U-M SOE All-School Meeting 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

U-M SOE All-School Meeting 2009

on

  • 977 views

Dean Deborah Loewenberg Ball's slides from her State of the School Address at the All-School Meeting on October 2, 2009

Dean Deborah Loewenberg Ball's slides from her State of the School Address at the All-School Meeting on October 2, 2009

Statistics

Views

Total Views
977
Views on SlideShare
935
Embed Views
42

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 42

http://www.soe.umich.edu 41
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

U-M SOE All-School Meeting 2009 U-M SOE All-School Meeting 2009 Presentation Transcript

  • ALL-SCHOOL MEETING 2009 Friday, October 2, 2009 9:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. Schorling Auditorium
  • Our guest Terrence McDonald Arthur F. Thurnau Professor Professor of History Dean, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts 2
  • Outline for Today 1.  Opening 2.  Dean Terrence McDonald 3.  State of the School: budget, enrollments, report card for 2008-09 4.  Our priorities for 2009-10 5.  Breakout groups on topics central to this year’s agenda 6.  Lunch 3
  • ANNOUNCEMENTS 2009 Pattishall Award •  Patricio Herbst •  Betsy Davis CONGRATULATIONS, PAT AND BETSY! 4
  • Leadership Changes for 2009-10 •  Steve DesJardins, Director of CSHPE •  Thank you to Deborah Carter! •  Teresa McMahon, Coordinator of ELMAC •  Thank you, Cathy Reischl! •  Donald Freeman, Associate Chair of Educational Studies and Director of Teacher Education 5
  • STATE OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Fall 2009 WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE SCARED OF 1.  Who we are: Faculty, staff, and students; goals for who we want (need) to be 2.  Budget: Current status; challenges and plans 3.  2008-09 Report Card 4.  2009-10 Priorities and goals 5.  Our mission 6
  • New Faculty   Peter Bahr, assistant professor, CSHPE   Timothy Boerst, clinical associate professor   Kathleen Graves, clinical associate professor 7
  • A few basic facts: Faculty composition and quality   School ranked among the top schools of education every year since 1995   Many faculty with significant background in practice (K-12, higher education)   Award-winning research in national professional societies, represented on important commissions, boards, and panels   One member of the National Academy of Sciences   Seven members of the National Academy of Education   Three members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences   One National Medalist of Science 8
  • A few basic facts: Faculty composition and quality 10% 88 faculty: 10%   59 in the tenure track   13 research scientists 44% 10%   1 instructor   7 lecturers 7%   8 clinical practice faculty 19% 28 joint with other units Professors 56% female Associate Professors Assistant Professors 20% minority Lecturers and Instructors Research Scientists Clinical Practice Faculty 9
  • SOE Staff 117 staff: many different kinds of roles   Clerical and support   Student affairs   Research support and administration; research staff   Financial management   Program administration and management 75% female 16% minority 10
  • Enrollments Teacher certification (418) 14% 25% 313 undergraduate 11%   103 elementary   210 secondary 105 master’s (MAC) 50%   47 elementary   58 secondary Undergraduate elementary Undergraduate secondary 76% female Elementary MAC 16% under-represented minority Secondary MAC 11
  • Enrollments Graduate (385): 9% 14% 101 regular MA students 9%   48 Educational Studies (ES)   53 Higher Education (CSHPE) 15% 14% 284 PhD students   134 Educational Studies (ES)   86 Higher Education (CSHPE)   32 Combined Program in 39% Education and Psychology (CPEP)   32 Joint Program in English and MA ES MA CSHPE Education (JPEE) PhD ES PhD CSHPE PhD CPEP PhD JPEE 72% female 18% under-represented minority 12
  • Graduate Enrollments 100 In State Out of State International 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Elementary Secondary PhD JPEE PhD CPEP PhD CSHPE PhD ES MA CSHPE MA ES MAC MAC International 2 5 11 18 5 8 0 0 Out of State 20 17 31 52 25 17 8 8 In State 3 4 10 17 23 23 38 47 13
  • Opportunities for students across campus to engage in education Increase undergraduate enrollments •  Education as part of liberal studies •  Education as an important component of students’ preparation in other fields (e.g., policy, business, engineering) •  Recruitment pathways to teacher preparation 14
