College of Education
Senate Meeting
November 8, 2013
9-11am
Senators in Attendance
Noah Drezner, CHSE, Chair
Susan De La Paz, CHSE
Valerie Foster, Administration/Exempt
Olivia Saracho, TLPL
Wayne Slater, TLPL, Chair-Elect
Peggy Wilson, TLPL
Laura Stapleton, HDQM
Paul Gold, CHSE
Kellie Rolstad, TLPL
Elizabeth Anne Robertson-Tchabo, HDQM
Susan Hendricks
Meridith Phillips, Administration/Exempt/At-Large
Senators Absent
Kevin Dunbar, HDQM
Matt Miller, CHSE
Elizabeth Johnson, Administration/Exempt
Courtnay Oddman, Graduate Rep (Masters)/CHSE
Ebony Terrell Shockley, At Large
Kate Williams, Undergraduate student rep
Sean Pepin, Graduate Rep (Doctoral), CHSE
Invited
Jennifer King Rice, Associate Dean, College of Education
i.
ii.
Approval of Minutes – approved with small correction to the Senators Absent list (Steve
Mobley is not a member of the Senate)
Discussion of the ADVANCE Research Brief (Jennifer King Rice)
There were positives and concerns. Overall, EDUC faculty rated some items differently than
other faculty in other colleges on several key items. On the positive side, EDUC faculty reported
greater autonomy, support of colleagues, and satisfaction with the reputation of the university.
On the negative side, concerns were expressed about research grant assistance, access to
TAs/RAs, and vision and priorities of the college. Also, time spent in service commitment was a
concern and addressing it is a priority. The College is formulating responses.
a) First priority is “Research Support” – Dean will hire someone for pre-award support.
But first, we need to do some research in determining WHAT is needed. What sort
of assistance? Jennifer King Rice will have a brown bag lunch next week. Maggie
McLaughlin will host two focus groups on November 18 and 19. Discussion of
structural supports that are needed ensued; some of the topics included
collaborative relationships, statistical consulting, meeting the priorities of funding
sources.
b) Second priority is “Service Demands” – perceived as heavy. Need to reconsider
committee assignments within departments as well as college wide. Some of this
may have resulted from the reorganization and having representation from each of
the “old” departments. Focus will especially be placed on assisting Associate
Professors.
Presentation by Associate Dean Jennifer King Rice:
ADVANCE Work Environment Survey
Summary Report for College Senate
11/8/13
Recently received results from the UMD Work Environment Survey – joint initiative of ADVANCE, Office
of Diversity and Inclusion, and the Office of Faculty Affairs.
Each college has been charged to review the findings, share with the college leadership team, and
eventually the rest of your college faculty. Also, we are asking each college to identify one work
environment concern within the results, in light of EDUC priorities and initiatives, that might be
addressed in a public way by faculty in your college this 2013-2014 academic year. We will be back in
touch with you to highlight these efforts on the ADVANCE website in spring, 2014.
Highlights:
53% of full time tenure track or tenured EDUC faculty completed the survey.
In reviewing the findings from EDUC, there are some encouraging results and areas where clearly there
is work to be done.
On the positive side, of those who completed the survey
 72.3% were satisfied with the support of colleagues
 only 12.5% of faculty said they feel stuck in their career advancement
 72.3% noted faculty in their unit value their scholarship
 56.9% have been encouraged to pursue leadership positions.
However, there are also some serious work environment concerns raised by survey respondents.
 EDUC faculty were overall less satisfied that other faculty at UMD (59.6% satisfied with
experience in unit compared to 68.4; 57.4 satisfied with experience at UMD compared to 66.5%)
 Five specific aspects of the faculty experience were rated lower by EDUC respondents compared
to UMD respondents
o Diversity on campus
o Leadership of the college
o Priorities and vision of the college
o Assistance with finding grants
o
Access to TAs and RAs

Most respondents were satisfied with
o Autonomy (72%)
o Support of colleagues (72%)
o University’s location (64)
o Units national reputation (64)
o University’s national reputation (62)

