A Response to the Proposal to

Remove Mathematics Education

Faculty and Programs

From the Department of Mathematics

 

 

 

Abstract

 

The document “Proposals for the Movement of Selected Education Program” contains a proposal formovement of Mathematics Education faculty and programs from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education.  Although a Basis for the Proposal outlines several key points, it does not provide a rationale for direct improvement of the affected programs.  Educational arguments have been neglected in favor of administrative arguments.  The Proposal rationale fails to address two key questions. 

1)      Will the students in Mathematics Education be better served by effecting this proposal?

2)      Will Mathematics Education programs be improved?

That is, will the quality of programs for the preparation and support of teachers of mathematics and ultimately the mathematics teachers of our children improve by moving programs from the Department of Mathematics to the School of Education?  The Basis for the Proposal is instead focused primarily on administrative and organizational concerns that are addressed and rebutted in this Response.  The Mathematics Department challenges the proposal’s claims of strengthening teacher education programs and of strengthening collaboration between the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Education by removing Mathematics Education from its discipline of Mathematics, in which it has enjoyed great success and through which the discipline has been able to grow and develop. 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Proposal to remove Mathematics Education programs and faculty has a rationale that fails to address two key questions.

 

3)      Will ECU’s students in Mathematics Education be better served by effecting this proposal?

4)      Will ECU’s Mathematics Education programs be improved?

 

The central question should be:

How can East Carolina University produce the very best teachers   of mathematics at the secondary, middle grades, and elementary levels?

Many administrative issues are addressed in the proposal but the main quality issues remain unadressed.  Our answer:  keep teacher preparation programs in the content area discipline to maintain the highest quality programs and the best student experience and degree value.

 

• Mathematics Education programs housed in the Mathematics Department are of the highest quality; moving them places this quality at risk.

 

• Math Education programs and faculty housed in Mathematics has produced: award winning model programs, award winning graduates, highest quality curriculum design, innovative first rate collaboration of the type sought by NCATE, and multiple degree options for our graduates.  This high level of collaboration and program quality would not be possible with Mathematics Education housed in the School of Education.

 

• Mathematics Education at ECU is among the most prominent in the U.S., with the faculty coming from the nation’s strongest programs.

 

• Moving Mathematics Education will reduce quality via: loss of mathematically inclined faculty, loss of mathematical training in their replacements, reduced potential for external funding, and hiring complications due to a national shortage of Mathematics Education doctorates.

 

• Students will receive lower quality oversight, reduced options with their degree, lower salary options, less innovative programs, and less modeling of good teaching by mathematicians due to less interaction with Mathematics Educators.  There will be a real risk of less content knowledge on part of students.

 

• Moving Mathematics Education forces the abandonment of a Mathematics based inter-institutional Mathematics Education doctorate and/or interdisciplinary doctorate in favor of an Education doctorate. 

 

• Our outstanding Mathematics Education faculty will continue to meet evolving tenure and promotion standards of the College of Arts and Sciences.
• National Policy from the mathematics community and the education community at large supports retaining Mathematics Education in the Mathematics Department.

 

• The critical mass of Mathematics Educators necessary to sustain high quality program is already here. Statistical Data confirms an acute shortage of Mathematics Education doctorates and an extreme difficulty in obtaining replacements for faculty who have stated publicly their intention not to move to School of Education.  Program quality will suffer.  National trends show increased hires of Mathematics Educators in Mathematics Departments.

 

• Teacher preparation programs belong in the departments of the content discipline.

 

• The Mathematics M.A. degree and graduate program would be devastated by the move of Mathematics Education. 

 

• Such a major program movement is worthy of study by an external review team.  The experts in the disciplines have spoken overwhelmingly against the move and they should be heeded.

 

• An external review at UNC-Charlotte confirms the value of retaining Mathematics Education in Mathematics.

 

• NCATE issues raised in the proposal are refuted

 

• Previous programs moved to the School of Ed have not flourished.  Concern arises over any risk to the quality of the Mathematics Education program.

 

• Curriculum is the responsibility of faculty.  Movement of programs is a curriculum matter.  The faculty has overwhelmingly spoken against the move.

 

• Removal of such a large number of tenured and untenured faculty against their will is unprecedented at ECU. 

 

Arguments submitted in the proposal to remove education subgroups from their content disciplines are largely focused on administrative reorganization rather than program quality.  We strongly believe that

 

1)      academic programs should not be compromised , and

2)      faculty governance of curriculum issues should be respected.

 

Neither has been the case with this proposal.  Administrative needs to reorganize should not drive a rationale for program reform.  Rather our commitment to maintaining high quality programs is the cornerstone for challenging the proposed move.

 

 

Introduction

 

VCAA Robert Thompson, during his presentation to the Mathematics Department on December 14, 2001, stated that four points are fundamental aspects of the proposal to move Mathematics Education faculty and programs from the Mathematics Department.  These were elaborated on by EPP chair George Bailey on January 23, 2002.  They are:

1)      Quality of the programs, including quality of the student experience and value of the degree.

2)      Collaboration between faculty, as it impacts program quality.

3)      Future development of programs, as it relates to quality of the programs now and in the future.

4)      Tenure and promotion criteria, especially as it relates to the quality of the student experience.

 

Other points relating to the above four key points are:

5)      Policy statementson Mathematics Education from the mathematics community.

6)      Statistical data support an increasing national trend to hire Mathematics Educators in Departments of Mathematics; a shortage of Mathematics Educators is becoming more acute.

7)      Location of Teacher Preparation Programs in the discipline of the content specialty.

8)      Impact on the Mathematics Department, including severe quality risks posed to its graduate program.

9)      The Mathematics Department’s request for an outside review.

10)  NCATE issues: quality of collaboration; and confirmation that housing Mathematics Education in the Mathematics Department is NOT a governance issue.   

11)  Programs that have previously moved from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Education.

 

Additional points of importance are:

12)  Faculty responsibility for determining curriculum.

13)  Removal of tenured faculty members against their will from the department in which they hold tenure.

14)  Removal of untenured faculty members against their will from the department in which the hiring contract says they will be located.

15)  Timing of this proposal.

 

A Final Point by Point Rebuttal to the Basis for the Proposal follows.

 

 

Section I

Four Key Points

 

Quality of programs and the quality of the preparation of teachers are central issues.

 

“the key issue in the debate — the central question — should be

‘How can East Carolina University produce the very best teachers   of mathematics at the secondary, middle grades, and elementary levels.’ ”

                        --Robert L. Bernhardt

                          Previous Chair of Mathematics

                          (See Appendix 1 for full statements)

 

1)         Quality of the Programs:  There are two Mathematics Education programs proposed for removal from the Mathematics Department:  the B.S. in Mathematics Secondary Education, and the M.A.Ed. in Mathematics Education.  We present evidence that the programs housed in the Mathematics Department are of the highest quality, and that moving them places this quality at risk.  We begin documenting that having Mathematics Education located in the Mathematics Department is the best way to insure continued overall quality of these programs and others.

 

      ”The mathematics education group at East Carolina University has established a national visibility in mathematics education. … I believe that mathematics education at East Carolina University  -- a sub-faculty in the Department of Mathematics - is among the most prominent in the U. S. that has, until recently, been without a doctoral program.   The absence of a doctoral program has been one of the few things separating them from the most elite programs at comprehensive universities.  

      The strength of mathematics education at East Carolina University has been built on their presence in the Department of Mathematics.  ….

