We would like to take this opportunity to thank the EPPC and George Bailey for their efforts and hard work.
We would also like to thank Bob Morrison and Bob Thompson for ensuring that the issue of moving teacher education programs would be fully discussed under Appendix L.
We will visit several themes in this discussion:
1) Quality, a theme woven throughout, and ensured by
Oversight of Content by Content Experts.
2) Collaborationat many levels.
3) Policyissues.
4) Ideas behind the Proposal to Move Teacher Education Programs.
5) Consequencesof movement and consideration of the Pros/Cons.
6) We defend against some of the many unsubstantiated assertions raised.
7) The System of Checks and Balances at ECU.
8) We pose constructive suggestions for resolution.
9) Summary& Documentation by each side in support of their cases.
Our argument can be summarized as follows: our current model and the optimal collaboration it fosters are effective, outstanding, cutting edge, and of national visibility. Oversight of Content by content experts working together with content educators is crucial in ensuring quality of programs. The proposed move would break up our faculty and diminish collaboration and it would remove oversight of content by content experts.
Theme 1: Quality of Programs, Faculty, and Graduates; Background.
Mathematics Education has been a cornerstoneof the Mathematics Department for our entire history.
Our commitment to Mathematics Education is deep and of long duration and it is built into our Departmental mission as well as the mission of the College of Arts and Sciences.
Our model entails having Secondary and Graduate Math Education students earn their degree from the Math Department, where Mathematicians and Mathematics Educators work together to ensure the highest quality programs and rigorous educational study. The Mathematics degree provides our students greater versatility and opportunity.
Fundamental question: Karen Elberson: Does a national model exist, and if so does it imply excellence? After aspiring to a national model in the BASIS, our deans admit that no one prevalent model exists. We have demonstrated for you the excellence of our model, its results, and the national trends moving in the direction of our model.
A majority of our majors and of our graduate students have been Mathematics Education graduates.
Our Mathematics Education faculty holds national visibility.
All of them have a deep background in Mathematics to complement their expertise in Mathematics Education (this is not the case with all Math Ed doctorates). In addition all of our tenured or tenure-track Math Ed faculty have taught in the public schools and are aware of the pragmatic issues confronting classroom teachers. They have made numerous contributions at all levels, including applied research for classroom use and delivery of materials for teachers in the schools, as well as in addition to cutting edge research in Mathematics Education.
We at ECU have been able to build our outstanding Math Ed group in spite of a national shortage of Math Educators because of two attractions:
i) ECU’s housing of Math Education within the Math Department,
ii) Our history of involvement with Mathematics Education.
All have met and will continue to meet CAS tenure/promotion criteria.
Our students are outstanding with a strong background in Mathematics,
Mathematics Education, and Pedagogy. They have received numerous awards, including:
National Board Certification, Teacher of the Year, Milken Foundation Award, Etc.
They have all earned the value and the prestige of a degree in Mathematics, and they take great pride in their degree and their department.
Our emphasis has been on providing our students a high quality and rigorous
backgroundin both content and pedagogy, including the areas of content pedagogy and clinical and field experience. We have provided our students with rich and varied teaching strategies. The Math Dept has led university in clinical/field experiences.
We have invested much thought and design into our newly revised MAEd in Mathematics Education, which is projected for strong enrollment growth. Together with our MA in Mathematics, the MAEd will provide healthy productivity numbers:
|
Current Enrollment MAEd
|
17
|
2 full time
|
|
Current Enrollment MA
|
10
|
6 full time
|
|
Total Enrollment
|
27
|
8 full time
|
If the snapshot were taken today, we would have healthy productivity numbers for our graduate program. Without the MAEd students, the enrollment of 10 MA students would leave us far from the total enrollment cut-off, and would put our graduate program at risk.
We have been laying the foundation to build an inter-institutional PhD program within the UNC system. This would provide a super Math Ed program, with several Math-based Mathematics Education groups participating. Patiently laying the foundation for highest quality will pay off. If movement is effected, the core of the Math Ed group will depart leaving the PhD unsupported (5 of 8 Math Educators will leave).
Our focus has been on our students and on high quality programs, which gives the best preparation of teachers of Mathematics and ultimately serves the best interest of the public school students in our area. Our students are graduating as leaders in content-based delivery of mathematics.
