To: President Horace Mitchell

To: President Horace Mitchell Provost Soraya Coley Interim Dean Craig Kelsey Members of the Academic Senate School of Education Faculty and Staff

Re: Realignment Proposal

From: Dr. Louis Wildman, Chair, School Academic Council

Date: March 16, 2009

On the morning of March 10th, the School of Education faculty met to discuss the Realignment Proposal.

Program enrollment data for the last five years was presented. The Proposal was discussed from the perspective of numerous pre-distributed dimensions and issues, and a decision-making model was also utilized. Prior to and during the discussion, faculty placed written comments on chart paper which displayed the various dimensions, issues, and decision-making model. After the discussion, all comments were summarized and this summary was distributed to the faculty (including those unable to attend the meeting), providing them with an opportunity to revise, edit, and append additional comments.

All of this material has now been assembled, and is being shared with the campus community for consideration.

Throughout the preparation of the following document, faculty expressed the feeling that this well-intended “solution” is mis-aligned with actual problems which the School of Education should address.

Throughout the discussion of the Realignment Proposal, the School of Education faculty was aware of an under-current of disparaging remarks regarding their competence. The fact is that the School of Education was recently commended in both state (CTC) and national (NCATE) level accreditation processes; then our budget was cut a half-million dollars; and we now have been informed that it will be cut again by about as much. Given such a treatment, it is a wonder that we are still persevering. Nevertheless, we recommend a moratorium to allow us time to formulate a better proposal to address the actual situation and problems which the School of Education and the University faces for reasons further explained below. Let’s work together. Full-time faculty only partially replaced by adjuncts over the past few years:

Special Education  Chavez, J.  Park, E.  Webb, J.

Teacher Education  Bader-Paetschow, B.  Georgi, D.  Kurz, T.  Schoudt, B.  Teetan, M.  Zachlod, M.

Advanced Educational Studies  Carlson, N. (Counseling)  Casey, J. (Counseling)  Gonzales, N. (Bilingual Ed.)  Martinez, E. (Counseling)  Woolsey, M. (Ed.Admin. and Teacher Ed.)

PEAK  Bailey, N.  Dibol, D.  Tacla, C.

The Neustadt and May Decision-Making Model

Situation------àGoals------àOptions------àDecision What’s the story?(now) Analogies 1st Option . . . is Knowns Differences Implications Unclear If/Then Presumptions Rationale Likelihood=x/100 What fresh 2nd Option facts would Implications cause us to If/Then change our Rationale decision? Likelihood=x/100 3rd Option Implications If/Then Rationale Likelihood=x/100 . . . [Source: Neustadt, Richard and May, Ernest, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: The Free Press, 1986.]

Situation: From its inception, the CSUB School of Education has been at the center of the University. Last spring, the School of Education (as a unit) was highly rated and again nationally accredited. While local educators praised the School of Education during the accreditation visit, there is now not sufficient staff or faculty to assess students and maintain accreditation records. Over the past couple years, seventeen faculty have only been partially replaced (by part-time adjuncts). This fall, a half-million dollars was cut from the School of Education’s budget. Another large cut is anticipated, shortly. Reassigned time (allocated for many years, but now thought unnecessary by the administration) for program coordination has been severely cut. Most coordinators teach an over-load. The Chair of the Teacher Education Department also serves as Director of the Multiple Subject Program and Director of the Single Subject Program. This has resulted in a lack of adequate student advisement and a lack of funding from grants. Likewise the current Interim Dean of the School of Education has had little time to devote to the School of Education, as he is very busy as Dean of the Extended Studies Division.

The issue of the School of Education enrollment has been raised. Three of the four School of Education departments have stable or increasing enrollment. The only big decline in enrollment has been in the multiple subject teacher education program. (See the attached enrollment data.)