… I believe the activity of mathematics education is one of the department's strongest elements of national visibility and stature.  The mathematics education group has brought significant external funding to the department and brought recognition through awards and accomplishment.

      It is hard to see how a proposal to move the mathematics education faculty will strengthen either the Department of Mathematics or ECU's mission for teacher education in mathematics.   ….

        I urge careful study of the issues involved in the proposed move and its potential impact, both intended and unintended.  ECU's internal affairs is its own business, but perhaps it could be informed by advice from a detached committee of advisors”.

--James W. Wilson, Professor of Mathematics Education
  University of Georgia (The University of Georgia 

  Mathematics Education program is the nation’s second 

  largest producer of doctorates in Mathematics Education)
(See Appendix 2 for full letter)

“Teacher preparation in mathematics is one of the major challenges our nation faces now and in the coming years.  …

 

This problem can best be solved in a mathematics department, but important changes will be required in those departments.  …

 

Therefore, I think it is essential that mathematicians and specialists in mathematics education work together in the same department.  Throughout the country (e.g., University of Michigan, Kent State University, GeorgiaState University, to mention just a few) mathematics dpartments are adding mathematics education components and scholarship in mathematics education is beginning to be accepted as one branch of scholarship in mathematics.  From what you have written, East Carolina University is a leader in this development and I hope it can continue in that role.”

--Ed Dubinsky

  Second Vice President

  Mathematical Association of America 1997-2000

                         (See Appendix 2 for full letter)

 

 

The B.S. in Mathematics Secondary Education program produces strong secondary teachers for the state of North Carolina.  Our B.S. graduates have a degree rich in Mathematics, Mathematics Education, and Pedagogy.  Mathematics B.S. majors are outstanding students.  Over the past ten years our graduates in the B.S. program included:

·        13 Summa Cum Laude honors (B.A. had 4),

·        15 Magna Cum Laude honors (B.A. had 9),

·        8 Cum Laude honors (B.A. had 2),

·        4 North Carolina Council of Teachers of Mathematics Outstanding Mathematics Education Student award winners,

·        1 ECU Alumni University award winner (and 2 other finalists),  and

·        at least 30 Teaching Fellows. 

Our Mathematics Education programs have produced:

·        one Milken Family Foundation Educator Award winner,

·        at least 11 Nationally Board Certified Teachers,

·        Teacher of the Year award winners, and

·        Presidential Award Winners for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching.

 

 

 Our B.S. graduates in Mathematics comprise 57% of the Mathematics graduates over the last decade and have a 35% rate of reception of University Honors  (36 University Honors out of 104 graduates over the last 10 years since Fall 1991).  Their outstanding 35% rate compares favorably with a high 19% rate of reception of University Honors by B.A. in Mathematics graduates (15 University Honors out of 79 graduates since Fall 1991; the 79 comprised 43% of the Mathematics majors—excluding Computer Science).  Our M.A.Ed. graduates comprise 51% of our Masters graduates of the last decade.  They too are among the above cited award winners.

 

 

The current B.S. degree is a degree in Mathematics.  Prospective students and their parents select ECU in part because the B.S. Mathematics degree prepares the graduate both as a teacher of mathematics and as a mathematician. This gives further value to the degree in the form of increased flexibility in job options and salaries.   Also B.S. Mathematics majors can readily change their degree program to a B.A. in Mathematics (and vice versa).  This flexibility could be reduced if the B.S. program were converted to a program in the School of Education.  Similar flexibility exists for graduate students in the M.A. and M.A.Ed. programs.  Concerns have been raised by some faculty over transcript questions regarding credit allowed for mathematics courses taught in the School of Education, as compared with a mathematics department, in the event that a student were to transfer or proceed to graduate school. Salary comparisons yield insight into the value of leaving the degree a degree in Mathematics.  

 

 

“Salaries paid to education graduates compare poorly with salaries offered to their classmates in other majors (Figure 4).

 

Figure 4

Average Annual Salary of 1992-3        Degree Recipients in April 1997

Engineering                    $44,524

Health Professions             $39,421

Mathematics and other Sciences $38,148

Business and management        $37,454

Social Science                 $35,536

Public affairs/social services $30,563

Humanities                     $30,179

Biological Sciences            $29,331

Psychology                     $28,197

History                        $28,147

Education                      $26,513

Source: McCormick et al. 1999

 

The differential is upwards of 50% in many cases.”

            --To Touch the Future, Transforming the Way Teachers are

              Taught, An Action Agenda for Colleges and University

  Presidents, American Council on Education, 1999

  (See Appendix 13; henceforth this reference will be cited   

   as “ACE”)

 

 

 

As further evidence of quality obtained when Mathematics Education is housed in Mathematics, we cite the national award received by ECU for the Middle School Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program (which would not have been possible without Math Education being housed in the Math Department, as documented in Point 2 below):

 

 

 

“U.S. Department of Education

National Award for Effective Teacher Preparation

Presented to the

Middle School Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program

East Carolina University

Greenville, North Carolina

December 7, 2000

 

Richard W. Riley

U.S. Secretary of Education”

 

"I had the opportunity to be a member of the ECU Mathematics Department from August through May of 1995 -- 1996.  The experience was enriched by the relationship between the mathematics education division and the other members of the department.  That year, the math faculty team taught a series of courses with one member of the math ed. division collaborating with another member of the department.  A quality middle and high school teacher preparation program that builds pedagogy around thorough knowledge of subject matter has grown from that beginning.  I have subsequently worked as a school district curriculum administrator and superintendent of schools.  I recognize even more the necessity for producing teachers who have a passion for and in-depth knowlege of their content.  The model that ECU's mathematics department has produced is structured around that philosophy and it would be a loss to Eastern North Carolina as well as the university to lose these programs."

John Parker

Superintendent

Roanoke Rapids City Schools

536 Hamilton St.

Roanoke Rapids, NC  27870

 

 

 

In summary, we have outstanding programs in Mathematics Education at ECU.  We have nationally and internationally visible faculty currently in our Mathematics Education group, the majority of whom are graduates of the nation’s top 10 ranked Mathematics Education programs.  Moving Mathematics Education programs will reduce quality now and in the future by: removing opportunities to fund the design of outstanding new programs; by forcing the loss of faculty who counted on our commitment to them to be located in a mathematics department and who based their funding and research strategies on this arrangement; and by replacing lost math educators with educators having less training in mathematics (due to tight market conditions and the new location in a School of Education, see Point 6 below, as well as Appendices 5, 6, and 7  for further elaboration).  Ultimately this will not be in the best interest of our students, who will be faced with programs without the focus and expert oversight that currently exists.  In addition, our students will face less flexibility in opportunity and in program selection than are afforded by their current degree location.  (See Appendix 14, Evaluation Committee Report, Section II for further details).

