A Proposal for the Reorganization of the College of Education: A Merger of the Department of Special Education and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Establishment of a School of Curriculum, Instruction, and Disability Studies

Submitted by

Martin Agran, Frank Kohler
Department of Special Education

   The following proposal is submitted as a reorganization model for consideration by the College of Education. A rationale and justification of the proposal is presented below.

Justification

    This proposal addresses a possible merger of the current Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the Department of Special Education. As such, it seeks to establish a School of Curriculum, Instruction, and Disability Studies. By doing so, we believe it will promote the six Practitioner Preparation Unit Standards of the College of Education, and will provide faculty and faculty with opportunities to interact and collaborate at a level heretofore not realized. It should be noted that it is not designed to serve as a model for other departments in the college.
    Three operatives have influenced our thinking about reorganization. These include: cost savings, reduction of the “silo” phenomenon in the COE, and differential departmental policies and expectations. A discussion of each follows.
    First, we have not costed out if there will be any substantial cost savings with the proposed change. The addition of a new administrative position may in fact negate any savings. Also, we believe that the Division Directors (see description below) should not be expected to serve in this capacity out of hide and, thus, should be appropriately compensated. This issue needs to be further addressed by this committee.
    Second, and most importantly, the proposed merger and establishment of a School of Curriculum, Instruction, and Disability Studies will provide a opportunity for faculty in the two divisions to interact and be involved in meaningful discussion about teacher preparation, diversity, curriculum reform, educational policy, political activism, and other issues of interest to faculty. Faculty in the proposed School will have three affiliations: a primary affiliation in one of the divisions (Curriculum and Instruction or Special Education), a secondary affiliation in one of the division programs, and a tertiary affiliation in a committee that bridges both departments (see description later). The proposed structure allows faculty to maintain their identity in their “traditional” department, while creating opportunities for faculty to step out of their traditional roles and responsibilities and explore new possibilities in teaching and policy making.
    Third, it is safe to say that the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the Department of Special Education have differing policies regarding PAC criteria, faculty expectations, budget management, and grant involvement, among other issues. We believe that at the present time it is unfair and coercive to ask one department to adhere to the requirements or expectations of another department. For example, it is safe to say that the scholarly expectations for faculty in Special Education regarding PAC differ from those in Curriculum and Instruction. If standard expectations were established across divisions, it would mean that either Special Education abandon its criteria or Curriculum and Instruction adopt Special Education’s. Likewise, it is unfair to usurp the budget of one department and create a common budget for both departments. For example, Special Education faculty are more involved in grantsmanship than C & I. Should Special Education be expected to share its incentive account? We believe that would be most unfair. The proposed model seeks to maintain the autonomy of each department while creating opportunities for greater interaction. It is very possible that in the future faculty may want to explore ways to have common expectations, but that will take considerable effort and scrutiny and should not delay present efforts to merge the two departments. Likewise, having one budget for both departments may be advantageous in some ways, but we believe that this issue needs considerable analysis and discussion before this is allowed.
    The proposal presented herein is admittedly an initial proposal, with many questions left unanswered. Several of these questions are administrative in nature (e.g., budget management, responsibility of Division Directors, determining teaching loads), while others are more faculty-based (e.g., collaborative activities with the lab school, PAC criteria). Such questions will be identified and addressed over time. It is envisioned that the merger will involve three phases. First, action plans to achieve goals will be developed by faculty and administration. Second, the plans will be implemented and evaluated. Third, based on faculty input and review of evaluation data, changes will be made at the school and division levels as needed. It is anticipated that at least a 2-year transformation process is needed.

Goals

    The proposed merger seeks to achieve five goals. These include: (a) promoting collaboration across divisions, (b) supporting collaboration with the Price Lab School, (c) supporting a fluid and integrated personnel preparation program, (d) promoting scholarship, and (e) achieving UNI teacher education standards. The merger of the two departments and enhanced dialogue across divisions will facilitate progress in achieving these goals.

Organization

    The School of Curriculum, Instruction, and Disability Studies will be administered by an Executive Director who will be responsible for achieving school goals and promoting communication and collaboration across faculty, divisions, and programs (see Organizational Plan). The Executive Director will be appointed by the Dean of the College of Education and, accordingly, will be responsible to the Dean pertaining to all matters relating to the School.
    Each division will be administered by a Division Director. The Division Directors will be appointed by the Dean and will be responsible to the Executive Director. The Division Directors will be responsible for managing the division and assisting the Executive Director in achieving goals. In turn, the directors will collaborate with Program Coordinators who will be responsible for achievement of program responsibilities (e.g., course delivery, management systems).

Committee Structure

    We believe that an advantage of this proposal is that faculty will be able to maintain their primary affiliation with their existing departments (in this case, divisions), while also assuming a more involved and meaningful collaboration with a second department. To achieve these outcomes, a committee structure will be developed that will allow faculty to meet on a regular basis. Accordingly, faculty will be asked to agree to serve in one of the following committees: early childhood education, elementary education, middle/secondary level education, literacy, school library, and talented and gifted education. The committees will identify topics of interest for all faculty that cut across vested department interests (Note: Division Directors will plan division meetings for matters specific to that division). For example, the Instructional Strategist 1 endorsement in Special Education prepares students with mild disabilities at both the K-6 and 7-12 levels. Consequently, a faculty member who is involved with this program may elect to affiliate him- or herself with the Elementary or Middle/Secondary committee. Also, faculty may elect to become members of more than one committee. For example, the Instructional Strategist 2 program is K-12. Hence, a faculty member may opt to be affiliated with both the Elementary and Middle/Secondary committees. Among the topics that may be discussed in the committees are: new models of teacher preparation, infusion of more diversity-related content in coursework, “unified” endorsements, political activism, distance education technology, alternative certification, shifts in teaching responsibilities, and more effective management of field and student teaching systems. It should be noted that one or more of these committees may be eliminated or “morphed” into another committee.
    It will be the responsibility of these committees to serve as action committees and develop strategies to achieve the goals stated above. For example, since C & I includes faculty who have joint appointments at the lab school, Goal 2—supporting collaboration with the Price Lab School—can be greatly enhanced; and will allow Special Education faculty a potential entry to a collaborative venture with interested colleagues in the School.

Organizational Chart (.pdf)