a policy or have a full faculty vote.  It is not specified in the constitution the vote count needed from the faculty to approve a new policy.  Is it a simple majority? This will need to be addressed when the constitution is revised.

· Research Advisory Committee.

Conroy reported that the committee has finalized the criteria and procedures for the Faculty Travel Support Program. The committee will meet on November 12.

· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.

Yeager reported that the committee supports the concept of departmental decisions regarding admission to the graduate programs. She indicated that the committee supported the College of Education draft proposal on Continuing Professional Development for Teachers dated October 22, 2002.

· Long-Range Planning Committee.

Archer announced that the committee would address the April 2002 LRPC Executive Report, which delineates the types of support the COE might provide to obtain higher levels of faculty involvement in research and facilitate an increase in high quality research. Copies were distributed to FPC members. Committee meeting will be held on November 8th.

· Ad Hoc Committee on Assistant/Associate Dean Review.

This committee plans to meet with Dean Emihovich and Associate Dean Webb to determine the procedures and instruments that will be used to conduct this review.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich reported on several issues that impact the College of Education.

The following items were discussed at the Provost’s Breakfast Meeting:

  • Because of a change in Statewide policies related to the rewriting of the Florida School code by the Legislature (“devolution”), the University of Florida will have the authority to set tuition to meet market demands, which will result in higher tuition fees.
  • Presidential Search: College Deans will have a meeting this week to receive an update and discuss initial search procedures and criteria for a new university president.
  • Personnel Changes: As part of the rewriting of the Florida School code by the Legislature, UF will have local employer status effective January 7, 2003. The University of Florida Board of Trustees will become the employer of all employees at UF and must therefore establish its own policies and procedures involving employment. Staff members have expressed concern about the new policies, especially those that will impact job security.
  • Tenure and Promotion: The provost will be bringing a proposal regarding new procedures and criteria for Tenure and Promotion to the UF Faculty Senate. The proposal recommends lengthening the T & P process to 7 years, with a 1 year renewal, as well as instituting a three-year formal review. The proposed changes seem consonant with the College of Education T & P Proposal that is presently being discussed by faculty.
  • SACS: A University of Florida SACS accreditation review will take place from April 7-10, 2003. The NCATE review is scheduled for April 5th – 8th.
  • International Issues:

UF International Day will be November 20th. Information about university events will be provided to faculty.

– International Students—Several changes that will impact international students were discussed, including a required health insurance co-payment (that domestic students already pay), a requirement that all full-time graduate students meet the university minimum enrollment policy (12 credit hours per semester), and a service charge of $50 incurred by the increased expense of new immigration-related paperwork required for the processing of student visas.

  • Teacher-Scholar Award: This UF award recognizes outstanding research and teaching. The nominations are due by December 6th.
  • University Minority Mentoring Program: Dean Emihovich will request information from faculty members to determine who has mentored minority students through the University Minority Mentoring Program. Dr. Jacquelyn Hart, Vice Provost for Affirmative Action Programs, UF Office of Academic Affairs indicated that COE faculty were not well represented in the current group of faculty mentors. Policy council members indicated that many faculty have been involved in the program for a number of years. Emihovich will collect faculty information and present this to Dr. Hart.

College Strategic Planning: Dean Emihovich will meet with Provost Colburn on November 19 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 requested FPC review and input regarding this document before she submits the final version to the Provost.

Cost Sharing on Grants: The Dean would like to work with the FPC to establish a policy that will specify the sharing of indirect costs (with the COE) for grants that are awarded with other units. This policy will be shared with other colleges and deans when the COE is developing new grants and contracts that involve COE faculty.

New Business

Continuing Professional Development for Teachers Proposal (Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee).

Provost Colburn met with Vice-President for Research and Graduate School DeanWin Phillips, Graduate School Associate Dean Ken Gerhardt, Dean Emihovich, and Interim Associate Dean Kranzler in September to discuss ways in which the COE could respond to the continuing professional development needs of teachers. Provost Colburn requested the submission of a proposal outlining the ways in which the needs of teachers could be met by the COE. The SRAC has endorsed this proposal and supports it in respect to the admission of students for COE graduate programs. Kranzler indicated that the goal is for the COE and Graduate School to develop a proposal for the Provost’s approval.  Given the university’s decision to eliminate post-baccalaureate students, the goal of the proposal is to create a means by which teachers may continue to be engaged in graduate programs and professional development opportunities at UF.