 

We cite the above American Council on Education (ACE) document again, to document the increased value inherent in learning more mathematics and mathematics education:

 

“Although the evidence that links student achievement to subject matter understanding in teachers is incomplete, the data in mathematics are unequivocal:  students learn more mathematics when their teachers report having taken more mathematics.”  --ACE, 1999 (Appendix 13)

 

“Student achievement gains have been clearly shown to depend on the subject-specific pedagogy learned by the teacher.  In mathematics, students learn more from teachers who have taken mathematics education courses and hold mathematics certification (Monk, 1994; Goldhaber and Brewer, 1999).”  --ACE, 1999  (Appendix 13)

 

 

 

2)         Collaboration between Mathematicians and Math Educators is optimal with Mathematics Education housed in the Mathematics Department.  The claim made in the Basis for the Proposal that “collaboration occurs mainly among the education professionals in both units”, that is between the Math Educators and Educators, is in the case of the Mathematics Department inaccurate.  Contrary to this claim, there has been collaboration by a large number of mathematicians with math educators and educators, both at ECU and external to campus, on a number of projects.  This collaboration was the foundation for major NSF awards directed by ECU Mathematics Educator Sid Rachlin:

 

 

“Since joining the faculty at ECU, I have received three NSF awards (totaling in excess of two million dollars). I am convinced that two of the three awards would not have been made if I were submitting the award from a School of Education. The two were administered by the Division of Undergraduate Education. The first was the MIDDLE MATH Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Project. The project brought together teams of mathematicians and mathematics educators from across the country to explore ways to improve the mathematical preparation of middle grades mathematics teachers. There were no mathematics educators in the NSF Division that made the award. In the year after our receipt, I served on an NSF review panel for the Division. I am aware of no reviewers in the group of about 40 reviewers who were from a School of Education. On the panel of six that I served, I was the only mathematics educator. The others on the panel were, by degree, mathematicians and were drawn from University, College, and Two-Year College Mathematics Departments.

 

The second NSF award that I received while at ECU was the MIDDLE MATH Curriculum Development Project. This Division of Undergraduate Education award was to develop innovative curricula in mathematics for use in undergraduate education. The RFP for these awards was designed to improve instruction at the university level, not at the K-12 level. The other universities, that I’m aware of, who received awards for similar projects include San Diego State University and Western Michigan University. In both cases the awards were driven by mathematics education faculty in departments of mathematics.”

 

                                          --Sidney L. Rachlin

                                            January 24,2002

 

 

The two NSF grants Sid Rachlin cites were the driving force behind the improved programs that led to ECU receiving the National Award for Effective Teacher Preparation which was presented to the Middle School Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program by U.S Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education on December 7, 2000.  ECU Mathematics Department Faculty in Mathematics supported for participation in the two Middle Math projects cited above were:

1)      Mary Eron (Visiting Professor, Mathematics)

2)      Bob Bernhardt (Mathematics)

3)      Mike Hoekstra (Statistics)

4)      Mike Spurr (Mathematics)

5)      Tim Hudson (Mathematics)

6)      Zach Robinson (Mathematics)

7)      Janet Prichard (Computer Science)

8)      Heather Ries (Mathematics)

9)      Katherine Stanley (Lecturer, Mathematics),

 

and ECU Mathematics Education faculty supported for participation in these projects were:

1)      Sid Rachlin (Mathematics Education)

2)      Ron Preston (Mathematics Education)

3)      Sunday Ajose (Mathematics Education)

4)      Rose Sinicrope (Mathematics Education)

5)      Anthony Thompson (Visiting Professor, Mathematics Education),

 

and ECU Education faculty participation in the advisory board projects were:

1)      Ann Bullock (School of Education).

 

The above groups consulted with each other and with mathematicians and math educators from around the nation in redesigning and improving the program for Middle Grades teacher training in mathematics.  They also worked closely with the School of Education faculty to effect the redesign. 

 

Three points need to be emphasized here. 

·        The first is to note that having Mathematics Education housed in Mathematics led to the NSF grants that supported the collaborative efforts of mathematicians and math educators in improving the quality of the Middle Grades Mathematics program at ECU. 

·        The second is to note that these grants would not have been possible were Mathematics Education to have been housed in the School of Ed, as Sid Rachlin indicates above. 

·        The third is to note that the resulting redesigned programs received national recognition for their success, demonstrating quality of the highest order.

 

We reiterate that there is a great deal of collaboration between mathematicians and mathematics educators and with the School of Education under the current arrangement, without the need to move Math Education faculty.  Such a move would in fact risk diminishing the amount of collaboration underway.

 

ECU Mathematics Educator Val DeBellis has also been awarded a substantial NSF grant (of approximately $425,000) to improve the collegiate mathematics curriculum for prospective teachers in the area of discrete mathematics.  She received her award from the same division of NSF (DUE) that Sid Rachlin did.  Similarly, her award along with the curriculum design itself was made possible by her presence in a Mathematics Department.

 

To point out another way in which collaboration is optimal with Mathematics Education housed in Mathematics, we note the following recommendation from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction on modeling good teaching:  

 

“Guideline 2:  The Program should be taught by faculty members who model good mathematics teaching.

 

In the preparation of teachers, the instructional styles modeled by college and university faculty are every bit as important as the mathematical content of the courses.”

      -- Department of Public Instruction

Section on Guidelines and Competencies for the Preparation of Secondary (9-12) Mathematics Teachers

 

Effecting Guideline 2 is most naturally accomplished when there is strong collaboration between mathematicians and mathematics educators in the same department, as occurs within our own department now.  We emphasize this with recommendations from the American Mathematical Society (AMS):

 

“Teacher education must be recognized as an important part of mathematics departments’ mission at institutions that educate teachers. More mathematicians should consider becoming deeply involved in K-12 mathematics education.  Mathematics departments should devote commensurate resources to designing and offering courses for teachers.”

-- AMS report on The Mathematical Preparation of Teachers

                    Chapter 2, Recommendation 5

 

“The mathematical education of teachers should be seen as a partnership between mathematics faculty and mathematics education faculty.  Most good school mathematics instruction involves a combination of mathematical knowledge and pedagogy. “

-- AMS report on The Mathematical Preparation of Teachers

                    Chapter 2, Recommendation 6

 

Mathematics Education faculty also teach mathematics courses for the Math Department.  This would be made more difficult under the proposed transfer.

 

3)         Future development of programs:  The Mathematics Education group, along with the Mathematics Department as a whole, has just put into existence a completely redesigned Masters in Mathematics Education.  They have also been investigating the possibility of an eventual PhD in Mathematics Education under the collaborative umbrella of several UNC institutions.  The Basis for the Proposal states that moving the Math Education faculty and programs to the School of Education would allow for the possibility of a joint PhD program with the Science Education faculty.   However, this latter option will produce a lower quality program than the first option for several reasons. 

 

i) There is grave concern that, if Mathematics Education were to be located in the School of Education, the Mathematics Education faculty would lose its core strength and philosophy by losing existing faculty and filling positions with math educators who are not as connected to mathematics.  To be more specific, the current Mathematics Educators have at least the equivalent of a Masters in Mathematics to complement their background in Mathematics Education.  Many of these Mathematics Education faculty members will leave ECU if asked to move to the School of Education.  Given the current national shortage of Mathematics Educators (see Point 6and Appendix 5 below citing an approximate 300 advertised positions to 100 Math Ed doctorates produced), the School of Education will have difficulty in replacing departed faculty with Mathematics Educators having the same background in mathematics.  Overall quality of the program will be impacted by several factors including replacing departed current faculty members with faculty having a more general approach and less training in mathematics. In addition to these factors, interest in an inter-institutional PhD in Mathematics Education was greatly motivated by the potential nature and strength of a degree program housed in our department of Mathematics, reflecting the philosophy of current Mathematics Education faculty at ECU and aligning with an emerging national trend. 

 

ii) We believe that programs moved to the School of Education have at best a mixed track record of success (both Science Education and the Science Math Technology Education Network Center have not flourished since being completely located in the School of Education).  A number of faculty in different quarters of the University feel that these programs, along with Broadcasting, were put at risk of decline by movement to the School of Education and by subsequent resource allocation issues.  Beyond this, it is not necessary to relocate faculty to the School of Education in order to obtain a stronger interdisciplinary degree, were that to be desired by Mathematics Education and Science Education faculty.  A proposed interdisciplinary degree would receive higher priority when under considered for approval by the UNC System.

