3. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. New Faculty
Peter Bahr, assistant professor, CSHPE
Timothy Boerst, clinical associate professor
Kathleen Graves, clinical associate professor
7
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
20. 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
22. Development
1. Total gifts down in 2009: amount and
number of donors: “campaign fatigue” and
the economy
2. But: Major new prospects
22
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
27. 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
28. If not it’s the budget or other dire things
happening to us,
then what do we have to be scared of?
29. 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
30. 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
31. What is the unique mission of the
school of education (like us) at a
research university (like U-M)?
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
41. 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
42. 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