COE Senate Meeting Minutes
3237 Benjamin
October 5, 2007
9-11am
Attending: Bob Lissitz, Hanne Mawhinney, Kerry Ann O’Meara, Kim MacDonald-Wilson,
Dennis Herschbach, Paula Maccini, Bob Mislevy, Christy Corbin, Bob Marcus, Susan
DeLaPaz, Mike Steiff, Janet Coffey
1. Minutes
The group reviewed and approved the minutes from May 07 and September 07 meetings
without modification.
2. Report from Interim Dean Wiseman
a. NCATE: Dean Wiseman reported that we’re on the agenda at the national level for
approval this fall. Nancy Grasmick has written a letter to President Mote expressing confidence
in UMCP and saying that MSDE would submit their Title II report to the Federal Government
without an “at risk” qualification even though we have not been “officially” cleared. We are
now collecting data for the next NCATE next visit in 2012. Mawhinney pointed out that
program/area reports will be due sometime during 2010, which will be 5 years after their
approval. Lissitz suggested that we ask that our college data be used in such a way to coordinate
area reviews and the NCATE cycle.
b. Course Evaluations: The new Web-based course and teaching evaluation system will
be mandatory this fall. The current version includes 15 items, concerning instructor and course
evaluations. Some of the data from the evaluations will be made available to students, some
available to administrators; all of the data will be available to the course instructor. As incentive
for student participation, the University has determined that 70% of the students will need to
submit evaluations before responses will be made available to them. COE has the opportunity to
add up to 35 items this spring as part of a University pilot project.
The COE faces the decision about whether to also keep the paper system, particularly for
consideration during the promotion and tenure evaluation process. Department chairs have
been asked to speak to faculty about this issue. Lissitz asked if this really was an issue –
having two different formats considered doing the P & T process. Wiseman will ask Ellin
Scholnick if a University policy exists concerning the submission of more than one format
for teaching and course evaluations for promotion and tenure.
Maccini and Mawhinney participated in the spring 2007 administration and shared their
experiences with the process. Maccini said some students complained about having to do both
forms. She thought the data could be easily analyzed in a variety of ways. Mawhinney voiced
a concern that students needed to use @umd.edu email address and many of our students
don’t use them. Others agreed this could raise issue with validity.
Marcus raised concerns related faculty confidence in the instrument. In order to ensure
faculty confidence in the process, he stated that the form and process of the web-based
system needed to be examined. Wiseman said that someone from the University’s
assessment office would be happy to speak to any interested faculty.
MOTION (Bob Marcus): The establishment of a small and representative task force to work
with Steve Pragel to consider data from spring pilot to advise senate on issues related to paper
and web-based system by November meeting. (Seconded.)
The goal of this effort would be to present issues and, in order to facilitate confidence,
respond to questions of validity and reliability, and offer recommendations for improvement.
Lissitz asked if people from the university who have been working with the system could also
be considered for this task force. Marcus thought that would slow the process down. Mislvey
reported that the University has done some reliability studies, but he wasn’t aware of a
comparative study. He suggested using spring 2007 pilot data from those who had used the
web-based system and administered paper copies to consider this issue.
VOTE: The Motion PASSED unanimously.
In sum, the College Senate is interested in the evaluation process, supports the COE’s
participation in the spring pilot, and encourages the establishment of a task force to explore
issues further and report back to the College Senate.
c. PCC: The PCC recently supported and approved the paperwork submitted by Policy
Studies EDHI for formation of their respective departments. There are still significant steps for
the University’s formal approval.
d. Strategic Planning: Wiseman will talk to the Provost about the fact that the College
of Education is not represented in the University’s Strategic Planning Process. Department
Chairs are concerned.
e. STEM: The COE has begun to feel greater pressure to galvanize around the
University’s interest in STEM initiatives. There currently exists little synergy in the college and
is no mechanism to find our what is going on in this area. The COE has a STEM center that was
approved under the former dean, but it has been inactive. It is currently housed under Urban and
Minority Studies Institute; it may need to be pulled out. Mote wants to have a signature program
on this campus (He has expressed interest in UT’s UTeach Model). The Dean’s Office will
initiate the creation of a STEM task force.
3. Dean Search
Jim Gates, Chair of the Search Committee, will speak to the COE on November 2. This
meeting will be open to all members of the COE community. More details will be
forthcoming.
4. COE Support for Family-Friendly APT policies MOTION (Lissitz, on behalf of Leone): A
small task force be established to explore issues regarding family-friendly APT policies,
specifically to gain understanding of existing University policy and assist in the communication
of these policies to faculty members and department chairs. (Seconded.)