The COE and the Graduate School have agreed to collaborate on this proposal, which addresses three separate issues:

  1. Teachers Pursuing the Master’s of Education (M.Ed.) and Educational Specialist (Ed.S.) Degrees
  1. Postbaccalaureate Status for Teachers

3.  Minimum GRE Requirement for All Graduate Students in the College of Education

Issues pertaining to this draft document were discussed, including the following:

  • The importance of teachers’ professional development, including the possibility of providing professional courses through distance education
  • Reconfiguring the COE’s undergraduate programs
  • Pending changes in teacher certification, including national examinations
  • Statutory requirements for state-approved teacher education programs

Archer moved that the FPC accept the proposal as a negotiating document that will be presented to the Graduate School and the Provost. Yeager seconded the motion. The discussion included the following issues:

  • An effective date would have to be determined if a new admissions policy is implemented.
  • The impact of the 900 minimum GRE score for admission on students in the Proteach Program, especially on minority students
  • The discrepancy between the standards that would be set for practicing teachers and UF students presently enrolled in teacher-preparation programs
  • The setting of standards by the COE that are professionally defensible and ethical
  • Modifying the rationale from the COE perspective
  • Discussion of the Graduate School requirement that an externally validated measure such as the GRE be used for admission decisions
  • Options for alternative admission criteria

After an extended discussion, Archer amended the motion because of the impact that the 900 GRE score requirement would have on minority students. He requested that a statement be added to the first sentence in the section (Minimum GRE Requirement for All Graduate Students in the College of Education): “Petitions for students with an earned bachelor’s degree only with GRE total scores less than 900 will not be approved, except under exceptional circumstances.” Clark seconded the motion. The amended motion was discussed, and the following issues were brought up:

  • Would this represent a reversion to the current policy?
  • The effects this motion would have on Proteach students as opposed to the students in other COE programs
  • The possibility of removing section 3 entirely
  • Leave Section 3 as it is and add a stronger statement about the impact on minority students

Action Taken: The FPC voted and did not approve the revised amendment.

The FPC voted on the original motion/proposal as it is written (provided that Deans Emihovich and Kranzler advise the Graduate School of the COE reservations regarding the GRE requirement and the disenfranchisement of minority students when they negotiate the change in policy). Action Taken: The FPC did not approve the motion.

Kranzler indicated that this proposal must go forward for consideration by the Graduate School. Dean Emihovich reiterated that they would advise the Graduate School and Provost that the faculty are not wholly supportive, at least not for students in professional preparation programs. The proposal will also be discussed at an upcoming Dean’s Advisory Council meeting.

Unfinished Business

1. Continuing the Conversation of “Vision” in the College: Faculty Forums.

Correa indicated there was consensus about the need to hold one, or a series of faculty forums.  The first faculty forum could be held in December to address the COE Strategic Plan. Archer reported that the Long-Range Planning Committee would meet this week to refine the topics and questions for the forums.

Waldron suggested that a faculty forum could be held in the spring to address perspectives on teacher-preparation programs. The possibility of connecting this forum with the upcoming visiting lecture by Art Levine was discussed.

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.

/by
,

21 October, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

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 5th 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 22nd.  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.

/by
,

15 October, 2002 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Members present:  Dr. Michael Bowie, Dr. Vivian Correa, Ms. Mary Driscoll, Dr. Kathy Gratto  (for Dr. Jim Doud), Ms. Kay Hughes, Dr. John Kranzler, Dr. James McLeskey, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Mickie Miller, Dr. Don Pemberton, Dr. Dorene Ross, Dr. Pete Sherrard  (for Dr. Harry Daniels), Dr. Theresa Vernetson, Dr. Nancy Waldron, Dr. Rodman Webb

Information Items

Committee members reviewed the October 1, 2002 meeting minutes.  After minor corrections on the attendance list, Dr. David Miller moved to accept the minutes.  Dr. Vernetson seconded the motion, and the minutes were accepted by unanimous vote.