Changing demographics represent one of the biggest problems for this region’s public schools. Many P-14 teachers do not speak Spanish, and therefore need pedagogical methods and strategies in how to teach the growing Hispanic population and other English Language Learners. Since the current long-time Bilingual/Multi-cultural Program Coordinator is planning to retire this spring, we should be advertising for a new Bilingual/Multi-cultural Program Coordinator to help us address this critically important problem. We have made a sincere effort to address this problem by speaking with the interim dean, the provost, and the president, but there has not yet been a response.

Many graduate students who do apply to the School of Education lack academic achievement, commonly expected of graduate students preparing to become educational professionals. Most are the first in their families to pursue graduate education. This requires School of Education faculty to spend an extra-ordinary amount of time, advising, tutoring, and providing corrective feedback. This makes the faculty’s teaching role very time-consuming, and we need extra resources to address this serious problem.

Lack of trust is another significant problem. Administrative promises have been made that have not been kept or carried out. Faculty lines are not being filled. Instructional materials are not being purchased. Computers are not being updated. Nevertheless, faculty have faithfully tried to maintain programs with virtually no supplies, and utilize their personal funds to attend important conferences. We have waiting lists for classes that are not taught due to lack of resources. We are required to maintain CTC and NCATE accreditation standards, but our class offerings and assessment procedures now are not what they were when the accreditation team was here.

Unclear: It is unclear why this administrative proposal is being advanced at this particular time. Bringing in two departments from another school, along with liberal studies in order to reduce the size of the Humanities and Social Science School, doesn’t strike us as a sufficiently important rationale when the School of Education has so many critically important problems to address.

The lack of a strong rationale for the proposal has led to the following rumors:

“Adding departments to the School of Education which are outside the field of education would allow the president to appoint someone from outside the field of public education as dean.”

Response: The School of Education needs a knowledgeable dean; not someone who would require several years to become acquainted with professional requirements, or not model the requirements we ask of our own students.

“The School of Education is so bad that it needs the addition of two excellent departments to make it functional.”

Response: While everyone has heard the general myth that schools of education are inherently bad, the CSUB School of Education is nationally accredited with faculty who have received distinguished singular local, state, and national awards. Most problems within the School of Education can be traced to the lack of resources, and the appointment of the last two permanent deans who engaged in questionable practices and who did not have scholarly interests.

The addition of two departments outside of education is not likely to remedy problems within the School of Education. Further, if the School of Education were so toxic, why would one want to contaminate additional areas of the campus? Isolation would be a better remedy.

In all programs within the School of Education unit, at the time of the recent state and national accreditation visit, assessment procedures were in place which met CTC and NCATE standards. If the University administration believes that many areas within the School of Education are “broken,” the School of Education faculty calls upon the University administration to openly identify those areas so that we can work on fixing those problems, together.

Educational excellence for all departments at CSUB. Shared governance, allowing the maximum utilization of faculty expertise as well as administrative expertise. 1st Option

The proposed action by the administration is to reduce the size of the Humanities and Social Science School by moving the Social Work and Criminal Justice Departments to the School of Education, along with Liberal Studies and Counseling/Psychology.

Implications, If/Then, Rationale, Likelihood This breaks up the current School of Education as a unit. Maintaining current CTC and NCATE accreditation requirements and preparation for future CTC and NCATE accreditation visits would be significantly more complicated and disjointed. Social Work and Criminal Justice are not covered by these accreditation procedures. Liberal Studies has a limited role.

Private university programs are coming and benefitting because we are not filling the needs of local students for teacher education and credentialing. We could offer additional courses, for example in special education, and the students are on a waiting list, but the University is spending money in other ways.

Contemporary education requires consideration of not just what happens in school, but what happens in the home and in the community. Bringing social work and criminal justice into the School of Education would recognize the importance of understanding gang formation, and involving the home and the community in the educational process. However, the importance of integrating home and community in the educational process is already being taught within the early childhood/CAFS, bilingual/multi-cultural, counseling, teacher education, special education, and educational administration programs. Further emphasis is not warranted.