 

4)         Tenure and promotion criteria should be governed by criteria determined by the subspecialty.  Mathematics Education faculty members have unanimously voted to remain in the Mathematics Department and in the College of Arts and Sciences.  They espouse high standards in teaching, service and research.  The Math Education faculty endorses the high standards required in the College of Arts and Sciences, and remains confident of meeting them and excelling.  As long as the Department and the College of Arts and Sciences rely on the expert opinion of specialists during the external review process, there should be no issue here.  We point out that every tenured member of Mathematics Education currently under proposal for movement to the School of Ed, with one exception, was hired, tenured and/or promoted with the approval of the current Dean of Arts and Sciences and de facto met the standards of the College.  In every case, these tenure and promotion recommendations were made with the concurrence of a Dean of the School of Education.  Our Mathematics Education faculty members are outstanding and will meet evolving standards at ECU.

 

Section II

Other Points Relating to the Key Points in Section I

 

5)         Policy Statements on the importance of Mathematics Education from the perspective of the Mathematics Community.

 

·        Mathematics education is considered by mathematicians to be an integral part of the discipline of mathematics. This is the point that is made by Dr. Hyman Bass, president of the AMS (American Mathematical Society--the main research group representing U.S. mathematicians).  Speaking of the quality of K-12 education in mathematics, and the quality of the mathematical training of K-12 teachers, he notes:

 

“The question was, What does K-12 education have to do with the AMS?  What I've described so far are ways in which individual mathematicians have been drawn into this. On the national level--and this is now public policy and part of legislation-- it has been recognized that this is a national problem and that, in particular, mathematicians and scientists have a special responsibility that extends their traditional roles in research and education at the university level to concerns for K-12.”

--Dr. Hyman Bass,

Member of the National Academy of Sciences,

President of the American Mathematical Society (AMS),

(excerpt from Presidential Views: Interview with Hyman Bass, Notices American Mathematical Society, March 2001).

Underline emphasis is added for this report

(See Appendix 3)

 

 

·        The Mathematics Subject Classification (http://www.ams.org/msc) is the internationally agreed-upon standard for cataloguing mathematical research publications. As of 2000, Mathematics Education and its sub-specialties have been assigned reference number 97, in the Mathematics Subject Classification, alongside more traditional areas of mathematical research, such as Algebraic Geometry 14 and Fourier Analysis 42.  We emphasize that  Mathematics Education is a recognized sub-discipline of Mathematics.  (See Appendix 4). 

 

·        The National Sciences Foundation Division of Mathematical Sciences (abbreviated DMS) is the division of the NSF responsible for funding research in mathematics. New funding initiatives from the NSF DMS were recently outlined by Phillip Tondeur:

 

“Phillip Tondeur, DMS Director, outlined the new Mathematical Sciences Initiative, a 5-year plan of increased funding for mathematics, beginning with the FY 2002 budget, in three key areas: fundamental mathematics research, interdisciplinary science and engineering collaborations, and mathematics education.”

--Excerpted from 2000 Annual Report,

                   the AMS Committee on Education

 

There is a concerted effort in the Mathematics community to contribute to the improvement of: the quality of K-12 education, the mathematical training of K-12 teachers, and the research and programs that support these efforts.

 

6)         Statistical Data support an increasing national trend to hire Mathematics Educators in Departments of Mathematics.  They reveal an acute shortage of Mathematics Educators.  These factors will impact quality of our programs in the following way, if the proposal to move is implemented.  ECU will lose many current Mathematics Educators with at least a Masters level training in Mathematics, and ECU will be trying to fill the vacated positions in the School of Ed during an acute shortage of Mathematics Educators.  Mathematics Educators with a strong mathematics background will have their pick of positions in mathematics departments across the country (See Appendices 5, 6, and 7, along with the data below).  The School of Education will tend to attract a person with a wider ranging education background and less mathematics training.  This will ultimately impact quality of programs, if they are moved.

 

The November 2000 Notices of the American Mathematical Society contains an article discussing the acute shortage of Doctorates in Mathematics Education, noting the then nearly 300 to 100 ratio of job openings to doctorates in Mathematics Education.  There is also an anticipated retirement wave of an estimated 80% of mathematics education faculty at doctoral granting institutions this decade.  Hiring trends are also discussed:

 

“A newly emerging job placement for doctorates in mathematics education is taking place within mathematics departments actively seeking mathematics educators not only to teach mathematics and mathematics education classes but also to engage and lead research in the teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics.  This trend confirms a growing acceptance and expectation of scholarship based on research in mathematics education for faculty in mathematics departments.” 

 

--Robert E. Reys

                                      AMS Notices, Nov 2000

                                      (See Appendix 5)

 

 

The February 2002 Notices of the American Mathematical Society contains an article discussing trends in Mathematics Education hiring, including documentation on national searches advertised in 2000-2001 for doctorates in Mathematics Education for positions at higher education institutions.  Of the 134 advertised positions:

 

“Over half (51%) of the positions were in mathematics departments, 44% were in schools of education, and the remaining positions were joint appointments.”

-- Robert E. Reys

   AMS Notices, Feb 2002

       (See Appendix 6)

 

49% of these advertised 2000-2001 Mathematics Education positions went unfilled, with many of these positions being in the third year of remaining unfilled.

 

National trends do show an emerging pattern of including Mathematics Education faculty within Mathematics Departments.  Furthermore, of these 2000-2001 advertised positions, the February AMS Reys article indicates that among Doctoral Intensive Universities

·         18 Math Education positions were in Math Departments, and

·         8 Math Education positions were in Schools of Education

(AMS Notices, Feb 2002, Appendix 6).

 

 A survey conducted at ECU for the current 2001-2002 academic year hiring revealed that as of Dec 5^th, 2001, there were 166 positions advertised in Mathematics Education, with:

·        64% (100 of 166) of Math Ed positions falling in Math Departments, and

·         36% (60 of 166) of Math Ed positions falling in Schools of Education. 

                        (See Appendix 7 for details and sources).

 

7)         Location of Teacher Preparation Programs: As a matter of principle, we believe that teacher preparation best occurs when the program is housed in the department of the discipline.  (See Point 2 above, regarding collaboration, DPI guidelines, and AMS recommendations).  Just as music education is housed in the School of Music, we believe most teacher preparation programs benefit from being housed within the department of content discipline, and they belong there.  The B.S for the preparation of teachers in mathematics is a Mathematics degree.  There are numerous benefits in leaving it a Mathematics degree, including the benefits of high standards, multiple career options for the students, and strong collaboration between mathematicians and math educators (see Points 1 and 2).  In addition, we support the efforts of our colleagues in History and English to retain their teacher preparation programs.

 

8)         Impact on the Math Department: There would be damage to quality in several programs in the Mathematics Department if Math Education were to be moved to the School of Education. In addition to quality issues involving the B.S. and M.A.Ed., our entire graduate program would be put at severe risk with the loss of the M.A.Ed., risking placing the graduate program in permanent low productivity status.  Over the last 10 years (since Fall 1991), and excluding Computer Science degrees:

• 57% of the Mathematics Department’s total undergraduate degrees awarded have been B.S. degrees (104 B.S. degrees and 79 B.A. degrees),
• 51% of the Mathematics Department’s total graduate degrees awarded have been M.A.Ed. degrees (30 M.A.Ed. degrees and 29 M.A. degrees),
• at least 24% of our M.A. graduates (7 of 29) and at least 50% of our M.A.Ed. graduates (15 of 30) received a B.S. in Mathematics degree from ECU,
• B.S. Mathematics graduates have been the main source of mathematics graduate students at ECU,
• The majority of our majors and of our graduates pursues Mathematics Education.