Discussion Items

Vision discussion in the College:

Rod Webb commended Dr. Correa on facilitation of the Fall Faculty meeting, October 11, 2002 and asked the DAC members for their impressions of the vision discussion.  Comments included the following comments and observations:

  • There was little discussion of research, reward structure, personnel preparation, and academic commitment.
  • Only half the faculty attended the meeting and not everyone spoke.
  • The discussion was helpful and diverse, but incomplete.
  • The FPC should continue vision discussions in the future in collaboration with the dean’s office.
  • Committee members agreed that the Deans and faculty should be involved in future discussion of the vision.  A suggestion was made to choose a particular idea and move forward (e.g. teacher education, doctoral program).

Rod Webb stated that Deans Emihovich and Vernetson met with Paul Nagy, U.F.’s Coordinator in the Office of Educational Services (assigned to the Office of the Provost), and Curtis Jefferson, Vice President of Academic Affairs at Santa Fe Community College.  A proposal to establish a collaborative teacher education program with SFCC in areas of critical shortage, particularly in mathematics, science, and special education was discussed.

Preliminary suggestions for such collaboration included the following:

  • SFCC might provide facilities and faculty to teach lower division classes
  • UF faculty and graduate students might teach upper division courses
  • COE, LAS, and SFCC faculty would produce high-quality, focused, four-year programs
  • Programs could include elements of distance learning

Rod Webb asked committee members to list possible benefits of well-designed, collaborative degree programs with SFCC.

Strengths

  • Recruiting more students from more diverse backgrounds
  • Recruiting students from non-traditional backgrounds
  • Feeder for graduate programs/5th year teacher education
  • Better parking
  • More accessibility/Satellite campuses
  • Gives COE an opportunity to think differently about our role in addressing critical needs (Large scale undergraduate programs)
  • SFCC’s infrastrucure for technology – delivery of instruction
  • Would not necessarily supplant Proteach – but make Proteach smaller (elementary)
  • Clinical faculty used to potential advantage
  • Opportunity for graduate students to teach and more leadership roles for graduate students
  • Clinical teachers (school-based) plus graduate work opportunities with COE
  • Shortage of qualified Special Education teachers
  • Recruitment of Special Education teachers
  • Good community relations builder
  • Provides leverage with Provost’s office for graduate admissions rules
  • Politically pleasing
  • Academic support at SFCC available in greater quantity (remedial courses, tests, etc.)
  • We get to count them
  • Four year program at SFCC might protect five year program

Challenges/Issues

  • Students might not come to UF if SFCC charges less
  • “Caste” system
  • Replicating programs at two sites?
  • If BA only, program integrity is a problem (elementary, early childhood)
  • Concern about SFCC “taking over” the BA program
  • NCATE visit is in April 2003.  There is lots to do!  Time?  Incentives?

Next Steps

  • Ask SFCC if they will do BA alone
  • Is COE going to set standards for faculty teaching in program?
  • Who is going to do this?
  • Fact finding at other community colleges – what models are available?
  • What’s going to happen if COE doesn’t do this?
  • Implications for redesigning programs?
Announcements

Dr. Bowie announced that the Office of Recruitment, Retention and Multicultural Affairs will sponsor a minority recruitment event in the COE.  His office will bring up to two minority applicants per department to UF for a 2-3 day expense-paid visit.  He asked departments to suggest applicants he can invite to this event.

Beginning in the spring, the Office of Recruitment, Retention and Multicultural Affairs will offer two GRE refresher courses each semester.

Dr. Bowie’s office will offer a 3-hour workshop on Cultural Diversity for Administrators in December.  Dr. Bowie will submit possible dates later in the week.

Dr. Pemberton announced that a Lastinger Advisory Council meeting was held on October 4.  Forty-four administrators, teachers, COE faculty, and business leaders attended the meeting and contributed to the discussion of the Lastinger Center’s work and vision.  Participants reviewed the Lastinger Center Concept Paper, and encouraged the Center to conduct regular surveys exploring pressing educational issues.