Fewest respondents were satisfied with
o Assistance finding grants (17)
o Priorities and vision of the college (17)
o Access to TAs and RAs (21)
o Leadership of the college (24)
o Expectations for community service (32)
o Salary and benefits (34)
Service
 Less than half of respondents indicated that they feel in control of their participation in service
activities and that it is possible for them to say no to additional on-campus service activities
without negative consequences.
Special concerns expressed by Associate Profs:
 Less likely to be satisfied
 Less like to have take strategic steps toward work-life balance
 Associate profs were less likely than others to agree that faculty in their unit care about their
personal well-being
Special concerns expressed by females and faculty of color:
 Less like than in the broader university to agree that opportunities are at least as good as those
for male and white faculty.
 Faculty of color were less likely that white faculty to agree that hard work links to success in
career advancement
o Mentorship surfaced in comments, though faculty of color were more likely to indicate
that they have been effectively mentored by someone in their unit
 Women were less likely than men to have been nominated by someone at UMD for an award
over the last three years
College has decided to focus on two priorities for a pubic action-oriented project this year.

Research support
o Specifically, assistance with finding grants
o Dean has agreed to hire someone, but need more information on specific needs; what
people are looking for
 Brown bag
 Focus groups
o Other issues: incentives, culture of collaboration, mentoring

Service demands – perceived as heavy; may need to reconsider number of committee
assignments in departments and College. Encouraging all levels, including Senate, to examine
committee structure and reduce the number of people needed to staff the committees, where
possible (balance, of course, with the principle of full representation and the need for good
communication)

Associate Professor career advancement and support – this is a consistent theme in the EDUC
findings related to lower satisfaction and well-being
o Research support
o Service demands
Other issues for the future:
 Mentoring--opportunities to collaborate with other faculty, be mentored, get connected to
important people in the field
 Work-life climate--EDUC faculty had a lower assessment and noted they wanted policies
disseminated better to everyone
iii.
College Plan of Organization Change to the APT Committee (Jennifer King Rice)
(Noah Drezner recuses himself from the discussion)
Our plan currently reads that the “Associate Dean for Academic Affairs” serves as ex-officio
but the campus policy indicates that “the dean may be a… ex-officio” member. Therefore, it is
proposed to change our language to include the Dean instead of the Associate Dean. (Formal
language is attached to these minutes). New language was unanimously approved (with one
recusal).
Proposal to Adjust APT Committee Membership in COE Plan of Organization to Comply with Campus
Policy
November 8, 2013
College of Education Plan of Organization:
Currently reads:
“The [APT] Committee is composed of two full professors per department, elected by their respective
department faculties for staggered two-year terms, and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs serving
as an ex-officio, non-voting member. The chair of the APT is chosen by its own members” (p. 11).
Proposed change:
“The [APT] Committee is composed of two full professors per department, elected by their respective
department faculties for staggered two-year terms, and the Dean serving as an ex-officio, non-voting
member. The chair of the APT is chosen by its own members.”
PROOPSED CHANGE APPROVED (11-0-0-1; Noah Drezner recused himself)
University of Maryland Policy on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Faculty
“Second-level review of recommendations for promotion and tenure from departments shall be
conducted within the appropriate college. The second-level review committees shall be established in
conformity with the approved bylaws of the college. The dean may be a non-voting ex-officio member
but not a voting member of the committee. Each second-level committee elects its own chair and an
alternate chair; the latter shall service as chair when a candidate from the chair’s own unit is under
discussion…” (APT Guidelines, p. 68-69).
iv.
Charge of sub-committees
Guests joined the meeting for sub-committee discussions
Budget
Robin Walukonis
Susan de la Paz
Olivia Saracho
Wayne Slater
Valerie Foster
Marvin Titus
Stephanie Goodwin
(once Assistant Dean for Finance is hired, he/she should be on the committee)
Sponsored Research
Peggy Wilson
Paul Gold
Laura Stapleton
Maureen McMahon
Pat Campbell
Outreach
Betty Ann Robertson-Tchabo
Susan Hendricks
Tehani Collazo
Kellie Wolstad
Perla Blejer
Meredith Phillips
Break out sessions. Groups should make a list of what they “need” in order to do their work. And then
adjourn.