 

Furthermore,

• M.A. and M.A.Ed. student totals count together toward the Mathematics Graduate Program’s productivity measures,
• The newly designed M.A.Ed. is projected to deliver a large increase in the number of graduate students for our department,
• The Graduate Program in Mathematics has been in the “Low Productivity” category for the last 6 years (even with the M.A.Ed. students included in the counts, which fell just below the total enrollment cutoff),
• The loss of the M.A.Ed. and B.S. degrees would destabilize our Graduate Program:

o       The loss of the B.S. degree would remove our main source of graduate students,

o       The loss of the newly redesigned M.A.Ed. would remove our highest-growth program,

o       The loss of our B.S. and of our M.A.Ed. degrees would create a perhaps insurmountable hurdle in raising our Graduate Program from the “Low Productivity” status,

o       Low Productivity status leaves the whole Graduate Program (including the M.A.) at risk,

o       Even the potential loss or curtailment of the Graduate Program impacts recruiting of faculty and students, and thus diminishes quality on many fronts, including the quality of the B.S. and M.A.Ed. degrees.

 

 

 

“This is written to express my opinion that we can unquestionably maintain the graduate programs at levels which will not generate another low-productivity review as long as the M.A. and M.A. Ed. in Mathematics are counted together.  I don't see any way we can possibly avoid such reviews on M.A. numbers alone.”

 

 

--John Daughtry

  Director of Graduate Studies

  ECU Department of Mathematics

 

 

 

 Professor Daughtry adds student survey data:

 

“I will summarize here …

1.        M.A. (mathematics) students believe that it is important that mathematics education be located in the Mathematics Department.

2.        M.A.Ed. students prefer to have their degrees from Mathematics Departments.

3.        Most East Carolina University students planning to major in mathematics want to become certified to teach secondary education.”

--John Daughtry

  Director of Graduate Studies

  ECU Department of Mathematics

  See Appendix 8 for additional survey details.

 

The Math Department values: its Math Education colleagues; its students pursuing degrees in Mathematics for Teacher Preparation; the collaboration, program and curriculum design underway with the cooperation of its math educators and mathematicians; and the synergy that exists under the current arrangement.  These provide optimal quality on a number of fronts.

 

9)         Outside Review: The Mathematics department has repeatedly requested an outside review by a panel of experts such as from the Mathematical Sciences Education Board.  Such an informed review of quality and programs would add valuable perspective to the debate over movement of Mathematics Education programs.  Others have expressed their opposition to the proposed movement and joined in the request for an external review.  These include ECU graduates of the affected programs, NCCTM members, community based groups, and informed individuals (See Appendix 9).  We have been denied all of these requests.  We are aware of similar external reviews at one sister UNC institution. The final recommendation was to keep Mathematics Education housed in Mathematics.  Outside review on this major question on the future and quality of Math Education, as well as Mathematics, at ECU is a reasonable request.

 

While the Math Department at ECU has been denied its request for an external review team to evaluate the merits of the proposed move of the Math Education faculty and programs to the School of Education, our sister institution at UNC-Charlotte did face a similar proposal to move Math Education from the Department of Mathematics to their College of Education.  They studied the question and brought in an external review team for professional advice.  The team stated:

 

“…we understood that there has been some discussion of whether or not the mathematics education unit might be more appropriately located within the College of Education.  In our view, the best place for mathematics education at UNCC is in the Mathematics Department.  UNC Charlotte has a long and distinguished history of providing mathematics education leadership in the region, in the state, and nationally, and has done so from the perspective of a mathematics-based program.  This placement grounds programmatic efforts in mathematics education within the context of an active mathematics department, allowing the program to capitalize on the strengths of interested mathematicians.  Ultimately, this connection to mathematics content will strengthen the preparation of teachers in important ways.  We could not find any strong rationale for a move to the College of Education.”

              -- Final Report

                 Mathematics Education External Review Panel

                 Les Steffe, Erna Yackel, Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Chair

                                                September, 1998

                     (See Appendix 10)

 

Without the undertaking of an outside review, ECU should rely on the advice of its experts in the Math Department:  keep the highest quality of programs and the best environment for collaboration by retaining Mathematics Education in the Mathematics Department and by supporting their important efforts to improve the mathematical training and understanding of prospective and in-service teachers. 

 

10)     NCATE Issues in Review of Programs: Collaboration between content experts and education experts, as sought by NCATE, is optimal and produces the highest quality programs when Mathematics Education is housed in Mathematics (see Point 2 above).  As an illustration, at the opening session for National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the Dean of the School of Education ceded 15 minutes of her address so that a presentation could be made on one of the teacher education programs. This presentation was on the “Middle Grades Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program,” presented by Sid Rachlin, Mathematics, Ann Bullock, School of Education, and Ron Preston, Mathematics. This presentation was highlighted as a pocket of excellence (the program had just won a national award for teacher preparation from the U. S. Department of Education) in teacher education at ECU and as an example of collaboration between the School of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences.  We have demonstrated that this pocket of excellence was made possible by the location of Mathematics Education in the Mathematics Department (see Point 2 above).

 

In a meeting between the Math Department and the VCAA, the Dean of the College Arts and Sciences and the Dean of the School of Education held September 7, 2001, the Dean of Arts and Sciences was asked why he had previously characterized the location of the Math Education programs as a “dead issue” and now was proposing to move them.  He answered that there was concern that this was an NCATE governance and accreditation issue.  We produced then, and produce again now, a statement from Wendy Wiggins, Director of NCATE Program Reviews to the contrary. NCATE supports, and even expects, that teacher preparation programs be housed in the department of the content specialty.

 

“Programs that are organized around a specific discipline such as math are usually located in the unit that houses the discipline (e.g. music, arts and sciences, business)."

 

--Wendy C. Wiggins           

  Director of Program Reviews, NCATE   September 6, 2001

  (See Appendix 11and the Rebuttal Section 1 Bullet 2 for a 

   full set of NCATE related statements)  

 

Among the 100 schools advertising for positions for Mathematics Education doctorates in their Mathematics Departments in 2001-2002, 69 out of the 100 schools were NCATE accredited (See Appendix 7).

 

 

11)     Programs that previously moved to the School of Education

Science Education was housed in the College of Arts and Sciences in the early 1990’s. Science Math Technology Education Network Center (formerly called the Science Math Education Network Center) was housed jointly in the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Education until the mid 1990’s.  Broadcasting was housed in the College of Arts and Sciences until its movement to the School of Education, from which it was subsequently moved and recombined with Communications in the new School of Communications and Computer Science in 2000.  In weighing the current proposal to move programs to the School of Education, consideration should be given to the track record of programs previously transferred to the School of Education.  Faculty members have questioned whether the above three programs have flourished upon transfer, and they have raised concerns about resource allocation issues for such transferred programs.  Ultimately this raises concerns for quality of programs.  Quality of Mathematics Education programs should not be put at risk by moving them. 

 

 

Section III

Additional Points of Importance

 

12)     Curriculum: A tenet of faculty governance is that curriculum is the responsibility of faculty. 