Theme 2: Collaboration
Our department and Math Ed group and students have strong connections
with and service for the public school system. One of many avenues
for maintaining these services and connections is the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and the NCCTM (North Carolina Council for Teachers of Mathematics) where we have been very active.
We have an excellent and long history of rich collaboration between mathematicians and mathematics educators fostered by the collegiality of being partners in the same department where we share common goals. This collaboration is fundamental to our efforts to best serve our students. It is optimized when mathematics educators and mathematicians work together in the same department.
This collaboration has led to a number of improvements, including:
1) The joint teaching (by both Mathematicians and Math Educators) of content courses, and the curriculum oversight of mathematics content courses. These include Algebraic Concepts (Math 1067) and Discrete math and PreCalculus (1077).
2) The collaboration on teaching strategies and technology issues in content courses such as Calculus, Linear Algebra, Statistics, and Modern Algebra taken by all Mathematics majors.
3) The collaborative production of innovative new curricula and programs.
The fact is that schools across the country are turning to us as a national model. The ECU model is respected and the U.S. Department of Education award for Middle Grades Mathematics (the only such program ever to receive such a DOE award) demonstrates the national recognition our model has generated. Hiring data document the trend toward the model we have already developed (2/3 of advertised positions for Math Ed doctorates (both PhD and EdD) are in math departments).
Our collaboration with the public schools is exemplary.
We stop briefly to exhibit some of our applied work impacting the public schools. We emphasize that our contributions are made at many levels including the classroom application level as well as the cutting edge of Mathematics Education research.
Theme 3: Policy
Our contention is that Teacher Education in general, is of such importance that it requires oversight from content units and participation by the university as a whole. We repeat this statement even more forcefully for the so-called “core” programs, including mathematics education. They are too crucial to be left in the sole hands of the School of Education; the content of the “core” curricula needs to be overseen by content experts, as is best done when the degree is obtained from the content department where content and content education faculty collaborate and interact naturally. Laura Bush: “Unfortunately, too many teachers don’t have a deep knowledge of the subjects they teach. And they know it.” 3/14/02 US House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
CITE ACE
“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.”
--ACE, 1999
That is teacher education is not the sole responsibility of the SOE, but rather of the entire university.
“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
That is, Arts and Sciences faculty have a key role in the preparation of
teachers.
Hiring Data Trends in Mathematics Education in Mathematics
64%, that is 106 of 166 positions for Math Ed doctorates are in Math Departments; only ~100 new Math Ed doctorates are produced each year; many of these new doctorates return to the school systems rather than academia; we are faced with a severe shortage of Math Educators
Reminder of National Policy
(AMS, MAA, ACE, NSF national policy and initiatives support our
model)
UNC Charlotte review: External review supported retaining Math Ed in
Mathat Charlotte, and their recommendations were adopted.
Community Support favors our model. This includes our current students, our Math Ed graduates, along with teachers in the field, community groups, CAR, and other concerned individuals.
ACE: The more mathematics that teachers learn the more math their students
learn.
The more math ed that teachers learn the more math their students learn.
Michael Brown raised the relevant point of whether the Praxis would ensure a continued broad range of content courses. Relying on the Praxis alone to ensure program breadth is insufficient to ensure a full range of content topics in a quality major. National policy and good practice require our students to know their content at a level well above the level they teach. As an explicit example: Discrete Math is not on the Praxis, yet our students are expected to teach this topic in the public schools.
Theme 4: The Proposal
We are faced today with one of the most important decisions in the history of the Mathematics Department:
The location of Mathematics Education.
The most important contribution we can make here at ECU is to help
convince you that retaining Math Education faculty & programs within the Math Department is in the best interest of:
our students
the quality of our programs
future opportunities
the Math Department, especially its graduate programs.
We are faced with a proposal which, from our perspective, is not well thought out, is not documented, and is filled with assertions that, upon closer inspection, are supported only with partial information which when looked at in greater detail support retaining Math Education in Math.
The Dean of the College of Arts and Science has an approach to the question of movement that can be summarized succinctly:
Streamline the College of A&S at all costs
Remove teacher education programs from CAS at any price.
Any programs that remain in the College are “subordinate”.