Dr. Mickie Miller announced that on October 3 the UF Alliance team participated in “UF on the Road, Orlando Tour”.  Part of the tour included a visit to Jones’ High school, a new member of the Alliance.

Rod Webb distributed a list of “Occupations Gaining the Most New Jobs” as an informational item.

Meeting adjourned at 10:45.

/by
,

11 October, 2002 FPC Faculty Meeting Minutes

October 11, 2002

Room 250 Norman Hall

Welcome

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm.

Correa welcomed Dean Emihovich, new FPC members, Department Chairs,  Dr. Fran Vandiver from P. K. Yonge, and all faculty to the Fall Faculty meeting.

Introductions

New faculty members in the College of Education were introduced by respective department chairs, including:

Dr. Larry Tyree, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations

Dr. Penny Cox, Program Coordinator in the Department of Special Education

Dr. Karen Parker, ESOL Coordinator in the School of Teaching and Learning

New faculty from P. K. Yonge Developmental Research School were introduced by Dr. Vandiver, including:

Lauren Bartoy (4th grade), Justin Brooten (Middle School- Life Science), Jeff Boyer – (High School – Integrated Science), Kerry Delatorre – High School – Math), Jackie Evans (Kindergarten), Amy Hollinger (3rd grade), Randy Hollinger (Middle School – Science), Angie Johnson (Elementary Special Education), Eddie Ladner (Physical Education), Renee Ladner (Physical Education), David Mitchell (High School – Sociology), Amy Murphy (Middle School – – Language Arts), Maria Rinehart (High School – Math),  and Barb Williams(Elementary Special Education).

Correa introduced the College of Education’s new Dean, Catherine Emihovich, to the faculty.

Faculty Policy Council Update

Vivian Correa reviewed the new Faculty Policy Council web site, which can be found at https://education.ufl.edu/committees/fpc/. The website includes information on the COE Constitution, FPC and standing committee membership, Minutes of FPC and Dean’s Advisory Council meetings, a calendar, and Archives of last year’s FPC minutes.

It was announced that draft policies for faculty review will be posted on the website. The proposed “Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion” have been posted and they are available in HTML and PDF formats.

Topics to be addressed by the FPC this year include:

  • Tenure & Promotion Procedures
  • Graduate Admissions Policies
  • COE research infrastructure
  • Evaluation of Associate/Assistant Deans

Dean’s Announcement

Dean Emihovich announced that $15,000 would be available for faculty travel to present research papers at national and international conferences.  Associate Dean Kranzler will chair a committee that reviews applications for the travel funds. Dean Emihovich stated that the travel funds may be available for presentations that have already occurred (with available receipts).  The travel funds must be used by June 30, 2003.

Dean Emihovich stated that a mini-grant program would be initiated through the new CARE office. The goal of this program would be to provide small incentive grants that could support faculty in research areas and lead to the development of grant proposals for external funding.

Associate Dean’s Comments

Associate Dean Webb announced that work is continuing on the development of a comprehensive college website.  Behind the website is a college database that includes information on faculty, courses, and programs.  Fall syllabi have already been submitted and requests will go out soon for Spring syllabi. Faculty will be asked to put their vita in NCATE ready form.  A template will be disseminated and faculty can fill this form in or send a current vita to someone designated by the Department Chair to assist with the task.

The NCATE site visit is scheduled for April 5th – 8th.  The NCATE Planning Committee is making progress on getting all materials together. The importance of the Conceptual Framework of the College was stressed. The site team will expect faculty to be aware of the framework.  The Conceptual Framework of the College of Education is:  The College of Education and affiliated programs prepare reflective professionals who create, organize, disseminate knowledge; promote democratic values; and serve diverse communities.

Associate Dean Webb stated that all building projects are on time.  The classrooms have been renovated and we all need to continue to keep them in good condition.

Open Discussion

Correa stated this is a new era for the College of Education. We are beginning our second year of shared governance, we have a new Dean, there are new directives from the UF administration, and NCATE will be here in April 2003.  There are many issues and initiatives for the faculty to consider: ideas about research, our sense of community, the culture at the COE, student and faculty diversity, perceptions of the Lastinger Center and Opportunity Alliance.

