MEMORANDUM
TO: Departments of History, Mathematics, and English
School of Education
FROM: Dr. Robert J. Thompson
Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
DATE: November 28, 2001
RE: Proposals for the Movement of Selected Education Programs
Sequence of steps taken to date:
In late July, Dr. Sparrow made a proposal concerning the movement of several teacher education programs housed in the College of Arts and Sciences. The meetings have involved Drs. Sheerer, Sparrow, and myself. Dr. Sheerer reviewed the proposal and made a counter-proposal, which in turn was reviewed by Dr. Sparrow. There have been several iterations of proposals and reviews. It has been made clear to all three of us from the beginning of these discussions that the faculty of the programs involved must be consulted once the deans have reached a joint recommendation.
I then prepared a compilation of these proposals and their reasoning as the basis for initiating formal consideration of the prospective moves. That compilation, in turn, became the basis for further discussion and change. The attached proposals reflect substantial discussion heavily influenced by the information and points raised by various faculty, especially the Math faculty both during and after the September departmental meeting.
The Math faculty made a request during the meeting in September for an external review team. I responded that I was opposed to such a request unless it was demonstrated that such a review team would add something to the campus debate that would not otherwise be present. The Math faculty have clearly demonstrated their ability to represent their perspectives. The basic question behind these proposals has been around for a number of years and it is time we as a campus addressed the question of the currently appropriate location of these programs and moved on to the other issues facing us.
Procedures to be followed: The process outlined in Appendix L of the Faculty Manual in Section D. Code Unit Changes will be followed. The time sequence outlined in Appendix L begins with the delivery of this proposal to the affected units. Attached to
this memorandum are the proposals for the movement of these programs to the School of Education with a copy of your respective unit code with the areas of change highlighted in yellow. It is my sincere belief that the debate that will follow submission of these proposals should be conducted on the basis of written argumentation so that there may be a consistent discussion of the involved issues and concerns.
Basis for the Proposal
1. Strengthening teacher education programs
· Locating these programs within the SOE would allow the Dean of Education more direct input into the hiring, review, and assignment of faculty; curriculum development, and oversight; and assessment of course and program effectiveness. Such specific issues as developmental field experiences, faculty involvement in public schools, and content pedagogy would receive more focused attention if the programs were housed in Education.
· Having the Dean of Education exercise line authority over Education faculty in the core areas of Math, English, and Social Studies would more clearly meet the guidelines as put forth by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. While the most recent review team did not directly address this matter during the most recent site visit, it remains an issue for them and will likely arise in the future. This past time ECU was able to steer the reviewers away from the matter. The key point is the need for closer collaboration between the teacher education programs and the School of Education.
· Centralizing teacher education programs would underscore ECU’s commitment to and strong support for the preparation of teachers. The current decentralization of teacher education programs and faculty implies that ECU does not recognize teacher education programs as worthy of unification. Now somewhat marginalized within the College of Arts and Sciences, the College’s teacher education faculty, their courses and curricula would enjoy centrality of mission within the School of Education.
· It is important to note that the movement of education-related faculty from other Schools and from other programs within the College of Arts and Sciences that have teacher education programs is not being proposed or supported. These programs (e.g., foreign languages and literature, theater and dance, music and art) appear to be integrated into the fabric of their home units, are aligned with standards in their own disciplines, and are working closely with public schools. Those programs remaining in the College of Arts and Sciences also tend to be very small in terms of numbers of students and require only partial faculty fte commitments. The theatre and dance, music, and art programs are similarly highly dependent on their particular facilities for instruction and movement would not be feasible.
· Reassigning the College’s teacher education programs and faculty would bring ECU’s organizational chart into closer conformity with national models.
2. Clarify faculty evaluation, roles, and rewards
· Bringing secondary education faculty into the School of Education would allow their work in their respective areas to be evaluated and rewarded in line with that unit’s Faculty Evaluation Rubrics. These Rubrics, designed by a faculty committee, clearly outline criteria for productivity in line with a professional school of education. Credit is granted, for example, for work in public schools and for publications in education journals. As changes in mission and emphasis occur in the College of Arts and Sciences, the differences in tenure/promotion requirements are likely to become even sharper. The move will bring these faculty into a situation where their productivity is more clearly recognized and understood by their colleagues. They would also have many and more extended opportunities for collaboration with other professional education faculty.
3. Strengthen collaboration between the School of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences
· By moving the secondary education faculty into the School of Education, the issue of Arts and Sciences’ collaboration with the School of Education will become clearer. The collaboration that NCATE and other bodies are looking for is that which occurs between content experts in a given area and professional educators. In the current situation, the collaboration occurs mainly among the education professionals in both units.
· Achievement of this collaboration requires a commitment for continued and deeper involvement of faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences with faculty in the School of Education. Both deans have pledged to strive for this collaboration as part of their personal goals.
4. Facilitate the development of new programs
· The secondary education faculty involved with English and Social Studies Education would most likely become part of the new Department of Curriculum and Instruction that would facilitate their involvement in the preparation of a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction. While a doctoral program could not be supported in any of these single areas, an integrated model might be quite marketable, with teaching concentrations in each of the disciplines.
· The Mathematics Education faculty would be merged with the Science Education faculty into a new Department of Mathematics and Science Education. This should strengthen both programs by allowing for more opportunities to cooperate in seeking grants and developing a joint doctoral program. Neither program is sufficiently strong alone to move in a doctoral direction and the creation of a Center for Learning and Teaching.
