COLLEGE OF EDUCATION SENATE MEETING
April 6, 2012, 9am-11am
Minutes
Present: Donna Wiseman, Nelly Stromquist, Alberto Cabrera, Gary Gottfredson, Jing Lin, Jean
Snell, Andre Rupp, Emily Grossnickle, Christy Corbin, Noah Drezner, Kathleen Travers, Elisa
Klein, Jennifer Sanderson, Rebecca Silverman, Natasha Cabrera, Jessica Bancroft.
Guests: Patricia Alexander, Maggie McLaughlin, Steve Pragel, Carla Ray, Kathryn Wentzel.
The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m.
Dean’s Update
College Park Charter School. Donna appeared last week in a PGCS subcommittee for charter
schools. The COE proposal for the charter school was 600 pages long. The meeting gathered
many parties who answered questions. Donna was to answer questions on the curriculum for
about 45 minutes. The PGCS can disapprove the proposal due to the fact that 85% of the
curriculum must be taught by PGCS system, which at this point might not be possible because
the online curriculum will be delivered by a multitude of teachers including some outside Prince
George’s County. If all goes well, the charter school will take at least one year of planning.
Ed.D. Program with Prince George’s County. Negotiations are progressing. Bill Hyde, the
superintendent, will meet with Donna to further discuss this.
Cluster hires. The College of Education originally had four proposals, but currently it is down to
one. Two proposals were about neuroimaging, in collaboration with BSOS, but BSOS and other
college did not support them. A proposal on STEM also fell through. The one for bilingual
education together with speech/hearings and linguistics by Prof J. MacSwan is being considered.
BSOS is interested in this; the proposal will require a $350,000 matching fund, which will
include a small COE contribution.
NCATE. The process of accreditation is time consuming and expensive, even though more is
being done online. The NCATE team will visit the College on May 6-8.
Report on the COE Plan of Organization
Nelly attended a meeting request by the Elections, Representation, and Governance Committee
of the UMD Senate. After reviewing our response regarding some suggestions from an
improved formatting of the Plan, the ERC Committee approved the COE Plan of Organization
unanimously. This document will come to the UMD Senate for a vote on May 4th.
Report on Departmental Plans of Organization
Jean reported on behalf of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Departmental Plans of
Organizations. All three plans will be ready for examination and voting at the
COE Senate meeting on May 4th. There are still some questions regarding shared
governance in the HDQM Plan of Organization. They raised questions about
shared governance by students and staff in one department’s Plan of Organization.
The Ad-Hoc Committee considers that the HDQM Department still needs to
incorporate staff and students into its governance. It was mentioned as a possible
action that if HDQM’s plan is not changed and approved, HDQM will participate
in senate meetings but will not have a vote.
Patricia Alexander, an HDQM faculty member, stated there are different
interpretations of students’ and staff’s roles. Kathryn Wentzel, Interim HDQM
Chair, stated that HDQM students and staff have voice privileges. This is different
from voting rights but is an integral part of “shared governance.”
Kathryn asked Nelly to identify the exact language in the university PoO regarding
shared governance. Noah read the University’s PoO regulation on shared
governance, which stipulates active roles by all members, including students and
staff through shared governance. Kathryn observed that voting is not specified in
the University’s PoO as what is meant by shared governance.
Andre questioned whether we need to specify the kinds of votes that faculty, staff
and students can vote on. Jean shared TLPL PoO which specifies who can vote on
what. Kathryn mentioned that in her 20 years with HDQM, voting has always
concerned curriculum and promotion issues, and HDQM does not see the need to
make up a list of things that will not happen.
Jessica Bancroft representing exempt staff felt that staff and students should be
included in the PoO language. Kathryn said that staff and students have a voice in
their department hiring committees (voting in a non-binding way). Jennifer
Sanderson, representing staff members, said that the whole staff of HDQM came to
her and asked her to convey to the Senate the feeling that no one cared for them.
Emily felt she as a student had a lot of voice in HDQM, and she supported the
faculty’s decision not to give voting rights to students in the current PoO. Natasha
suggested that perhaps HDQM may modify their language.
Noah noted that CHSE student and staff representatives to the departmental
assembly can vote on initial hiring recommendations made by search committees.