Only the First Sentence of CAS mission is quoted by the Dean of CAS:
“The mission of the College of Arts and Sciences is stated unequivocally in the opening paragraph of its Constitution, which was adopted and approved in 1992: “The College of Arts and Sciences shall be the liberal arts college of East Carolina University.” As this statement attests, the College’s avowed liberal arts mission does not encompass applied or professional programs, which if they exist at all must therefore have subordinate status.
Because professional curricula such as the teacher education programs are Constitutionally mandated to subordination within their respective College departments, the programs and their faculty are not the primary focus of the College’s attention.” --Keats Sparrow
Bob Morrison’s question to the Dean of A&S was pertinent: would the Dean support such a math education PhD program if funds were provided independently of college funding. The answer was an unequivocal “No,” again citing his interpretation of the mission of CAS.
We do not share the Dean’s philosophy on applied, professional, and teacher education programs. The full constitution mission statement of the CAS specifically includes teacher preparation programs in the College mission. We do not agree with his characterization that any of these important fields are “subordinate.” The CAS mission would not change, as teacher education programs would remain in the College. The Dean overlooks important components of the current mission statement from the CAS constitution:
“…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
Nor should the teacher education programs which remain behind after this decision is made be labeled “subordinate” or treated as such. We agree with Rita Reaves’ statement that any Dean is responsible for supporting the programs in his or her unit. In our view such labeling of programs undermines the Dean’s capability of supporting ALL the programs in his College.
Any alteration of the college mission statement should be fully discussed by all faculty. We appear to have a unilateral reinterpretation, even though the college mission statement must still support remaining teacher education programs
The Dean of the SOE’s position seems as follows:
She is willing to accept 11.5 positions and related resources to round
out programs in the SOE.
She is concerned about control and input
Perhaps Bob Thompson could report on this issue for the EPPC: Does the Dean of the School of Ed have any input with the Vice Chancellor during renewal or tenure decisions? If not what administrative steps could be taken to provide appropriate input without moving programs? The Deans’ public statements are in open contradiction on this matter. The VCAA can shed light on the situation.
She seeks to merge faculties and form new departments/centers.
Beyond the Basis, she presents unsubstantiated complaints built on partial information. This has tended to divert discussion from the main points and causing us to defend against the misperceptions some these allegations have created. We can only discuss select examples to today, but we are willing to analyze any other of these allegations in whatever detail the EPPC prefers during Q&A or thereafter.
Neither Dean has offered sufficient documentation of their case. We have documented in great detail every relevant issue in an effort to help reach a rational decision.
Furthermore nearly all of the Deans’ arguments are open ended: other teacher education programs are subject to the NCATE, mission, and other issues posed. Other applied programs are equally open to these arguments and potential removal from the College.
It is backwards to destroy and then try to rebuild programs. (such as the math ed group & the math graduate program).
It is backwards to recruit faculty to ECU, hire and tenure them in a given department, and THEN force them to leave.
It is counterproductive to label people/programs with pejoratives like “subordinate” or to misrepresent them with a long list of unsubstantiated accusations/complaints.
Effective leadership does not diminish those led, it avoids such pejoratives or such accusations, and it does not ignore the overwhelming opposition of the impacted CAS departments to this proposal to move.
We return to our focus today, which is on our students and on the quality of the programs they receive. In considering the proposal to move teacher preparation programs the original “Basis for the Proposal” mentions the words
“quality” precisely once: when discussing “quality of office space”
“student” or “students” precisely once: when discussing the small number of students in the programs that would remain in CAS.
Instead we see the following concerns:
Hiring, review, assignment, oversight, assessment, public schools, centralization, conforming with national models, evaluation rubrics, tenure/promotion criteria, math & science ed PhD
We do see curriculum development: we have the highest caliber CD
fostered by collegial partnership in the same department
Clinical & Field Experience: ours is rich, Math is a leader here
Collaboration: which is optimal now, but is somehow supposed
to improve upon our being separated.
All of these could be handled by more effective administrative procedures and better communication rather than by dismantling programs of recognized quality and effectiveness.
Theme 5: Consequences and Pros and Cons
The Deans would have us believe that their proposal implies only a transfer of faculty and programs and entails only an organizational chart restructuring. This is not the case. It will instead result in:
The loss of oversight of mathematics and math ed content by content
experts.
The reduction of collaboration and of synergy now underway.
The loss of the current system of checks and balances.
The dismantling of our Math Ed group (5 of 8 will leave).