Do we have a tacit vision of the College of Education?

Correa asked what the faculty’s collective thoughts were on themes and /or visions in the College of Education and opened the floor for discussion.Points raised during this discussion included:

· How do we represent ourselves to other colleges?  The issue of using one strategy or vision to satisfy multiple constituencies, or multiple strategies and visions was discussed. Can one vision satisfy all groups that we interact with – faculty, college, university, school district, and state of Florida?

· Who are we are trying to reach – traditional or non-traditional students?

· How do we serve Florida?  There is a need to be concerned about school children in Florida, working conditions for teachers, and financial support for education.  The College of Education is not provided with enough resources, nor is the public schools. Uncertain how we should respond, but people in government are making education decisions without talking to us as education faculty.

· Public education is in jeopardy and the existence of colleges of education is tied directly to the public education system.

· Recently a packet of information from trustees indicated that Colleges of Education do not measure up to science and medicine in universities across the country.  It is important to educate our trustees regarding teacher education, research, and all we are doing to impact public education in Florida.

· While attending a recent convocation for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, there was a lot of discussion regarding children and families, but no mention of the College of Education. It is important that we become a part of these conversations.

· Across the state the University of Florida and the College of Education is respected by alumni and educators. But, we are not at “the table” when issues regarding education are discussed. Our presence is not felt in the Florida Department of Education.  They are always asking for faculty to come to Tallahassee and become involved in state issues – but we often view ourselves as “above the fray.”  We need to get to Tallahassee and become more politically involved, participate in conversations, present a proactive orientation, and make a concerted effort toward capturing the knowledge and passion of the faculty in the College of Education.  The College is known for “…..” We need to fill in the blank.

· We need to make people aware of what we do and how we do it.  The COE has a long history of research, cross-departmental collaboration, and a focus on translating research into practice. This needs to be communicated to the public.

· How succinct is our research, who does it affect, and how do we affect schools in Florida? We need to disseminate our research in a format that educators and the public can readily use.

· Have we done a perception assessment? How is the College of Education perceived by others?  By other colleges at UF, by the people of Florida, by the legislature?  How do we present ourselves and how can we alter their perceptions? We need to develop a strategic plan to do this.

· How do we change perceptions of those who have already formed an opinion.  People don’t seem to think much of Colleges of Education right now. We are consumed by meeting the standards of other people and groups.  Maybe we need to become a “charter COE”. This will remove a number of the regulations and external demands, so we can find our own niche.

· It is a good time for growth, to be proactive. In the past two years we have begun to move from a departmental focus to a new college-wide focus. How do we maintain this college-wide focus and improve upon it?

· We need to focus on research and providing training to public schools.  We need a vehicle to disseminate information. PK Yonge is one place this can be done.

· What should our job be?  What should the best colleges of education be doing?  We don’t necessarily need to produce more educators to meet all the shortage areas in the state and in the country. We could prepare the BEST teachers, counselors, and school psychologists. We could also work to show others how to prepare better educators, we could focus on helping others develop good preparation programs. To do this we need to have programs that push the edge and move into new territory.

· There is a need for more integrated programs that cross departmental lines. We need to remember that the students we are preparing at the COE are moving into an integrated world in public schools.  They have to work with other educators. Our programs need to have the same focus. Right now there is too much isolated instruction within programs.

· We should be working with others across the university to improve teaching and instructional experiences in higher education. We can be a resource to improve instruction in the whole university.  We know about good teaching!

· While we want to be helpful to the Florida DOE, it’s often much easier to be oppositional. It’s easier to disregard the state and keep doing our isolated work in higher education. But we need to be more engaged in helping the DOE and public schools. What happens now is we suggest practices to public schools that are far beyond what they can possibly do. So they view us as “out-of-touch” and it’s easy for us to just return to the university and keep doing our work. It is unclear how we get out of this trap and start being perceived as helpful, but we need to change the current circumstances.

