College of Education Senate
October 6, 2006, 9:00 – 11:00
Minutes
Present: Pat Campbell (At large); Will Drakeford (Secretary & EDSP); Dennis Kivlighan
(Dean); Courtland Lee (EDCP); Peter Leone (Chair-Elect); George Macready (EDMS); Robert
Marcus (EDHD); Robert Mislevy (EDMS); Natasha Mitchell (EDCP); Olivia Saracho (EDCI);
Sean Simone (Grad. Stdnt. Rep); Mike Stieff (EDCI); Bill Strein (Chair); Christy Tirrell-Corbin
(At large).
I.
Approval/Modifications of Today’s Proposed Agenda: Yes
II.
Approval of Minutes of Senate Meeting Sept. 15, 2006 (appended, below)
Agenda Approved
No corrections to previous minutes

Dean Search Committee Report
 Committee was charged by provost on 10/5/06
 Search committee roster will be made public and distributed to faculty. Committee
has diverse representation, including representation from all departments and from
Montgomery and PG county schools.
 Committee has discussed position qualifications, job description, and equity charge.
 Search committee will maintain confidentiality to protect potential candidates, and all
information about committee actions will come from the committee chair, Ed
Montgomery
 Timeline: publicly open the search within the next few weeks with announcements
appearing nationwide in newspapers and publications; campus-wide process for
soliciting applications through mid December; review of applications will begin in
December and January
 Provost wants search committee to submit 3-4 names for campus interviews: ranked
or unranked.
 Committee will meet in late January to identify a select number of candidates to
invite for interviews in February or March.. Applications submitted after December
15 will still be considered, but the application review process will proceed as
scheduled.
 Search committee is looking for an acknowledged academic leader with a strong
record of scholarship. The job description will state that the candidate must be
eligible for promotion and full professorship in one of the college departments.
Candidate should have Teacher Education and NCATE knowledge. Members of the
faculty should contact Ed Montgomery with recommendations for potential
candidates.
 Question about Ranking of Potential Candidates: no decision has been made about
submitting ranked or unranked names to provost
 Committee is open to suggestions and plans to solicit input from interested parties
 Faculty Thoughts: Candidates should be able to repair relationships with neighboring
school systems and take care of the College of Ed faculty. We need to go beyond
recommendation letters to check out candidates.
 Search committee includes 3 individuals external to the university and 1 individual
external to the college. Majority of committee is college faculty.
III.
Updates from, and Dialogue with, the Dean
Course Evaluation Report
 Hope senate will move on course evaluation this year
o Long history of discussions and recommendations, executive summary in packet
o Recommended going forward with a web-based and paper-based revised
evaluation form
o Proposed questions for course evaluations: handout
o Some questions would be public and others non-public. Reason for non-public
questions - Maryland law states that information used for personnel decisions
cannot be public information.
o No deadlines established for when the 16 questions will be added
o Decision to be made: Do we want to use additional questions? Suggestion: use the
MARSH instrument for additional items
o Thoughts/comments about Marsh Student Evaluation of Educational Quality
(SEEQ) instrument: should all or some SEEQ items be used? SEEQ is being used
by other universities (i.e. Penn State) and will be available online.
o In some departments, another faculty member is present to ensure students are
seriously completing evaluations. How do you control this variable when
evaluations are completed online? We would like to level the playing field as
much as possible. Should evaluations be mandated? What happens if you do not
complete the evaluation?
o Open ended questions are valuable
o Gather feedback from departments
o Question: Turnaround of IDEA evaluation takes too long. What is the reason for
the delay? How can we speed up the process?
o Senate: motion to stop typing of evaluation by students
o Not dealing with faculty privacy rights.
o All faculty should receive feedback if submitted by students
o Comments in conjunction with responses is useful
o Strein noted that there is a slightly updated version of the summary about
previous Senate action on course evaluations that was distributed earlier with the
inclusion of Senate action. That action reads as follows: The Senate’s meeting of
March 7, 2003 include a summary of the Course Evaluation Committee’s report
and the following motion: “Motion made that the CoE Course Evaluations
Committee be charged to move toward some kind of combined paper & web
based system that provides good reporting to faculty, good student response rates
and has sound psychometric properties. Motion approved unanimously.”
 Provost has asked EDPL to split into two units.
 Charged Dean to oversee discussions and if this should be the ultimate resolution.
If there is a split, there will be two new degrees created and new organizational
structure. Timeline is to have proposal to EDPL dept by their December faculty
meeting, then to college for discussions, and ultimately to the system level
 Thoughts/comments: There may be units in EDPL that are connected to units in
other departments. What is meant by new organizational structure? Should this
occur with EDPL?
 Question: expensive because of two chairs. Provost understands that this is not
resource neutral mission: Provost understands additional resources will be
needed.
 Question: How does faculty have input into the organization of the college if
there is a change? Impact of the split? What about the college plan of
organization?
IV.
Update on College Security Issues and Initiatives – April Patty
 Auxiliary police 6:30pm – 10pm (weekdays), Patrol Benjamin, Cole: Note security
issues, doors and windows left open, maintenance, etc
 Departments and individual faculty members are contacted regarding issues that arise
during patrols
 Question: Do we have any incident reports of criminal activity? No.
 Question: What about day security? ID to enter all building 24hrs per day?
 Not aware of any security task force. Other campus committees may have a security
component.
 Question: How do you interact with strangers in buildings? Don’t want make the
judgment of who looks like a student and who doesn’t. If you have a concern, call
campus security.
 Faculty request security for Cole Field House side of Benjamin at night because it is
hard to see. Can the gate be locked? Can bushes/hedges be trimmed? Can trees be cut
down?
 Highly recommended: lock office door whenever you leave. There is an escort
service.
V.
Additional Items
 Should Chair glance over unapproved Senate minutes before posting to website? Yes
 EPG for the doctorate: Charge: See handout. Revised charged was accepted.
Addendum
1. Please include, if possible, on your next department meeting agenda a discussion of the
proposals for evaluation of teaching.
2. Please try to put "report from College Senate" on each dept. meeting agenda, so that the
deliberations and actions of the senate will be widely known
3. Dennis Kivlighan asked that senate members be provided with the reports from the
previous Strategic Focus Committee in the College, which looked at College structure.