The reduction or elimination of our graduate program in mathematics.
The loss of degree value and options for our students.
An overall lowering of quality.
Every advantage proposed by the deans can be handled administratively without moving programs.
To expand briefly, we remind you:
Our current Math Ed faculty came here explicitly to work and conduct their research in a Math Dept. They have clearly stated their intention to leave if this move is effected. They will be replaced (if at all) by more general type of math educators with less mathematics background.
We would rather have our administration recognize the strength of our faculty and of our model. The current proposal risks destroying this strength in a misguided effort to mimic certain schools. Our model is indeed ahead of the curve, as attested by the national hiring patterns we have documented, by policy statements, and by the DOE national award for middle grades mathematics. In fact people look to us as model in many ways (DOE award, and also see Dubinski’s and Wilson’s statements).
Further Pros and Cons:
For 18 years the Math Department has lobbied the SOE unsuccessfully for more mathematics content in the elementary program.Five semester hours of Math 2127-2129 is the only mathematics content preparation for elementary teachers. These 5 hours fail to meet the minimum recommended 9 content hours, as recommended by the mathematics professional societies CBMS/MAA/AMS. The SOE would even reduce these 5 hours or use College Algebra as three of those hours in an attempt to more expeditiously move students through the elementary program.
There will also be a counter-argument that methods courses count towards math content – one more reason that math content should be overseen by mathematicians and math educators. Regrettably, programs overseen by the SOE fail to ensure minimal recommended content hours. We see required courses excepted, and then replaced with methods or other courses. We see this exacerbated by a culture in which rampant grade inflation practically makes a C unacceptable (as might indeed happen in a required advanced and challenging math course: in Mathematics a C is not an anomaly). We question the advisability of faculty in the School of Ed being given total oversight of content. We see this as an important issue in ensuring quality.
Programs moved from A&S have not flourished. See data on Science Ed and on Science Math Technology Education Network Center showing declining trends.
Granting opportunities are wider in the current arrangement. (Although grant opportunities are large even when sources are restricted).
We completely disagree with the claim that collaboration between mathematicians and math educators will somehow go up after we are split up and no longer share the same department, goals, and missions. We distrust the assertion that our revised missions will support and foster improved collaboration. After all I was assured that movement of Math Education was a “dead issue” by the Dean of CAS and within 12 months the first version of the proposal to move was underway.
Theme 6: Defense
Let’s examine a few models that the Dean of CAS would emulate:
1) University of Virginia: All of their Math Ed undergraduates earn a B.A. degree in Mathematics (with a concentration in Math Ed) in the Mathematics Department. They then are required to obtain an additional MAT to meet education requirements. The mathematics content is overseen by the mathematics department. The current proposal destroys this oversight. While UVA’s Math Ed faculty is in SOE the degree is not.
2) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Again, there is no undergraduate secondary degree in Mathematics Education. Students obtain a BA or BS degree in mathematics from the mathematics department and then obtain an MAT.
3) William and Mary: Their Secondary Math Education degree is a Math degree from the Math Department. There are 4 Math Educators in Department.
Many Doctoral Extensive institutions must now work hard to repair the lack of collaboration between their separated Math Ed and Math programs.
Let’s examine the supposed NCATE/Accreditation issues which were raised by the Deans and which we have debunked:
NCATE finds that secondary programs are usually housed in the content unit. (Wendy Wiggins)
No Standard and No goal of ANY accreditation agency requires or
implies movement of any of the teacher preparation programs
We have called on the Dean of SOE to clarify her use of the terms “standard” and “goal”. We are still waiting. Her claim that we are not working toward the “goals” of accrediting agencies is in error.
Clinical and Field Experiences: The Math Department has led ECU in the introduction and delivery of clinical and field experiences, the Dean of SOE acknowledged as much when she admitted at the last EPPC meeting (but not in her written statements) that she used the Math Department to steer NCATE away from this issue for the College.
Other NON-NCATE issues raised include:
Recruitment and retention: We have documented extensive efforts to recruit and retain students; in fact ECU is the 3rd largest producer of Secondary Math Education graduates in the UNC System. Prospective students do care where they receive their degree--(the Dean of A&S’ statement to the contrary underestimates our students and their awareness). We firmly believed that retention is promoted by ensuring strong knowledge of content by teachers.