· Presently, we are reactive.  We need to become proactive.  There is a need to lobby in Tallahassee;  to present alternative ideas about how to address the educational needs in the state.  There are approximately 40 alternative certification programs in the state and many would welcome our input as they try to figure out how to prepare educators to meet current shortages.

· We might consider partnering with FSU as they have access to people in Tallahassee. There are many common themes and issues we could address and it  would benefit UF to do this.

· Most people entering teaching do not come from programs like UF. So, how do we make our teacher education programs different from the alternative certification programs? And, how can we be helpful to community colleges, small colleges and districts that are providing many of the alternative certification programs?

· We always appear to be responding to external pressures and also internal pressures within the university (like the bank).  We need to stop and think. We need to reflect about ourselves, the college and figure out how we want to change.

Correa thanked the faculty for their comments and suggestions and stated the need to continue this conversation in the future.

Dean’s Reflections

Dean Emihovich reflected about issues and concerns that were identified during the conversation.  She suggested that we might consider forming smaller groups to continue these conversations in a round-table type discussion.  Emihovich noted that in addition to the concerns identified, faculty expressed have very strong emotions  – anger, passion, and frustration.  We need to figure out how to harness this emotion and use the energy to move forward in a proactive way.  Some reflections offered by Dean Emihovich included:

· We need to channel our voice, passion, and knowledge to the right people. Those that will give credence to our ideas and help us promote change.

· We need to be more collaborative and present ourselves as a team.  We need to have a college identity as well as a personal identity, and we need to balance these two perspectives.

· Can we identify partners that will help us? Alumni think highly of the College of Education.  We need to tap into our alumni within the state and nationally to build our resources and form a network.

· We have an obligation to public education; that is why we are here.  We all want better education for our children. We need to strengthen and build relationships across campus and across the state regarding K-12 education.  The number one issue in the state is education. We need to capitalize on this public sentiment.

· We should think about a partnership, and possibly a joint retreat, with the College of Education at Florida State University.

·  We need to stay focused on scholarship and professional education.  We may need to do this differently than we are currently – possibly through multiple and/or different models.  We need to focus on quality – sharing ideas with K-12, community colleges, and other colleges and universities.

· Diversity is another issue that we need to consider. This involves the recruitment of faculty and students. We need to have conversations about diversity and we think about our present culture at the college, the university, and the community.  “What are we inviting faculty and students to?”

Dean Emihovich announced that two faculty searches have been authorized in the Department of Counselor Education. Two additional faculty searches and the directorship in the School of Teaching and Learning will also begin.

Correa remarked that we need to continue these conversations within departments and in small forums across the College.  The Faculty Policy Council will consider how it can assist in these conversations.

The meeting was adjourned at 5 pm.

/by
,

7 October, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

October 7, 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: Associate Dean John Kranzler

Correa called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for October 7, 2002.

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

2. Approval of the September 30, 2002 Minutes

Conroy made a motion to approve the minutes of September 30th, which was seconded by Sindelar.  The minutes of September 30, 2002 were unanimously approved with the following revisions:

a. Members reported absent that had an alternate attend the meeting should not be marked absent.  Mention should be made that Campbell attended as an alternate for Clark, and Bondy attended as an alternate for Yeager and Townsend.  Clark, Townsend and Yeager should be removed from the absent list.

Reports of FPC Committees

· Agenda Committee

Correa reported that the Agenda Committee discussed an item addressing the need to review the research requirements for doctoral programs in the College. The committee was unsure of the path this issue should follow; which committee should work to develop a proposal? Also, where would the proposal be approved? The issue was generated by the Research Advisory Committee (RAC), but there was also consideration of whether it should go to the College Curriculum Committee (CCC) because it involves program/curriculum changes.

Correa stated that the Agenda Committee would send the issue to the RAC.  Following review by the RAC, the proposal will be presented as an agenda item to the FPC prior to being submitted to the College Curriculum Committee.

Kranzler stated that the current research requirements for the doctoral degree were established in 1984 according the CCC minutes and that this might be a good time to review these requirements.

Waldron added that the duties of the RAC might need to be revised, along with other committee descriptions in the Constitution. Clark stated that this should occur when changes are made to the Constitution this year.