5. Clarification of unit missions
· Bringing these additional teacher education program into the School of Education would strengthen its overall ability to fulfill its mission. These are critical areas of teacher education that need a higher degree of collaboration, joint planning, and faculty involvement that the current structure encourages.
· The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences believes that reassigning the College’s teacher education programs and faculty would further clarify the College’s liberal arts mission and enhance ECU’s quest to establish a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.
cc: Dr. W. K. Sparrow
Dr. M. Sheerer
Dr. W. V. Muse
Dr. R. Morrison
Proposal for the transfer of Social Studies Education from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education
Programs:
· BS in History, Secondary Education
· MAEd in History, Education
· Plus responsibility for the following courses: HIST 2123, 4323, 4324, 4325 and 6510
Faculty Positions: 1.0 FTE with current salaries
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Jan Stennette, Visiting Assistant Professor (untenured)
Resources:
· Salary: current salary plus any legislative or merit based increases
· Annual operating funds: $1,756.00 (subject to revision based on legislative action)
· Other funds:
o $500 in honoraria for annual conference for social studies teachers.
o The transfer of graduate assistant support for faculty will be consistent with 2001-2002 pattern of support.
· Other resources: The reassigned faculty will be permitted to take with them on a permanent basis all specialized equipment including personal computers, software, and printers now under their exclusive management.
· Office space: Because of shortage of alternate office space on campus, relocation of office space is not anticipated to be within this academic year and possibly not within the next one. When such relocation occurs the number of offices assigned to the Department of History will be reduced by the same number of offices as occupied by this faculty line.
Proposed Date of Effectiveness: July 1, 2002
Proposal for the transfer of English Education from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education
Programs:
· BS in English, Secondary Education
· MAEd in English
· Plus responsibility for ENGL 2123, 4323, 4324, 4325, 4950, 4960, 4970, 6510, 6515, 6520, & 6525
Positions: 2.5 FTE with
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Alfred P. Muller, Professor (tenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Todd Finley, Assistant Professor
· 0.50 FTE = to be determined
Resources:
· Salaries: current faculty salaries plus any legislative or merit based increases.
· Annual operating funds: $5,268.00 (subject to revision based on legislative action)
· Other resources:
o The reassigned faculty will be permitted to take with them on a permanent basis all specialized equipment including personal computers, software, and printers now under their exclusive management.
o The transfer of graduate assistant support for faculty will be consistent with 2001-2002 pattern of support.
· Office space: The reassigned faculty would be permitted to retain their current office space until such time as relocation can be arranged. Because of shortage of alternate office space on campus, relocation of office space is not anticipated to be within this academic and possibly not within the next one. When such relocation occurs the number of offices assigned to the Department of English will be reduced by the same number of offices as occupied by this faculty line.
· Related issues:
o In addition to the two faculty members noted above, two others have terminal degrees in education, Dr. Collett Dilworth and Dr. Sandra Tawake. However, since neither is now teaching in or contributing individually on a full-time basis to the English Education Program and neither is required for the support of the program, their transfer is not being proposed, but a third position to meet their contributions is needed.
o Responsibility for regular offering and teaching of ENG 4950, Literature for Children will remain with the Department of English as this course is listed as a Humanities course as opposed to an English Education course.
Proposed Date of Effectiveness: July 1, 2002
Proposal for the transfer of Mathematics Education from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education
Programs:
· BS in Mathematics, Secondary Education
· MAEd in Mathematics
· Plus responsibility for mathematics education courses listed below
Faculty Positions: 8FTE faculty lines
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Sunday Ajose, Associate Professor (tenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Valerie DeBellis, Assistant Professor (untenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Robert Hunting, Professor (tenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Robert Joyner, Associate Professor (tenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Ronald Preston, Assistant Professor (untenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Sid Rachlin, Professor (tenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Rose Sinicrope, Assistant Professor (tenured)
· 1.0 FTE = Dr. Anthony Thompson, Visiting Assistant Professor (fixed-term)
Resources:
- Salaries:current salaries of faculty plus any legislative or merit based increases
- Annual operating funds: $14,048 (subject to revision based on legislative action)
- 0.5 FTE secretarial position
· The transfer of graduate assistant support for faculty will be consistent with 2001-2002 pattern of support.
- Faculty involved in the transfer will be permitted to take with them on a permanent basis all specialized equipment including personal computers, software, and printers now under their exclusive management.
- The Interim Chair of the Department of Mathematics will temporarily reassign the faculty members to contiguous offices in Austin Building pending their relocation to SOE facilities. The overall quality of office space will remain constant. When such relocation occurs the number of offices assigned to the Department of Mathematics will be reduced by the same number of offices as occupied by these faculty members.
Related Issues:
- Dr. DeBellis will take with her a large NSF grant that is currently active, plus all related overhead receipts funds.
Mathematics Education Courses:
|
1067
|
1077
|
2123
|
|
2129
|
2282
|
3004
|
|
3005
|
3006
|
3166
|
|
3218
|
3223
|
3237
|
|
3239
|
4001
|
4319
|
|
4323
|
4324
|
4325
|
|
5251
|
5263
|
5264
|
|
5265
|
5266
|
5267
|
|
5268
|
6200
|
6206
|
|
6211
|
6222
|
6223
|
|
6226
|
6227
|
6228
|
|
6229
|
6251
|
6252
|
|
6261
|
6271
|
6320
|
|
6321
|
6323
|
|
Proposed Date of Effectiveness: July 1, 2002
