College of Education Senate
Friday, December 1, 9:00 – 11:00
Minutes
Attending: Paul Bauman (Alternate Grad. Stdnt. Rep);Natasha Cabrera (EDHD); Andy Egel (EDSP)
Pat Campbell (At large); Andrew Egel (EDSP); Francine Hultgren (EDPL); David Imig (At large);
Dennis Kivlighan (Dean); Peter Leone (Chair-Elect); Robert Marcus (EDHD); Robert Mislevy
(EDMS); Natasha Mitchell (EDCP); Carol Anne Spreen (EDPL); Mike Stieff (EDCI); Bill Strein
(Chair, recorder); Christy Tirrell-Corbin (At large)
Beth Lintz attended as an interested staff member. CoE Senate Meetings are always open to all
faculty and staff in the College.
I.
The proposed agenda for today’s meeting was approved, with the inclusion of an
additional item regarding the proposed pilot of course evaluations
II.
On a motion by David Imig, seconded by Francine Hultgren the Minutes of November 3,
2006 were approved with one minor correction.
III.
Updates from, and Dialogue with, the Dean
 Dennis Kivlighan announced that he has met with members of the Maryland Senate
budget committee with a proposal for secure annual funding of the Minority Institute
for $1,000,000 per year. Monies would be for infrastructure (staff) and would also be
available for “buyouts” for faculty. The funding, if approved, may come through the
MSDE budget.
 The College is proposing to the Campus that the Campus seek federal designated
funds for STEM pipeline issues. This would be a cross-college initiative. The request
would be for $12,000,000 as seed money. The decision of what to press for will be
made by President Mote; he seems to be initially positive about this proposal.
 Senate members and Dennis discussed implications for the College and the
University of the upcoming changes in political leadership in the state.
IV.
NCATE update
 Donna Wiseman reminded Senate members that the College currently has conditional
accreditation by NCATE as the result of not meeting Standard II: Assessment. The
College is currently in the second round of a revamped assessment system designed
to meet Standard II requirements. Assessment data are compiled at the program level
and programs are expected to address any issues that arise from those data. The
Dean’s Office reviews the program data and identifies trends that need attention. A
similar process occurs when data are aggregated at the College level.
 In response to the NCATE accreditation experience, the College has developed a
Coordinators Committee, composed of all of the program coordinators in the
College. The Committee meets regularly and has made positive contributions.
 The College had a mock visit over the summer, and received very positive feedback
with a few recommendations for small changes.
 The focus visit by NCATE will occur on 9/11/07. The visitors will review
information only in regard to Standard II. Depending on the amount of time needed


by the College for a rejoinder to the site visit report, our materials may go to the
NCATE board in November.
Several Senate members expressed the thought that it is advisable to have some
College faculty who are involved in NCATE visits, so as to be able to help the
College understand the process. Steve Koziol is presently doing such work.
The State will allow Maryland teacher education programs to use either TEAC or
NCATE accreditation. However, were we to switch at some point to TEAC, it is
unclear what would happen with regard to program approvals – now done by the
NCATE-affiliated professional organizations.
V.
Pat Campbell raised issues regarding the proposed pilot instructor evaluations in which
both the Campus items and items from the SEEQ instrument would be used. She
questioned whether a pilot in which EDCI does not participate would produce usable
results. She also questioned the rationale for the pilot – is it to determine whether the
SEEQ items would be mandated by the College? Bill Strein expressed the opinion that
ultimate College policy could be either: (a) that there would be some College-wide items
in addition to the campus-mandated items, or (b) that the College would allow
departments complete discretion in deciding about whether additional items would be
used. Bill argued that performing the pilot was in the spirit of collecting information on
how the SEEQ items work in the context of the campus-mandated items, but that the pilot
information, per se, would not automatically lead to any particular College policy.
VI.
On a motion by Christy Tirrell-Corbin, seconded by Bob Marcus the Senate voted
unanimously to endorse the School Shootings Position Statement developed by the
National Consortium of School Violence Prevention Researchers and Practitioners. The
Senate will request that the College website include the Senate’s endorsement of this item
and a link to the Position Statement itself.
VII.
Input to Search Committee: What Does the College Want in a Dean? As announced and
planned, Senate members held a discussion regarding what the College wants in a dean.
A number of issues were discussed. All of the College departments had not yet held a
meeting and discussed this issue. It was agreed that each department’s senators
should send comments to Carroll Ann Spreen ( spreen@umd.edu ), who will
distribute to the other College of Education members of the Dean’s Search
Committee. Issues discussed included, but were not limited to:

The dean should have knowledge and experience with teacher education programs
and the NCATE process. Also the dean should increase advocacy for the role of
teacher education on this campus so as to carve out a clear role for this function on
the campus. Although research should continue to be emphasized, greater value
should be placed on teacher education than is presently the case campus-wide.

The dean should be able to build connections to the community and to the schools;
needs to have the ability to reach out to the community.

David Imig observed that nationally College of Education deans are not seen as
people who press their universities for resources. While this makes such persons
likeable to the upper administration, it does not raise the esteem of Education on
these campuses.

The dean needs to have “enormous credibility” with leaders state-wide, and with
respect to the community.

The EDCP Department presented a written, bulleted list resulting from the
department’s recent retreat. This list is attached. The items are not in priority order.
Adjournment at 10:45
Respectfully Submitted,
Bill Strein
Attachment A:
Factors the CAPS Faculty would like to see in a Dean of the College of Education
(Not in Priority Order)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Creative, energetic, and enthusiastic with innovative ideas
A progressive thinker who understands current movements in K-12 education
A consensus builder that relates well to people
Articulates and exemplifies a strong commitment to diversity
Willingness to make difficult decisions and “stick with them”
Adept at obtaining gifts and raising funds
A “traditional scientist” in a manner that faculty in the “hard” sciences will respect
Interest in international education issues and commitment to developing international
initiatives within the College
9. Understands the current focus on improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM) education and desires to pursue funding in this area.
10. Has evidence of support for diverse programs
11. Not only K-12, teacher education focused
12. Ability to articulate the role of a professional school within a Research I University
13. Should come from an institution with departments and programs that reflect the diversity
of programs found within our College of Education
14. Understands and supports training practitioners, and not only scholars
Note: This list was submitted to the CoE Senate by the CAPS Dept. Senate members. It was
submitted as an informational item, and was not endorsed by the Senate, per se.