 

“Curriculum Development is a faculty responsibility.”

                  --ECU Faculty Manual

                    Part V, Section III

 

Movement of these programs over strong opposition of the faculty members of the content departments involved poses issues that can threaten faculty responsibility for curriculum.  The mathematics department sees this proposal as falling under the domain of curriculum.  We wish to retain oversight of the mathematics and mathematics education curriculum for math education students.  We do not wish to be compelled to align our curricular philosophies with those of the Dean of Arts and Sciences.  The faculty members of the impacted departments in the College of Arts and Sciences have spoken clearly on this matter:

 

Unit	Yes	No	Abstain	Unit Supervisor
English	3	22	2	Non-Concur
History	4	10	0	Non-Concur
Mathematics	6	11	1	Non-Concur
Education	24	6	4	Concur

 

Furthermore, the Mathematics Department passed a Resolution on Mathematics Education at ECU in September, 2001, supporting the retention of Mathematics Education programs and faculty in the Mathematics Department and calling for an outside review. (See Appendix 9).  The Resolution passed 18 in favor, 4 opposed, with 1 abstention.  In October, 2001, the Mathematics Education Area unanimously affirmed the Resolution by 9 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstentions.   We request that, during their deliberations, the Education Policies and Planning Committee, the Faculty Senate, and the Chancellor weigh carefully these clear expressions faculty concern.

 

13)     Removal of Tenured Faculty: Moving such a large number of tenured faculty against their will from the department in which they hold tenure would be an unprecedented event at ECU.  This should be of concern to all faculty members at ECU.  We see it as an abridgement of faculty rights and also as a matter of keeping one’s word and hiring in good faith.  The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences oversaw and approved the hiring, tenure, and/or promotion of every tenured Mathematics Education faculty member under consideration for being moved, with the exception of one.  He also oversaw the hiring of every untenured Mathematics Education faculty member under consideration for movement.  These faculty members came to ECU with the expectation of working in the environment of the Mathematics Department.  Their research, grant efforts, and career strategies were made with this central fact in mind.  We have pointed out in Points 1, 2, and 3 above how this benefits our students and produces the highest quality programs.

 

14)     Removal of Untenured Faculty: At least one untenured faculty member’s contract explicitly states that the position being offered was in the Department of Mathematics. The hiring issues holding in Point 13 also hold here.

 

15)     Timing: This proposal occurs when we have no permanent Chair in Mathematics.  An Interim Chair from the Dean’s Office and the Department of English currently oversees the Mathematics Department.  The proposal also occurs when we have a newly appointed Interim VCAA and a newly appointed Chancellor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section IV

Point by Point Response

to the

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.”  --Basis

 

The claim is made that “Locating these programs within the SOE would allow the Dean of Education more direct input…” in a number of areas.  However, a true collaborative, responsible, and collegial approach on the part of the College of Arts and Sciences should already ensure direct input by the Dean of Education in all aspects relating to the preparation of prospective teachers.   The Mathematics Education Area consults with the Dean of the School of Education in the hiring of all Mathematics Educators, as well as in their review and assignment.  Every curriculum matter in Mathematics Education must be approved by the Council of Teacher Education chaired by the Director of Teacher Education who reports directly to the Dean of the School of Education.  Mathematics Education is a leader within the University in the area of developmental field experiences, having initiated the University’s first early field experience for prospective teachers, Math 2123. The Math Department also led the University by instituting additional field experiences Math 3004, 3005, and 3006.  The Mathematics Education Internship in the public schools is supervised by Mathematics Education faculty. Adjunct faculty often supervise internships in other teacher education programs.  Content pedagogy is claimed to “receive more focused attention if the programs were housed in the School of Education”.   There is no basis for this claim.  Content pedagogy is a central focus in the department of the discipline and can best be handled by a true working collaboration between mathematicians and math educators. Such collaboration already exists in the ECU Mathematics Department. This collaboration would risk being impaired by removing math educators from the environment of the Mathematics Department. 

 

·        “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.” --Basis

 

The claim is made that moving these programs and 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 put forth by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.”  This claim neglects to point out that the majority of Teacher Education programs lie outside of the School of Education.  Furthermore, this claim is contradicted in direct statements by the Director of NCATE Program Review, Wendy Wiggins, who, referring to the School of Education as the unit, states:

 

“ …there is no expectation or recommendation that the unit house the programs that it oversees.”

 

Wendy C. Wiggins        (see Appendix 11 for full statement)

Director of Program Reviews, NCATE   November 30, 2001

 

 

Wendy Wiggins also indicates:

 

"It does not matter where programs are housed, as long as the institution can demonstrate overall coordination and oversight of the education programs, under the auspices of the professional education unit.  …"

 

"My sense is that in the majority of institutions, the unit of professional education on campus may house only early childhood, elementary, and perhaps special education.  Programs that are organized around a specific discipline such as math are usually located in the unit that houses the discipline (e.g. music, arts and sciences, business)."

 

Wendy C. Wiggins        (see Appendix 11 for full statement)

Director of Program Reviews, NCATE   September 6, 2001

 

In a response to Rose Sinicrope, the Coordinator of Math Education at ECU,

NCATE program reviewer Denisse Thompson says

 

“…as I recall from the NCATE visit, there was some initial concern about who exercised control over teacher education but it was finally resolved after lots of probing.”

 

“I think that if I were at ECU, I might share your concern about such a move. …”

 

“I think there may be a misinterpretation of NCATE policy. … It seems that because math ed is in a math department that you have the types of links with arts and sciences faculty that are often not found at other places but that NCATE wants to see occur.”

                                                      (see Appendix 11 for full statement)

Denisse R. Thompson, Ph.D.                      November 30, 2001

Associate Professor of Mathematics Education

University of South Florida  

 

 

During the last NCATE review ECU’s teacher education programs were given a clean bill of health, across the board.  During the NCATE visit, Middle Grades Mathematics Preparation was highlighted as a pocket of excellence.  Sid Rachlin, Ron Preston, and Ann Bullock were asked to make a presentation to NCATE representatives.

 

The claim that there are governance issues with NCATE has not been supported.  Furthermore, the claim that such alleged issues would be resolved by moving just Math Education, History, and English teacher preparation programs from Arts and Sciences to the School of Education while leaving those of Psychology, Foreign Languages, and Dance & Theatre in the college is clearly inconsistent.  There are 38 teacher education programs at ECU, with 23 of these programs housed outside the School of Education.  If there were a governance issue, it would be a global concern, not a selective concern. 

 

·          “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.”  --Basis

 

The claim is made that the “current decentralization of teacher education programs and faculty implies that ECU does not recognize teacher education programs as worthy of unification.”  One can turn this statement around to read that the current proposal to centralize teacher education programs and faculty implies that ECU does not recognize teacher education programs as worthy of permeating the University, as they have throughout the entire history of ECU.  

 

 “Good teachers need to be educated not solely by members of a single department or school, but rather by faculty throughout the entire institution.  Disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical understanding, and clinical skills are all essential to the education of a teacher.  … The preparation of teachers relies heavily on arts and sciences faculty, as well as on education faculty.  Learning in the discipline and clinical practice must be brought together into a cohesive whole.  Such integration must occur at the campus level, and it must be driven by the sense of urgency and necessity that presidential leadership commands.”