Minority Gap: Our faculty has put in extensive work to help remedy any minority gap, including our tutorials at Ledonia Wright and elsewhere. In the school system: provide teachers with the strongest background so they can fully help their students.
Knowledge of the Public Schools: All tenured/tenure-track faculty have taught in the public schools. All are committed to helping resolve issues of importance to teachers in the public schools.
Alternative programs: we have made every effort to support alternative programs in scheduling, in taking on extra students above our load, in providing access. We have worked to ensure quality here.
Impact of Math Education on math content courses: please come see my Calculus class (or talk with Kalouia Newsome our Teacher in Residence who is observing my class), or a class in discrete math, or 1067 Algebraic Concepts, or witness our use of technology in a number of classes.
Input from Model Teachers: Teacher in Residence is in my 2171 class right now and a number of others. In interviews ALL the model teachers emphasized the utmost importance of CONTENT knowledge during their interviews.
Math 2127-2129: Regrettably, only partial information was given to the EPPC. When full information is provided we see a different picture than originally implied by the Dean of SOE, including outstanding SOIS results in these courses and positive reaction from the students. We have arranged special sections set aside for Elementary students (while other general education sections are also provided) and we have worked to cooperate with the SOE on these matters. We also note that Math 2127-29 are required only in the Elementary Program, which is not under consideration for movement.
Disproportionate resources: the Dean of A&S would permanently give away resources, reduce quality, and destroy programs, in order to reach “proportionality”.
Acceleration of loss of control of curriculum: the greatest acceleration of all will occur if we remove oversight of content by content experts, as this proposal would immediately effect.
Theme 7: System of Checks and Balances
Under the current arrangement,
1) CTE has review of issues related to education mandates of the State.
2) Content experts in the content unit oversee the content of the program.
3) Collaborationbetween mathematicians and math educators ensures continued evolution and improvement of courses, strategies, technology use, and related issues.
4) The Arts and Sciences Curriculum, the University Curriculum Committees have input, in addition to the Content Department Curriculum Committee.
Under movement
All oversight by content experts is lost. This will have immediate as well as long-range consequences for the quality of teacher education.
Curriculum review is diluted (A&S and Content Dept Curriculum Committees are cut out of the process).
Curriculum as a responsibility of faculty:
We understand the role our administration has here under Appendix L
however not all relevant information is on the table. We urge
your patience before deciding this to be a “false” issue.
We do expect the Admininstration to take great notice of the
overwhelming opposition of impacted A&S faculty to movement.
We do note the troubling pattern of A&S Chairs not concurring with
their faculty.
Theme 8: Constructive Suggestions
We urge our administration to:
1) Restructure the administrative decision making process to provide appropriate input for the Dean of SOE without moving and destroying programs.
2) Establish communication access for the Dean and the Chairs in CAS to consult with experts in the school of Ed on matters such as evaluation rubrics, information, or help with course review.
3) Reward faculty according to standards of their subdiscipline.
4) Support programs and faculty in their units.
5) Keep content oversight by content experts.
6) Keep collaboration at its current highest.
7) Study administrative restructuring rather than program movement and destruction.
Theme 9: Summary and Documentation of the issues
We have been accused of not speaking forcefully on behalf of teacher education. I hope you see our efforts today as indeed speaking as strongly as we know on behalf of teacher education. This is an area that we care deeply about. We care about our students, our colleagues, the quality of the programs we can provide.
I believe this decision should be an easy one for each of you. We have provided all the documentation we can for you to make a well-reasoned rational decision in support of the current optimal arrangement. The deans have provided short position papers with little if any documentation of their assertions and only partial information when information is offered. We contend that, given the differences of view expressed in these discussions and in light of the decision by the administration not to support an outside review, ECU should depend on the recommendations of our experts in the fields. Our experts in the disciplines have spoken resoundingly against movement of these programs and faculty.
Our argument can be summarized again as follows: our current model and the optimal collaboration it fosters are effective, outstanding, cutting edge, and of national visibility. Oversight of content by content experts working together with content educators is crucial in ensuring quality of programs. The proposed move would break up our faculty and diminish collaboration; it would remove oversight of content by content experts; it would weaken the versatility of the degree. We urge you in the strongest terms to keep the current arrangement and recommend against movement of these programs and faculty.