· College Curriculum Committee

Waldron reported that the CCC met on September 30, 2002 and will hold its next meeting on October 28, 2002.  Submissions to the Committee must be made to Laurie Douglas in room 125 Norman Hall at least two weeks prior to the meeting.

· Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee

Franks reported that this committee would meet on October 11, 2002.

· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee

Echeverria-Doan reported that the committee would meet on October 18, 2002.

· Faculty Affairs Committee

Townsend stated that this committee would meet on October 14, 2002.

· Research Advisory Committee

Conroy stated that the committee would meet on October 15, 2002 to discuss decisions regarding doctoral requirements.  Conroy also stated that Dean Emihovich has been invited to attend the meeting and discuss the proposed CARE office.  Revisions regarding the EdD/PhD also will be discussed

· Student Recruitment and Admission Committee

Yeager reported that this committee met on September 26, 2002.  Yeager stated that they discussed Graduate Admissions procedures.  Kranzler announced that some changes are being considered through the Provost’s office that may effect graduate admissions.  Terzian and Mary Ann Clark will co-chair the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee to assist with recruitment efforts, student surveys, and orientations for graduate students within the COE, receptions, workshops, and a better interface of graduate coordinators with the students.  This committee will meet again on October 31st.

· Long-Range Planning Committee

Archer stated this committee would meet on November 8th, at 3:30 pm in the Counselor Education Conference Room.

· Ad hoc Committee on Assistant/Associate Dean Review

Townsend, Correa, and Clark will meet with Associate Dean Webb to begin discussions of how the review will be conducted. Townsend will arrange the initial meeting of this committee.

Unfinished Business

1. Filling Vacancies on Operating and Standing Committees

Correa reported that a new member of the Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions has been appointed. As directed by the FPC, Correa consulted with the Elections Committee and it was determined that the runner up for the committee in the Spring election was Dick Renner.  He has agreed to serve on the committee for this year.

It was proposed that this general procedure (consulting spring election results to identify the a runner-up) be used for any future vacancies on elected FPC committees. This would require that the election committee retain the final results of all elections for one year.

Correa stated that Loesch and Gregory have agreed to continue serving on the Elections Committee, and there is a need to identify one new member.  The names of two potential committee members were identified, Ashton and Schwartz.

Correa announced that Phil Clark has agreed to be the Parliamentarian for this year.

2. Update on Graduate Admissions Proposal

Kranzler reported on a recent meeting that addressed graduate admission issues for teachers. The meeting included Kranzler, Emihovich, Colburn, Phillips, and Gerhardt.

The Provost indicated that due to the critical shortage of teachers in the state, the university may be open to alternative admissions criteria for teachers interested in being recertified or obtaining a master’s degree. This is particularly important given that the University is interested in increasing admission standards for the Graduate School and is considering the elimination of postbaccalaureate status.

Sindelar inquired about the postbaccalaureate issues and impact on fifth-year students in Pro-teach. The point was made that these students also help fill the critical shortage of teachers, even more so than teachers who are already teaching and are coming back for Master’s degrees or recertification.

Archer stated there is a statewide shortage for school counselors. Could alternative admission procedures apply to other shortage areas, in addition to teachers?

Kranzler remarked that these issues are not on the agenda yet and that Colburn appears to be focusing only on teachers.

Sindelar inquired about the minimum GRE score for admission.  Kranzler responded that he believed it would be set at 900.

Discussion focused on the need to have the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee move forward with consideration of the graduate admissions policy for the college. Sindelar stated that this policy focuses on procedures for admissions, while the meeting with Colburn was addressing criteria. It is important that the College provide information and be proactive in making recommendations about any alternative admissions criteria.

Correa suggested that if additional meetings are held on these issues that one or two members of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee should attend.

Kranzler will meet with Emihovich this week and discuss the FPCs issues regarding this topic.

Announcements

1. College of Education Fall Faculty Meeting

Correa announced that the Fall Faculty Meeting would be held in Room 250 on Friday, October 11, from 3 – 5 pm.

Correa has posted the proposed COE Tenure and Promotion procedures on the FPC website.  These guidelines are ready for discussions with faculty and department chairs.