                                 --ACE, 1999 (See Appendix 13)

 

The above statement on decentralization quoted from the Basis neglects the fact that the proposal is not a proposal to centralize teacher education programs, since at least 17 teacher education programs would remain outside the School of Ed after any implementation of the proposal (23 current programs less the 6 programs proposed to be moved).  The proposal further states that the Arts and Sciences teacher education faculty, and their courses and curricula, are now “somewhat marginalized within the College of Arts and Sciences.”   This is a startling admission of neglect at the administrative level.  Within the Mathematics Department the Math Educators are a premiere group, have the status of their own Math Education Area (equivalent to the Math Area and the Statistics Area), enjoy a key role in the department, and collaborate and interact with math faculty in curricular, research, and grant projects.  If there is any “marginalization”, it is occurring externally to the department, at higher administrative levels, and we urge our administrators to correct this, not by harming the Mathematics Education group at ECU, but by changing their administrative philosophy and by adopting a more collaborative and interdisciplinary approach.  Administrators who remain unwilling to adopt such a philosophy should be removed. 

 

To the Basis claim that the “College’s teacher education faculty, their courses and curricula would enjoy centrality of mission in the School of Education” we point out that Mathematics Education enjoys centrality of mission in the Mathematics Department.  We cite the Code of Operations of the Department of Mathematics:

 

“…The Principal objectives of the Department are:

 

To provide and support broad liberal and professional education in the disciplines of computer science, mathematics, mathematics education, and statistics that prepare students for life-long learning and that nurture greater comprehension of the truths, precision, and deductive reasoning that characterize these disciplines.

 

To prepare students for meaningful careers in teaching, research, and other professions.

 

To promote programs of excellence in the aforementioned disciplines and to encourage participation of its students and faculty in the professional and cultural activities of those disciplines. …”

 

-Code of Operations of the Mathematics Department (Approved 1997)

    Section I. Departmental Objectives

    (See Appendix 12)

 

And

 

“teacher education in mathematics should be a central mission of our mathematics and education departments.”

    - William “Brit” Kirwan, President, The Ohio State University

      in Focus, the Newsletter of the Mathematical Association of

      America, January, 2002

 

Furthermore the College of Arts and Sciences Constitution points specifically includes teacher preparation programs, as does our Undergraduate Catalogue:

 

“…the College shall offer teacher education and other professional programs related to the traditional academic disciplines.”  

      -- Constitution, College of Arts and Sciences

   See also the Rebuttal to the Basis, below, Section 5 bullet 2.

 

“In addition to its liberal arts programs, the college offers teacher education programs related to its traditional academic disciplines.”

            -- ECU Undergraduate Catalogue, page 70

 

Also note that it will be necessary to keep teacher preparation within the College of Arts and Sciences’ Constitution because teacher preparation programs will still be remaining in the College.

 

·        “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.”  --Basis

 

Some teacher preparation programs are targeted for removal from the College of Arts and Sciences while other programs remain in the College (a total of 17 programs would remain outside of the School of Education).  The stated rationale for this is that the remaining programs “appear to be integrated into the fabric of their home units, are aligned with standards in their own disciplines, and are working closely with the public schools.”  By these standards, Mathematics Education, should certainly remain within the Department of Mathematics.  Math Ed is indeed well integrated into, and in fact a key component of, the Mathematics Department; Math Education is recognized (under research designation 97 of the American Mathematical Society, see Appendix 4) as conducting research within Mathematics and it is governed by the standards in their own sub-discipline of Mathematics; and our Math Educators are indeed working closely with the public schools.  Since it would be prohibitive to obtain the specialized expertise in the school of education for such programs as Music Education, most individuals recognize that locating such programs within their area of content specialty is desirable.  A parallel situation exists with Math Education, which has evolved into a specialized sub-discipline of its own with strong interaction with mathematicians in other sub-disciplines of mathematics.  Such interactive and collaborative efforts are supported by national policy at the American Mathematical Society, the Mathematical Association of America, and the National Science Foundation Division of Mathematical Sciences.  (See Point 5 in Section II, and also Section 1 Bullet 2 of the Rebuttal )

 

·        “Reassigning the College’s teacher education programs and faculty would bring ECU’s organizational chart into closer conformity with national models.”  --Basis

 

The claim is made that the proposal would bring us into “closer conformity with national models.”  A listing of some schools with math education faculty housed in their math departments includes: Arizona State University, Michigan State University, Ohio University, San Diego State University, University of Alabama, University of Arizona, University of Delaware, University of Maine, University of New Mexico, University of Minnesota, Texas Tech University, (see Appendix 7 for additional schools).  Our Mathematics Education programs are of high quality and are cited nationally.  The Math Middle Grades Concentration has been recently redesigned with National Science Foundation funding based on collaborative efforts between mathematicians, mathematics educators, and educators.  The support from NSF was based on the collaborative environment between mathematicians and math educators afforded by our current housing of math education in the mathematics department.  The program received national recognition from the U.S. Department of Education, with a “National Award for Effective Teacher Preparation, Middle School Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program” in December, 2000.  The Middle Grades programs are overseen by the School of Education, and the Math Middle Grades Concentration is based in the Math Department.  Our program for the preparation of Secondary Teachers is also an outstanding program.  The current Mathematics Education group is an outstanding, nationally and internationally recognized group.  The current arrangement, based on Mathematics Education being located in the Mathematics Department, is indeed ahead of the curve and in alignment with national trends.  Of the current advertised positions in Mathematics Education, 64% (106 of 166 positions) are in departments of Mathematics while 36% (60 of 166 positions) are in schools of Education.  National policy espousing collaboration of mathematicians with math educators is endorsed and recognized by the American Mathematical Society, the Mathematical Association of America, and the National Sciences Foundation Division of Mathematical Sciences.

 

 

 

2. Clarifying 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.”  --Basis

 

The administration of the College of Arts and Sciences is quite capable of incorporating the cited “Faculty Evaluation Rubrics” into its reward structure.  Standards for faculty reward and recognition are, and should remain, based on the standards of the sub-discipline of the faculty member.  National policy espousing collaboration of mathematicians with math educators is endorsed and recognized by the American Mathematical Society, the Mathematical Association of America, and the National Sciences Foundation Division of Mathematical Sciences.  Arts and Sciences should heed these policy statements, and it should recognize, reward, and promote faculty and initiatives in Mathematics Education, not by removing them from Arts and Sciences, but by reaffirming, supporting, and rewarding them according to the standards of their sub-discipline. The College should also recognize the value of faculty and programs involved in interdisciplinary and collaborative efforts.

 

3.  Strengthening 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.”  --Basis

 

The proposal asserts that 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.”  This assertion overlooks the rich, long-term collaboration between mathematicians and mathematics educators afforded by the Mathematics Department.  The following (asterisked) members of the Mathematics Department (all of them mathematicians, statisticians, or computer scientists) have collaborated with mathematics educators and with educators from the School of Ed:

 

Middle Grades Initiatives and Curriculum Innovation: Mary Eron*, Bob Bernhardt*, Mike Hoekstra*, Mike Spurr*, Tim Hudson*, Zach Robinson*, Janet Prichard*, Heather Ries*, Katherine Stanley, Sid Rachlin, Ron Preston, Sunday Ajose, Rose Sinicrope, Anthony Thompson.

 

Praxis Exam Preparation Initiatives:  Robert Bernhardt*, Tim Hudson*, Alexandra Shlapentokh*, Rose Sinicrope, Michael Spurr*, Helen Parke, Parmalee Hawk, Melva Burke, Al Muller, Jan Stennette, and numerous other faculty members.

