Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Dean Deborah Loewenberg Ball's slides from her State of the School Address at the All-School Meeting on October 2, 2009
Citation preview
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
4
CONGRATULATIONS, PAT AND BETSY!
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
88 faculty: 59 in the tenure track 13 research scientists 1 instructor 7 lecturers 8 clinical practice faculty
28 joint with other units
56% female 20% minority
44%
19%
7%
10%
10%
10%
Professors
Associate Professors
Assistant Professors
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)
313 undergraduate 103 elementary 210 secondary
105 master’s (MAC) 47 elementary 58 secondary
76% female 16% under-represented minority
25%
50%
11%
14%
Undergraduate elementary
Undergraduate secondary
Elementary MAC
Secondary MAC
11
Enrollments Graduate (385): 101 regular MA students 48 Educational Studies (ES) 53 Higher Education (CSHPE)
284 PhD students 134 Educational Studies (ES) 86 Higher Education (CSHPE) 32 Combined Program in
Education and Psychology (CPEP) 32 Joint Program in English and
Education (JPEE)
72% female 18% under-represented minority
14%
15%
39%
14%
9%
9%
MA ES MA CSHPE
PhD ES PhD CSHPE
PhD CPEP PhD JPEE
12
Graduate Enrollments
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 In State Out of State International
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
PhD JPEE PhD CPEP PhD CSHPE PhD ES MA CSHPE MA ESElementary
MACSecondary
MAC
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 2,142,673 3,346,214 1,203,541
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 65 submitted:
$46.7M
30 awarded: $23.1M
35 denied
FY09 73 submitted:
$59.1M
28 awarded: $22.4M
28 pending: $14.3M
17 denied: $20.7M
FY10 18 submitted:
$38.4M
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 © 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 ([email protected]). 26
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? 1. Lack of clarity of the nature of education
research, and lack of persuasiveness about its quality, relevance, or rigor
2. Little evidence for the “edge” of an education school preparation for teaching
3. The “Rodney Dangerfield” phenomenon and the failure to take the problem seriously
4. Our own disbelief and the critical turn 5. Our tendency toward undisciplined
advocacy 6. Mission drift
Low status of the teaching profession
Lost: disconnected from schools and from the disciplines (Lagemann)
Seen as weak compared with the arts and sciences disciplines
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
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
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!