Townsend moved the meeting be adjourned.  Clark seconded the motion.  The Committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3 pm.

/by
,

1 October, 2002 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Members present: Dr. Michael Bowie, Dr. Vivian Correa, Dr. Harry Daniels, Dr. James Doud, Ms. Mary Driscoll, Ms. Kay Hughes, Dr. John Kranzler, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Nancy Waldron, Dr. Rodman Webb, Dr. Elizabeth Yeager (for Dr. Dorene Ross)

Committee members reviewed the September 17, 2002 meeting minutes. Dr. Doud made a motion to accept the minutes, and the committee members agreed unanimously on their acceptance.

Dean Webb circulated a brochure from Northern Illinois University for review by committee members. The packet contains articles on College of Education Endeavors at this University. He also circulated materials from the Florida Children’s Forum announcing their 11th Annual Leadership Conference.

Renovation and Construction Issues

Dean Webb discussed several building projects with the DAC.

Terrace Addition

·  Terrace addition is on schedule.

  • Copies of Terrace plans have been distributed to departments for review.
  • Dean’s office renovations are moving ahead and should be finished in December.

Digital Worlds Theater

  • The Norman Gym renovation is on schedule and being completed by the same contractor doing our Terrace Addition work. The Digital World Institute (a collaboration between the College of Fine Arts and the College of Engineering) is building a digital theater and production studio in the gym.

International Media Union

  • Planning committee has worked with faculty and colleges across campus to plan an International Media Union (IMU) in the College.
  • Preliminary plans are complete and collaborating units across the university are reviewing the IMU’s mission, features, and functions.
Discussion Items

Dean Webb brought several issues to the DAC for discussion.

Teacher Quality, Retention, and Recruitment Symposium

The College will sponsor a Teacher Quality, Recruitment, and Retention Conference in January 2003. The symposium will bring together national experts, state policy makers, DOE and school district personnel, and COE faculty and Deans to discuss Florida’s teacher shortage. Invited attendees will review relevant policy research and successful recruitment and retention programs. The symposium will produce a policy document.

Funding for the symposium has been provided by the Provost, Florida Department of Education, and Washington Mutual.

Speakers

Dean Webb stated that Arthur Levine, President of Teachers College, Columbia University will visit the college and speak to the faculty and students in January at a date to be arranged.

David Figlio of U.F.’s Economics Department will speak to COE faculty and students about his research with Florida teachers. The date for his visit will be announced soon.

NCATE

In preparation for the upcoming NCATE visit in April 2003, the DAC reviewed the NCATE website. Dr. Webb asked chairs to review their department homepages, update information where necessary, and use the College’s department page template. DAC members reviewed the Colleges International homepage.

The DAC reviewed college’s (and unit’s) conceptual framework and discussed how the framework was developed and is being used in program work.

The NCATE Planning Team has asked the faculty to put their fall course syllabi on-line. Not everyone has completed that work so chairs will encourage faculty to finish that work soon. Spring semester courses will have to go on line in another month.

The NCATE Planning Team will soon ask faculty to put their vita on line. They will supply a template to make that work as painless as possible. Project Coordinators have been completing the NCATE reports and posting them on their program websites. NCATE planning team members will meet with project coordinators to review their work. He acknowledged the significant work program coordinators have already completed and thanked the NCATE planning team for its steadfast efforts.

Announcements

Ms. Hughes announced that College Career Night will be held on October 10 from 7:00-9:00 in Norman Hall Room 2337. Alumni will return to discuss their endeavors. This event is for undergraduate and graduate students.

Ms. Hughes also announced that the first Fall issue of Ed Times has been distributed. She stated that she would like to use Dean Emihovich’s convocation speech in the next issue as well as Chair’s highlights.

Ms. Hughes thanked the Deans and Dr. Correa for their participation in the Ice Cream Social.

Dr. Correa announced that the Fall Faculty meeting will be held on October 11 from 3:00-5:00 in Norman Hall Room 250. Faculty will discuss the College’s vision.

Meeting adjourned at 10:35.

/by
,

23 September, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

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.

/by