 

Math Contest:  Robert Bernhardt*, Said Said*, Alexandra Shlapentokh*, Michael Spurr*, Rose Sinicrope, Ellen Hilgoe, Katalin Szucs, Tim Hudson*, Robert Joyner, Ron Preston, Jim Wirth*.

 

Talks in Public Schools:  Robert Bernhardt*, John Daughtry*, Said Said*, Michael Spurr*, Rose Sinicrope, Ron Preston

 

Math Counts:  Chris Carolan*, David Pravica*, M.S. Ravi*, Heather Ries*, Michael Spurr*, Rose Sinicrope, Valerie DeBellis, Robert Joyner, Virginia Ann Joyner, Ron Preston, Kathy Stanley.

 

Furthermore, the current arrangement has fostered collaboration between mathematicians/math-educators and Psychology, School of Art, Child Development Lab, CDFR, and others.

 

·          “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.” --Basis

 

Collaboration between mathematicians and math educators is extremely high with Mathematics Education housed in Mathematics.  Such collaboration will be harmed by the relocation of Mathematics Education to the School of Education, first by the loss of current Mathematics Educators who will leave ECU if Mathematics Education is relocated, and second by the lessened opportunity to interact.  Mathematics Education indeed has a legitimate place in the College of Arts and Sciences. 

 

 

 

4.  Facilitation of 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.”  –Basis

 

This point involves English and Social Studies Education. The faculties of English and History have voted overwhelmingly to keep these programs in their respective departments in the College of Arts and Sciences.  We voice our strong support of our colleagues’ stance.  Leaving these programs in English and Social Studies would allow for the design of an interdisciplinary Ph.D. program.

 

·        “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.”  –Basis

 

Merging of Science Education and Math Education into a single department is proposed.  It is presumed that this may result in collaboration on that front.  Science Education was previously housed in the College of Arts and Sciences, but we understand that, subsequent to its being moved to the School of Education, Science Ed has not flourished. Our concern is that a similar fate awaits Math Education.  Several current Mathematics Educators will depart ECU if the proposal to relocate is effected.   Loss of these faculty members will hurt current efforts to develop an inter-institutional joint PhD program.  While there may be some new program development in the School of Education, it will be at the cost of abandoning a more desirable Mathematics based inter-institutional or interdisciplinary program in favor of an Education program.  It will also be at cost of having Mathematics Department’s M.A. and entire graduate program being put at severe risk by such relocation.  BS in Mathematics graduates comprise the majority of the Math Department’s undergraduate majors and constitute the main source of the Mathematics Graduate program’s students.  Loss of the M.A.Ed. in Mathematics Education (with its high projected growth and with its accompanying majority of Graduate degrees in Mathematics) will place the entire Mathematics graduate program – M.A. and M.A.Ed. -- at risk, all at a time when the department has been close to overcoming low-productivity graduate designation.  The current location of Math Education best allows for the integration of mathematics and pedagogy in the presentation of current mathematics courses and in the re-design of curriculum. 

 

All of the M.A.Ed. programs in the School of Education have the same required 12 hours of core courses.  The Mathematics M.A.Ed. has a different set of required core courses, 6 hours of which overlap with School of Education’s core requirements.  Transferring the Mathematics M.A.Ed. may lead to curtailment of Mathematics and Mathematics Education content courses (which include pedagogical topics) so as to align with Education’s common core requirements.  Quality would be impacted.

 

During the Dec 14, 2001 presentation of the Proposal to move Math Ed, the Dean of Arts and Sciences mentioned the possibility of a potential PhD program supported by the combined faculty of Science Education and Mathematics Education.  Several Math Educators feel that such a possible future joint PhD would lack cohesion due to wide ranging interests on the Science Ed side and a focused set of interests on the Math Ed side.  The feeling among Math Education faculty is a strong preference for a cross-institutional doctoral. Leaving Mathematics Education in the Mathematics Department would also leave open the option to pursue an interdisciplinary degree.

 

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.” --Basis

 

The mathematicians and math educators recognize the need for full collaboration, among themselves and also in conjunction with the School of Education.  We are unaware of any instances where one could say that we have not maintained excellent collaboration.  The current structure is working well and resulting in: outstanding and visible programs for our students, a national award winning program, outstanding Mathematics Education faculty, and much collaborative interaction.  Relocation has severe risks of diminishing this and of irrevocably harming the Mathematics Department.

 

·          “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.”  --Basis

 

To the claim that “reassigning the College’s teacher education programs and faculty would further clarify the College’s liberal arts mission” we cite the Constitution of the College of Arts and Sciences mission statement:

 

“In addition to its programs in the liberal arts, the College shall offer teacher education and other professional programs related to the traditional academic disciplines. Students majoring in these programs shall learn the basic theories and practices in their fields while preparing themselves for leadership roles and careers.”  

-- Constitution, College of Arts and Sciences

Drafting Committee:

W. Keats Sparrow, Chair             Chia-yu Li

      George Bailey                       Susan McDaniel

      Carson Bays                         Tinsley E. Yarbrough

      Stella Daugherty                    9/92

                                                                       

Keeping the Mathematics Education programs and faculty in the Mathematics Department gives the optimum relationship between Mathematics Educators and Mathematicians, yields the strongest quality program for our students, and underlines the fundamental relationship between the liberal arts and teaching.  Broad outreach and interdisciplinary undertaking further underscore the value of liberal arts in academia and the professions.

 

The claim is also made that relocating Math Education will “enhance ECU’s quest to establish a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.”  This claim is made without noting that relocating our B.S. program will remove the Mathematics Department’s highest performing majors. These are the B.S. graduates in Mathematics, with their 35% rate of reception of University Honors (cum laude, magna cum laude, and summa cum laude; 36 University Honors out of 104 graduates over the last 10 years since Fall 1991).  The superior record of the B.S. Mathematics graduates would strengthen our case for Phi Beta Kappa, should they remain in the Mathematics Department.  Their 35% rate compares favorably with a strong 19% rate of reception of University Honors by B.A. in Mathematics graduates (15 University Honors out of 79 graduates since Fall 1991).  We are supportive of efforts to obtain a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa at ECU.  Keeping our pool of superior B.S. students should help in that effort.

 

There are a number of universities with Phi Beta Kappa chapters and with Math Education faculty and programs in the Math Department.  This includes:

·        University of California at Davis

·        University of New Hampshire

·        University of Arizona (PhD in Math Ed in Math Dept, BS in Ed)

·        California State University at Long Beach

·         Baylor University

·         Arizona State University

 

There are also a number of universities with Phi Beta Kappa chapters and with Mathematics Departments seeking to hire Mathematics Educators in 2001-2002. These include

·        Arizona State University

·        Bowling Green State University

·        Michigan State University

·        Ohio University

·        San Diego State University

·        University of Alabama

·        University of Arizona

·        University of Delaware

·        University of Maine

·        University of New Mexico

·        Western Michigan University

·        West Virginia University                  (See Appendix 7).

As an overall final point, we emphasize that the rationale for the proposed move does not provide any evidence for likely improvement in the B.S. in Mathematics Education and the M.A.Ed. in Mathematics Education programs should such a move of these programs to the School of Education take place.   The concept of benefit to the students of these programs is not mentioned.  The primary consideration in deciding the location of Mathematics Education should be: which location affords the highest quality Mathematics Education program and the best education for our students.  We have offered much evidence here and elsewhere as to the highest quality of our programs supported in their current location.  Furthermore, we are supported by national trends and national policy statements from the ACE, AMS, MAA, and NSF.