College of Human Resources, Education & Public Policy

Present: Rich, Stanley (DCTE), Hyson (DCTE), Conway-Turner (DCTE), Van Dornick (DCTE), Carter (Guest), Murphy (Guest), Hermes, Okolo, Denhardt, Mayhew, McLaughlin, Gottfredson, Rys, MacArthur, Roe, Taggart, Sine, Eyman.

Gottfredson thanked the Dean and the DCTE committee for meeting with the Council to discuss the DCTE Proposal. She also reviewed the role of the CHEP Council and its reasons for holding this special meeting of the Council. She stated that the Council wi shes to inform itself in preparation for the open forum on the DCTE proposal and for deciding what kind of recommendation, if any, it might make about DCTE.

Dean Rich provided a history of the development of the DCTE proposal. He described the proposal as originating from 2 dialogues: one in the former College of Education in the context of CHEP reorganization and another in the context of the Education Par tnership Task Force. Both dialogues supported the need for better coordination of teacher education through a center.

Upon formation of CHEP, Rich sought support for the center from the state and established a task force to develop a proposal for the Center. Rich informed us that the Governor's request to the General Assembly will include support for DCTE and he expects CHEP will be successful in procuring $150,000 in fiscal year 1999.

Stanley noted the initial discussion about a center occurred two years ago, when the CHEP merger was first discussed. He then described the planning process, which entailed examining centers on campus and across the nation. John Goodlad's Centers for Pe dagogy served as a model for the DCTE proposal (Stanley visited one in New Jersey) because they provided a viable conceptual framework and addressed situations similar to UD's. The Partnership Task Force recommendations have also been built into the prop osal. An additional consideration in proposal development was the need to overcome the balkanization that exists among our teacher education programs.

Stanley noted that, while the UCTE would be the unit for NCATE reviews of our education programs, the DCTE could provide support for its work.

Stanley characterized the diverse feedback that he's received about the proposal. He noted that the three main elements of the proposal are drawn from Goodlad's work.

Rich reported that he's been arranging meetings with all the directors of CHEP offices and centers that the proposal suggests be incorporated into the center. Stanley added that many have been in contact with him.

A question/answer session followed:
Gottfredson asked about whether DCTE's initial focus was too broad and raised the concern that the proposal might promise too much to the State. Rich responded that there are certain expectations from the State and, in response to these, we'll need to ex tend and expand our efforts. He added that the DCTE will help UCTE (University Council for Teacher Education) extend what they can accomplish. Stanley described the responses during the Partnership task force, in which people noted that UD is doing a lo t in teacher education, but they don't know how it all fits together. He commented that the DCTE could help provide this focus. He also noted the need for a person (the Director) who will be visible in the State, who will serve as a contact person, who can answer questions, etc. He then described the present UCTE as a reactive, rather than proactive, body (due to a lack of resources) which could play a more productive role if staff and support can be obtained through DCTE.

Rich noted that the state's expectations are heightened and will continue to grow with its focus on education and reform. We need to develop the capacity to be more responsive to the expectations we believe are appropriate and we need the resources to do so.

Hyson added that the DCTE will be responsive to NCATE's expectations that there be strong support for collaboration and coordination around teacher education.

MacArthur raised the concern about the DCTE's relationship to and responsibilities for academic programs. He expressed the need for control of academic programs to remain in the academic units who administer them. Stanley stated that the committee did not intend to recommend that DCTE control academic programs but rather serve as a resource that could stimulate the development of innovative programs within the academic units and provide resources for their conduct. In this context, faculty may be on a ssignment to the Center for specific projects.

Conway-Turner noted that the center can help provide the energy to bring faculty together and to stimulate innovation.

Stanley noted that the committee doesn't see a program, such as the MI (Masters of Instruction) in the center. But the Center would coordinate inservice and the inservice director would be located within the Center. Stanley added we'll have to see how t o parse some of the existing centers between the DCTE Center and the School of Education (e.g. certification versus School of Ed Advisement).

Rich assured us that he has no intentions for non-academic units to offer academic programs.

Mayhew asked about the relationship of DCTE and UCTE. Why is DCTE being created with responsibility for coordinating teacher education if UCTE already has that responsibility? Rich responded by saying that UCTE has had responsibility but no resources; DCTE would provide resources and support to UCTE, but UCTE would retain authority for policy decisions. Stanley noted that the proposal recommends that the Director of DCTE chair the UCTE.

Mayhew also asked about why some research centers would be part of DCTE but others not, and how coordination among research centers would work. Stanley replied that the research centers would not be part of DCTE, but the director of DCTE would chair a C ouncil of Centers that would include directors of other centers concerned with education. The Council would be a way of coordinating the various centers that address teacher education. Rich explained that it would be better if Centers that currently rec eive State funding not be incorporated into the DCTE. The question then is how to coordinate the different centers. The Council of Education Centers is the response.

Mayhew worried that DCTE would be one more level of administration to work with to get things done. Rich responded that there will be consolidation of existing units.

Roe expressed the view that the draft proposal for DCTE was not clear about what would be new and unique about DCTE. Rather it talks mostly about shifting responsibilities for existing functions. In contrast, comments during today's meeting by Stanley f ocused quite a bit on new opportunities. Stanley replied that the committee had not felt ready to specify what new ideas the DCTE would stand for, so the proposal dealt with structural elements.

