External Advisory Committee
December 7, 2010
Oak Room in the Memorial Union
5:30 pm to 7:00 pm
Attendance: Tom Narak, John Kinley, Kris Crabtree-Groff, Julie Hukee, Greg Carenza, Mandy Ross,
Charlie Dobbs, Al Campbell, Alex Andreotti, Carl Smith, Dean Pamela White, Hina Patel, Tom
Greenbowe, Linda Quinn Allen, Ann Pierce, Lisa Heddens, Zora Zimmerman, Karen Rodgers
Minutes:
John provided a welcome as the chair of the External Advisory Committee.
Dave introduced Dean Pamela White who has been a faculty member for 35 years and has written 5
books and has had 46 publications. We are fortunate to have Pam’s leadership who has the desire to
make teacher education the best in the nation. Pam provided a welcome to everyone and thanked
everyone for their time. There are two major topics she would like the committee to address, one is the
potential of a School of Education and increasing minority student recruitment efforts in Teacher
Education. There are approximately 4.2% of students of color in teacher education, across campus it is
10.5%. Dean White provided a historical context of the School of Education. The reasons why a School of
Education may be created: 1. Decrease administrative layers; 2. Increase visibility of Teacher Education
on campus, 3. Pull Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and Curriculum Instruction departments
together create a PK-16 area of study. There was a vote by the two departments and 62 were in favor
and 2 opposed. So there is faculty support for this initiative.
Everyone introduced themselves and their roles. The minutes were reviewed by members. Motion to
approve the minutes by Tom and seconded by Charlie and all were in favor. Patel will correct the name
misspellings in the minutes.
Whaley discussed the items in the packet. The University Teacher Education Program Final Report has
enrollment data which conveys an addition of 120 students. The other handouts were described.
Kinley facilitated the discussion on the School of Education. Carl provided context. When CI and ELPS
decided to merge, the Chairs were not a part of that initial group and it was facilitated by an Associate
Dean. The idea was to meet and discuss the merger of two departments. Smith distributed the proposal
that came from this committee that discusses the School of Education. It provides the advantages. The
CI department involves teacher education and 150 students in graduate programs. ELPS focuses on
school administration and community colleges and leadership in higher education and social justice.
Smith discussed the potential collaborations between the multicultural education team in CI and the
social justice team in ELPS. So the merger of two departments led to a proposal. This led to a transition
committee that was created and the first meeting took place in August. During the first meeting it was
quickly decided that others need to be involved. The three areas that need to be represented is
secondary education (from LAS and Ag and Life Sciences), Early Childhood Education, and Teacher
Education. So immediately the group was expanded. The Transition Committee meets every two weeks.
They have a subcommittee called Due Diligence, they researched other universities to see what exists
that is similar. They conducted interviews with eight institutions. Some of the lessons that were gleaned
include pay attention to ceremony, honor existing structures, pay attention to governance. The
committee will now have targeted forums beginning in January with UTECC, colleges across campus,
alumni, etc. Next, we are going to discuss the organizational structure so that individuals can
understand ‘where they fit.’ Other elements include how does Kinesiology, Child Lab School, STEM,
Teacher Education Services staff fit in. How do we move further in our role as a land grant institution?
How do we serve place bound Iowans? The charge is to work through the elements so there is a plan by
May 15. Then the proposal could go to the Board of Regents late fall, early winter in 2011. Carl shared
that this is an exciting time.
Smith provided a discussion starter to the committee with three questions:
1. What is your general reaction to this proposal to create a School of Education?
2. What additional information do you believe is critical in presenting this concept to various audiences
and partners?
3. What other suggestions would you have for our work?
Tom asked how undergraduate and graduate students will be impacted. Carl shared that student
representation has been added to the committee. Zora expressed her excitement about this initiative.
Kris shared that it is commendable that the number of voices involved in the continuous improvement
process. Whaley shared that we have been working on improving our relationships with school
partnerships, how will the School of Education impact this objective? Smith shared that a win-win
situation is needed, for example, the Reading Clinic at Gilbert stems from addressing real issues out in
schools. The core curriculum is further along in PK-12 schools compared to higher education so there is
an opportunity to learn there. We need to find long term relationships through our partnerships.
Whaley asked members if there are benefits of the School of Education. Tom stated that it is important
to elevate education as a career on campus. It is a career that makes a difference. For secondary
education, students major in their content area so the subject area department benefits by having an
increase in student enrollment. Smith shared that Teach for America involves high quality candidates
that see teaching as a social movement. Tom shared in South Korea, you cannot enter teaching unless
you are in the top third of your class. Tom wants to see students with high content understanding.
Al asked what would be the outcome with PK-12 children with the development of a School of
Education. Smith wants to know what difference is made in the learning of children when a teacher uses
an integrated STEM approach. Mandy stated that she is excited that the School of Education is being
explored. We need a more systemic approach to placing students early on. Julie stated the importance
of content knowledge since in many other countries they have content specialist teaching subject areas
at the elementary level.
Dean White encouraged Carl to discuss the branding of ISU experience. Smith shared we are
interviewing students to see how they describe our program. We want to develop the brand based on
the results of these conversations with students. John shared the importance of integrating learning so
it is not in silos. Lisa shared that the legislature is going to look at how to elevate student’s learning. The
distinct identity is important, defining who you are, and it will assist with recruiting minority teachers.
Tom discussed the art of teaching and his work in Japan. The Japanese educators wanted to know how
American teachers have the respect of students but remain friendly. Our teachers are artists at the same
time and that is hard to assess.
Ann stated that as a prospective student, it would be nice to go to a School of Education and have one
physical space. Dean White shared it is challenging to receive capital funding any time soon but it would
remain as an option for the future. Ann stated that greater collaboration can occur when you are
housed nearby.
John stated we need to have more time for these meetings, we haven’t had a chance to talk about the
second agenda item. Whaley would like to meet more frequently but a different type of format will be
needed. An electronic format will be explored that will allow us to discuss the second item, efforts that
may enhance our minority enrollment in Teacher Education. John and Dave would like committee
members to give further thought on the School of Education and minority recruitment and collect that
feedback electronically.