Patricia asked for suggestions for the appropriate place in the HDQM PoO where
students and staff will have a vote.
Nelly asked Donna to express her opinion. Donna stated that a wide range of
interpretations is possible regarding shared governance. She agreed with Nelly’s
observation and the campus’ philosophy that all departments should actively
engage students and staff. One needs to differentiate voice and vote. It is obvious
that staff and students do not vote on promotion and tenure, but there must be
venues for staff and students to give their voices. The HDQM language has not
shown that.
Kathryn read from HDQM PoO that says students and staff do have voice and are
able to participate in decision making by virtue of advising the department on
various things, and she asked for suggestions about what language could be crafted
specifically about voting rights and what staff and students should be allowed to
vote on. Nelly concluded the discussion by saying the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee
on Departmental Plans of Organization would suggest some alternatives for the
wording of staff and student inclusion in the HDQM PoO.
Proposal on COE Website
Steve Pragel read the proposal he sent to the Senate. The essence of the proposal is
that ETS would provide the training, but that upkeeping of the website at the
department level should be the responsibilities of up to two staff designated by
each department. There will be a template for the whole college.
Noah noted the COE website should make our colleges as a unified college.
Jennifer Sanderson noted that since staff have to do this, staff should be
encouraged to help each other out. Andre proposed that that language in the
proposal should include that departments provide resources to support this
endeavor.
Alberto expressed appreciation for Steve’s report and suggested that there should
be follow up on the impact of the website on our programs. Steve said some
departments have task force to look into this. Two motions were made and voted
upon separately:
1. The College will use the new website template to form a unified web
presence between the college and all three departments.
2. The Senate is sending Steve Pragel's proposal to the Council of Chairs for
implementation and conversations on resource allocation.
The vote was unanimous for supporting each of these resolutions.
Fundraising in the College
Carla Ray, COE Advancement Officer, announced that the COE has surpassed the
Great Expectation goal of $12 millions 11 months ahead of time. The Great
Expectation campaign’s goal is $1 billion and the COE’s goal is $12 millions. The
COE has brought on 4200 donors, and many have increased their giving. Donna
and Jean Snell have been instrumental in this. A couple from Michigan gave COE
half a million and another half million to another college on campus. There is now
a Dean’s Innovation Fund due to the funds that have been raised. There is also a
Alumni Chapter’s Scholarship in existence. Noah commended the effort of Carla
and her staff and suggested that she gives us more details on the sources of such
funds and how the Senate can help in the revenue efforts. Carla agreed to provide
such information.
Report on New College APT Guidelines
Maggie noted that the COE guidelines had not been updated since the early 1990s. Maggie
worked with the Faculty Development Committee, led by Andre Rupp. Both presented the draft
to the Senate. The most important aspect they tried to do to clarify at the college level was the
specific expectations regarding teaching, mentoring, and advising; research; and service. They
tried to identify sources of evidence for each of these expectations, but these are just suggestions
and cannot exhaust all possibilities. People need to use their own best judgment.
Noah complimented their effort. He appreciated that the document is broad and extensive. He
suggests a preamble in the document that acknowledges the non-exhaustive nature of the
document and that departments have the freedom to define their own criteria of excellence.
Maggie pointed out that one change in the document is that the Associate Dean of Graduate
Studies sits, without vote, on the APT committee.
Jing asked about whether one expectation category can be considered superior to others. as is the
case in some other universities. Maggie noted that the campus looks at all three categories. She
noted teaching is becoming very important. Jing also noted that there need to be further
qualification for “sustained” scholarship, teaching and service, taking into consideration that
people may have a gap due to circumstances, such as taking a major administrative role, or
excessive service. Although there was no deadline for feedback, Maggie hopes to have the COE
guidelines in place for the next fall. The Senate representatives will take the document back to
their respective departments and give the feedback from the department to Andre and Maggie.
Report by the COE Nomination Committee
Alberto updated us on the nomination committee. The ballot will be announced next week, for an
electronic vote during a one-week window. Alberto’s effort in securing nominations was
gratefully acknowledged.
Awards Committee
Nelly suggests applauding the work of Andre and the Awards Committee on the wonderful job
they have done. Her comment was echoed by other senators.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.