Roe also asked about the relation between the Directors of the School of Ed and DCTE. Stanley replied that there is plenty of work to go around. The School Director has academic programs to run. The School director's role would be similar to that of the former dean's job, but now with better coordination via the Center. He thought that the two directors would work smoothly together and support each other.

Eyman raised the concern that State funding might lead to interference with faculty control over the development of curriculum and programs. What would the role of DCTE be in regulating and developing programs? Stanley replied that NCATE requires a coh erent conceptual framework for teacher education programs and programs that are consistent with the framework. Therefore, some group needs to consider coordination among programs. He thought DCTE would involve itself in program coordination in this way. Eyman pursued the point by asking about State guidelines and the State telling faculty what to do. Hyson replied that DCTE would provide a place where programs could be discussed, but would not run programs. In fact, by strengthening the relationship between the State and UD, it might reduce conflicts over curriculum. Then we would not have to be just reactive to state concerns. Stanley added that DCTE is not a policy-making body; UCTE would retain that responsibility.

Okolo asked about potential problems in having a University-wide function, coordination of teacher education, addressed by a Center within a college. Rich replied that many centers at UD are administered by colleges on behalf of the entire university. They need a home that is not removed from faculty, staff, and students. In this case, it seemed most effective to put the Center in CHEP, which will feel responsibility for its success. As part of the merger, the Board of Trustees gave CHEP responsibi lity to deal with education issues on behalf of the University. Stanley added that it will be important to have a director who is seen as responsible to the entire University for teacher education.

Rys asked about whether the DCTE would have a common physical location. As context, she noted that the primary initial responsibility of DCTE would probably be to gather information about all the programs in the 4 colleges that offer teacher education and to operate a referral center for those colleges and for the State about ed programs. Rich responded that it was his intention and hope to bring all CHEP programs together along Academy St. but that it might take a few years. Van Dornick agreed that coordination and dissemination of information about UD programs would be critical in the initial stages.

Denhardt asked how the work of DCTE would be paid for. The initial state funding would pay for some coordination activities, but the other activities mentioned would require more. Did they anticipate a lot of grant or contract work? If so, how would th is compete with other activities? Rich replied that many of the activities to be part of the DCTE are already funded, and that DCTE would coordinate them better. State funds will supplement existing funds. Thus State enhancement of current resources wou ld allow us to use them better. He noted that DCTE can't, and won't be doing all things expected of it, but that it would be willing to do more if more resources were provided. Rich did not see DCTE as a major research center. Instead, its focus woul d be on training and best practices. He thinks we are more likely to get new resources with the DCTE than without it.

Hyson added that we don't want to be merely responding to the State. We want to be responsive but proactive and to jointly build agendas. This may be the best use of Center Staff.

Rich also pointed out that we can't expect there to be correspondence between the expectations for the DCTE from different constituencies (DOE, legislators, Governor, State Board, etc.). If they all agree on what is expected from DCTE, then there's no pr oblem. If they don't, DCTE will have to determine which expectations to respond to.

Gottfredson asked whether in the early years of Center operation there will be an increased work load for folks in units incorporated into the Center? ($150K doesn't go very far.)

Rich said there is $150K in recurrent funds requested in the first year. There may be separate funding later on for some programs within the Center. There also may be benefits to coordination and mere physical proximity. The idea is to increase the siz e of the pie, not just to split the current pie into smaller pieces.

Stanley responded that the Center will need more resources. He assumes that's going to happen.

Gottfredson wondered whether the plan for some faculty to have one to three-year fellowships in the Center would tax the academic units, some of whom are already criticized for using too many temporary teaching staff.

Hyson said that faculty associated with DCTE may act similarly to faculty going on sabbatical or fellowship. Instead of going away someplace, they'll use the DCTE as a site to conduct research, extend their areas of expertise, etc. In any case, very f ew faculty would be involved.

Stanley added that faculty with current interests in line with Center activities might just coordinate their work more with them. Faculty participation in the Center might also be funded through summer stipends.

Rich said that he hoped that some of the resources to the Center would trickle back to the other units. He also said that the priorities of DCTE have a good chance of generating external funding.

Taggart asked what happens if the State has a need (e.g., to increase reading scores) and expects the DCTE to help. The call goes out to faculty and no one responds? Rich responded that the DCTE would need additional capacity, additional funding.

Gottfredson noted that the top of pg. 7 in the DCTE proposal suggests that the University should change faculty P & T criteria if it expects full faculty support for the work of the Center. Is the proposal suggesting that the administration rather th an the faculty now set P & T criteria?

Hyson said no. The intent of that section of the proposal is that faculty presently doing service should get rewarded. There is currently a sense that they are not. Stanley said that expectations of faculty in higher ed are changing in the opinion of the public. They expect more public service than in the past. This is still not the reality of the rewards system at the University, which acts especially as a disincentive for junior faculty to ever become involved in it.

Sine asked about staffing for the DCTE. Can the faculty and staff be expected to have enough flexibility to meet the demands of the new center? What kind of staffing are we talking about? Stanley said the nature of staff support is a very big concern to the DCTE committee. They want to get faculty interested in the Center and work through the Center but not necessarily be there physically.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m., with the Chair's thanks to the Dean and the DCTE committee for meeting with the Council to discuss the DCTE proposal.

Minutes for different portions of the meetings taken by Cindy Okolo, Skip MacArthur, and Gail Rys. Linda Gottfredson collated and added to the minutes.