VOTE: Motion PASSED unanimously.
4. Plan of Organization for the College
The Plan of Organization for the college was last approved in 1994. The bylaws of the
current Plan of Organization, Article 2, specifies that the College Plan and Plans of the
th
Departments will be reviewed every 5 year by an ad hoc appointed by College of Education
Senate. A draft needs to be available by February’s meeting, so it can be presented to the
college for deliberation and approval this school year.
Reporting from a meeting with the Dean’s office, Lissitz suggested the following committee
composition: one person from each department, one person from the dean’s office, one staff
member, one student, and a chair of the committee.
Discussion ensued about how the committee would be named. Herschbach expressed concerns
that names were unnecessarily being vetted, when the departments should be asked to appoint a
representative. There was also discussion about whether the chair should be elected within the
group, or be a separate appointment. Herschbach argued that a separate chair appointment
would mean that a department could have two representatives, thus creating a conflict.
Lissitz clarified that the individuals on the committee would be representing the college and
not their departments, per se. The document concerns governance of the COE and has little to
do with the running of individual departments. Departments should be asked to nominate a
tenure-track faculty member, who has a college-wide orientation.
MOTION: Each department will be asked to nominate a representative, as will the Dean’s
office, the Graduate Student Association, and the staff. Chair will be elected at first meeting.
(Seconded.)
Discussion:
Coburn raised the issue of also appointing an undergraduate representative. (Lissitz responded
that the document has very little impact on undergraduates, who are typically housed in
departments.) Others concurred that an undergraduate student representative should have the
opportunity to participate.
The group discussed whether the Committee Chair should be a full professor, or whether
associate professors could also serve in that role. Arguments for Full Professors included issues
of time and close attention to process. Also, it was pointed out that potentially controversial
issues could arise (example was review of department plans), possibly placing associate
professors in difficult positions. Arguments against specifying rank included the lack of need to
micromanage the Committee’s work, and the fact that such a move would necessitate that
Departments nominate full professors if they wanted them to have a chance of becoming the
Committee Chair.
Review of MOTION under discussion: Constituencies would be contacted and asked to
nominate an individual for the committee. These constituencies include departments, Dean’s
office, staff, and graduate student association.
VOTE on original motion: The Motion PASSED.
MOTION. An undergraduate representative would also be added to the Committee.
(Seconded.)
VOTE: The Motion PASSED.
Friendly Amendment: The chair has to be a faculty member.
Discussion ensued about the rank of the Chair. The charge of the committee was reviewed:
The committee will be asked to revise existing plan to create a new plan of organization and
to review the department plans. Concern was raised that both of these could be accomplished
by February. Lissitz said the February deadline concerned primarily the Plan of Organization
for the College to allow time for discussion.
MOTION: The group will elect a chair amongst the faculty representatives. (Seconded.)
VOTE: The Motion PASSED.
MOTION: The chair must be a full professor. (Seconded.) VOTE:
The Motion DID NOT PASS. (4 in favor, 5 against)
Any tenured professor is eligible to become chair.
5. Follow-up on Executive Planning Group Report. MOTION (Bob Lissitz): A committee to
discuss the issue of PhD/EdD across departments will be constituted, but all departments will be
instructed to come up with one of two choices: 1) drop one of two degrees (PhD/EdD) or 2)
clarify differences in EdD and PhD. (Seconded.)
The committee will be a Joint committee of the Dean’s Office and College of Education
Senate.
VOTE: The Motion PASSED, unanimously.
6. New Business:
Safety: DeLaPaz, on behalf of the Dept of Special Ed, raised the issue of safety. Faculty are
concerned about temperature control in rooms, roaches and garbage, and mold and fungus
problems. Other members expressed other concerns: windows don’t open, and some
departments report granular substances falling from the ceilings. There is also the issue of
physical safety.
MOTION: The Dean’s office explores issues of environmental and physical safety and report
to Senate. (Seconded.)
VOTE: The Motion PASSED.
Technology: Maintenance of computers in the classroom is uneven, computer support staff is
unresponsive, and little infrastructure exists for support in terms of pedagogy, research, or just
basic technical assistance. Mac users have no support in the college. Some departments have
hired their own technical support help. There was agreement that this is a college issue since the
college and that the COE needs strong and institutionalized level of support.
MOTION: The Dean’s office report on status of COE Technology. (Seconded.)
VOTE: The Motion PASSED.
Steiff asked if the COE had any formal policy regarding Merit review. Lissitz suggested he
asked the Dean’s office. His and others’ sense was that such a document does not exist.
Meeting adjourned 11:01am.