  • The Lower Division Initiative Courses for freshmen and sophomores:   EDUC 118 Schooling in a Multicultural Society.   EDUC 222 Video Games & Learning   EDUC 360 Partners in Authentic Learning in Schools   FSPP 201 Thinking Systematically about Problems of the Day   EDUC 345 FUTURE (IDEA Institute)   Under consideration: English language learners, museums as sites for learning, education policy; engaging upper division students in selected graduate courses 15
  • Other opportunities for students across campus to engage in education 1.  Tutoring programs 2.  Elementary Mathematics Laboratory (EML) 3.  ACT preparation 4.  Young People’s Project (YPP) 5.  Education minor? Partnerships 16
  • Budget •  The university •  Our current situation •  Comparison with other universities •  Planning for FY10 – FY12 •  Meeting with the provost •  The School of Education •  Our current situation •  Compared with 5 years ago 17
  • SOE Budget: All-Funds Source FY09 Projected FY10 Appropriations 15,765,893 16,304,353 General fund transfers 3,739,945 2,384,664 Federal grants/contracts 12,750,290 10,145,920 Non-federal grants/contracts 1,222,360 1,552,583 External department revenue 246,669 168,152 Internal department rebill 0 0 Gifts 703,992 700,000 Endowment distribution 1,019,830 1,010,375 Investment distribution 27,870 32,791 Total Sources 35,476,849 32,298,838 18
  • FY09 Operating Funds: Year-End Update SOE funds FY08 year-end FY09 year-end Difference General funds 1,672,185 2,804,576 1,132,391 Designated funds 470,488 541,637 71,149 Gift funds 1,741,634 1,597,346 (144,288) Federal funds (1,658,317) (732,944) 925,373 Non–federal funds 787,407 116,761 (670,646) Total balances 2,142, 6 7 3 3,346, 2 1 4 1,203, 5 4 1 19
  • FY10 1% Budget Reduction ($158,000)   Reduced salary program   savings of $99,000   Reduced two general-fund support-staff positions (shifted the individuals to research positions)   savings of $48,000   Shifted master’s student support from general funds to gift funds   savings of $11,000 20
  • Research Funding Update FY08 FY09 FY10   65 submitted:   73 submitted:   18 submitted: $46.7M $59.1M $38.4M   30 awarded:   28 awarded: $23.1M $22.4M   28 pending: $14.3M   35 denied   17 denied: $20.7M 21
  • Development 1.  Total gifts down in 2009: amount and number of donors: “campaign fatigue” and the economy 2.  But: Major new prospects 22
  • 2008-09 Report Card 1. Programmative initiative: Teacher Education Initiative  Program design  Faculty development ✔  Fundraising 2. Strengthen fiscal planning, management, and ✔+ operational capacity 3. Recruit and retain the students we need to learn from ✔ and contribute to our work 4. Recruit, support, and retain the faculty and staff we need ✔ to accomplish our core programmatic agenda 23
  • Teacher Education Initiative 1.  Work underway to finalize draft of our new curriculum 2.  Progress toward development of an integrated assessment system; potential ETS collaboration 3.  Developments in clinical education 4.  Begin conversion: Fall 2010 first phase 5.  Enthusiastic support for idea of Teacher Education Institute 24
  • Curriculum and assessment: 19 high-leverage practices Next Steps: 1.  Elaborate for subject-specificity and intersection with issues of equity, language, and learning (breakout session today) 2.  Design the scope and sequence of the new program 3.  Design and pilot corresponding instructional activities and assessments 25
  • Building a coherent system to supply skilled teachers to every classroom and to every student in this country Examples of the core work developed and supported within the Institute:   A coherent approach to professional education model that focuses teachers’ preparation on the usable knowledge and core practices of teaching that are crucial to student learning   Carefully designed and sequenced opportunities to practice these skills in a variety of settings   A professionally valid assessment system within-program formation, and for initial, continuing, and expert licenses   Tools, resources, data management, and communications to build national capacity for teaching quality 26 26 © 2009 Teacher Education Initiative School of Education University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (734) 647-1637 Please do not circulate or cite without permission (fforzani@umich.edu).
  • 2009-10 Priorities and Goals 1.  Engage in strategic assessment of the school 2.  Achieve specific benchmarks in TEI 3.  Reduce instructional costs 4.  Increase enrollments 5.  Plan for better use and renovation of space 27
  • If not it’s the budget or other dire things happening to us, then what do we have to be scared of?
