9/14/2004

A Proposal for the Reorganization of the College of Education

     This conceptual reorganization plan emerged from discussions among a number of faculty from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Meetings with faculty in C&I and other departments have refined the structure. While it is briefly described here as a framework, the discussion group has more detailed plans, based on actual student enrollment figures, numbers of faculty involved, and curricular requirements. We believe this plan addresses both budgetary and accreditation concerns under which the College labors. It addresses issues involving K-12 or secondary education only indirectly, although secondary students could operate under a similar structure. There might be a separate organizational structure for those programs that are entirely graduate in nature; for example, leadership, school psychology, and counseling.
     This plan calls for dissolving all current departments with an involvement in elementary teacher preparation and replacing them with self-selected integrated teams that would follow a pattern of preparation based on vertical licensure/endorsement standards. It also aligns with the college mission and the national standards of the various disciplines. The elementary education-based integrated school might include four teams: Early Childhood, two Elementary, and Middle Level. Each team would be composed of from 10-14 faculty members, and would serve the same group of students for two years, from induction through student teaching. A team would be composed of the appropriate number of faculty from the currently existing units:

Foundations/Psychology
Special Education
Methods (Literacy, Social Studies, Science, Math, PE, and the Arts)
Classroom Management/Curriculum
Technology/Library Media
Field Experience
Price Laboratory School
Practitioners from local schools

     Teams would plan how their students would meet the State Initial Licensure Standards, and would be accountable for their students’ performances. Some teams could maintain current class structures, while others would be free to restructure courses in any way that would meet requirements. Assessments of student performance would include fieldwork and student teaching observations shared by all team members, standardized testing, teacher work samples and portfolios. Teams would advise their own students.
     We have identified and discussed such issues as how transfer students would fit in this plan, why educational psychology and technology might be included later in preparation programs, and how to deal with students wishing to add endorsements beyond their basic plans. We recognize faculty commitments to their discipline areas and support the retention of horizontal relationships, either formal or informal. Although we understand these and other issues may present difficulties, we believe solutions are possible and we believe such issues should not be used to mask the inherent worth of our approach.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Fitzgerald, David Landis, Rick Traw, Donna Schumacher-Douglas,
Barbara Safford, Mary Herring, Deborah Gallagher, Christine Canning

New Organizational Chart (.pdf)