  • What do we have to be scared of? •  That we won’t live up to our potential to redefine what a really first-rate school of education at a top research university could be? •  That we’ll hesitate, or lack confidence, and won’t take advantage of the moment, our context, and our capabilities •  That we will settle for being good, but not GREAT 29
  • What makes ed schools vulnerable?   Low status of the 1.  Lack of clarity of the nature of education teaching profession research, and lack of persuasiveness about   Lost: disconnected its quality, relevance, or rigor from schools and 2.  Little evidence for the “edge” of an from the disciplines education school preparation for teaching (Lagemann) 3.  The “Rodney Dangerfield” phenomenon   Seen as weak and the failure to take the problem compared with the seriously arts and sciences 4.  Our own disbelief and the critical turn disciplines 5.  Our tendency toward undisciplined advocacy 6.  Mission drift 30
  • What is the unique mission of the school of education (like us) at a research university (like U-M)?
  • Why should research universities have schools of education? As the core home for specialized expertise in education in order to: Conduct work on educational problems, develop educational theory, using that expertise Train people with specialized expertise in education 32
  • Asking educational questions about educational problems Studies that probe the insides The dynamic of “instruction”, or policy implementation; “inside the black box” This is the part that is often invisible and overlooked Often more work is done on the corners and edges and contexts –– research that informs education 33
  • But the core mission of ed schools is being outsourced Research on education is increasingly being done by scholars in other disciplines Teacher preparation is increasingly being conducted by other organizations Missing? Specialized expertise in education; consequences for the work 34
  • Four contemporary problems in education: Our opportunity 1.  Persistent educational inequality: lack of adequate knowledge about instruction, interventions, policies 2.  The growing importance of access to higher education and the rising demand for quality and accountability (research, evaluation, and teaching) 3.  Universities’ need to engage in “outreach” 4.  Weak effects of teacher education: what is our special role? 35
  • Our special mandate with respect to teacher education •  Like all professional schools, our mission is to prepare professionals for our domain of practice. •  K-12 education is of concern, and its connections to higher education (e.g., Spellings Commission Report). •  No one currently has a real edge on reliable preparation of teachers or on the continuing professional development and increasing skill of teachers. 36
  • What is our unique mission? 1.  Education research: To be the home for research that is quintessentially inside educational problems and phenomena 2.  Education expertise: To house and prepare people with expertise in education 3.  Professional education in education: To be a laboratory for developing methods for the training the nation’s largest occupational group, and evaluating the effects of training 4.  The university’s own mission as a public agent of education: To provide on-site expertise for studying and solving crucial problems of the university, uneven ability to show contributions to K-12 education 37
  • Review and strategic assessment of the SOE programs and operations 1.  How are we developing as a school of education? 2.  Priorities in academic programs; emphasis on graduate programs (M.A. and Ph.D.) 3.  Thinking big and being strategic about getting there 4.  Process from fall of 2009 – winter 2011 38
  • Strategic assessment as part of our ongoing development •  Cultural audit (2000) •  Building the SOE infrastructure (2005- 2008) •  CSHPE 50th anniversary year (2007) •  Setting priorities (2005-06) •  Task forces (2008-09) 39
  • Framework for strategic thinking and decisions 40
  • Strategic assessment process 1.  Establishing foci and priorities, processes, involvement (October – November 2009) 2.  Creating a shared information base related to our foci (November – December 2009) 3.  Self-assessment and planning (December – July 2010) 4.  Coordinating external perspectives (November 2010) 5.  Discussions with provost (December 2010) 6.  Final plans (January 2011) 41
  • Our goal •  To our potential to redefine what a really first-rate school of education at a top research university could be •  To be courageous and willing to take risks (the fiscal challenges actually create an opportunity) •  That we will not settle for being good, but seek to be GREAT 42
  • Thank you!