Previously there were two Marriage and Family Counseling programs on campus. These programs were combined, and the coordination of these programs was to alternate between the Humanities and Social Science School and the School of Education. This agreement did not hold. For the last several years, program coordination has been headquartered in the Humanities and Social Science School. This new proposal would consolidate the Marriage and Family Counseling Program within the School of Education.

Response: This part of the proposal makes sense since the Marriage and Family Counseling Program lab is in the School of Education building. However, there is general agreement that the small Marriage and Family Counseling Program should not be merged with the larger School Counseling Program, because the two programs have quite different purposes, even though the School Counseling Program is under-staffed, with only one full-time faculty member. We know that particularly in difficult financial times we need to work together. However, adding two new departments to the School of Education will make shared governance much more difficult, and require considerable learning time in order to make meaningful decisions, both from the perspective of the new department faculty (who will know little about the School of Education) and from the existing School of Education faculty (who will know little about the new departments). This will take valuable time we don’t have.

We have not detected a strong desire on the part of faculty in the Criminal Justice and Social Work Departments to participate in this “arranged marriage” with the School of Education.

This proposal is not financially, nor time and work, neutral. For example, indoor and outdoor signage will need to be changed, as will forms, procedures, school bi- laws, the catalog, business cards and letterheads, PeopleSoft, degree checks, etc.

2 nd Option

Strengthen the present School of Education, addressing actual current problems. Despite recently attaining state and national accreditation, and consistently having been among the most productive credential-producing CSU schools of education, many CSUB School of Education faculty believe that we have not sufficiently informed the University administration about what we do, and have thereby not yet attained their full support.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Faculty Comments About the Various Proposal Dimensions and Issues:

Student Issues: Admissions and records changes Changes will require major work, involving people, time, and money for very little return. For example, admissions requirements would probably change if the School Counseling and Marriage and Family Counseling Programs merge, likely resulting in fewer students qualifying for admission.

Catalog changes

Degree checks A positive for BBEST students.

Advising A positive change: housing Liberal Studies advisors within the School of Education.

Keep educational elements in education. Liberal Studies is by default focused on credentialing—not an appropriate philosophical match for education, any more than including individual disciplines in the School of Education. The proposal may lead to further confusion as to where students should go to get issues resolved.

Governance Issues: Timing More time is needed to fully process and dialogue about the realignment plan. The timeline should be extended.

Systemic changes require more time for communication. More time needed, please!

Ease of transition The Realignment proposal makes reference to FAQ’s. Where can these be accessed?

Faculty representation on University committees The Realignment proposal would require a “Super Dean,” acquainted with social work and criminal justice, in addition to all of the programs in education. Such a dean is not likely to provide adequate administrative support for areas such as accreditation, etc

School of Education participation on school wide committees will be further limited with the addition of new departments. Shared governance is already an issue. Cohesiveness will be difficult to establish, at best, until all departments get to know one another and even then, there will be competition for the immediate administrator’s time and attention. Current roles of coordinators and directors have already been compromised. We would have to spread current resources even thinner, further weakening our ability to serve our students.

Communication Leadership responsibilities should be given to the leaders within the education programs, with real support to lead.

Shared governance Shared governance is the “top issue.”

Everyone effected by this Realignment Proposal should be at the table participating in the decision-making.

Cohesiveness Placing departments under an organization scheme does not promote interdisciplinary activity.

Within-school organization School Academic Council The administration needs to call upon the School of Education faculty to help them address problems. A recent discussion of shared governance, for example, did not involve any faculty in the School of Education and yet that is an “education” topic. The administration needs to read the minutes of the School Academic Council (SAC) this year and see how positive the discussion has been. However, also notice that repeated patient requests of the administration for information documents (such as the budget or the annual report) have not been forthcoming, month after month. The School of Education Academic Council wants to help.

Role of the Director of Graduate Studies The Director of Graduate Studies is supposed to carefully review all theses and projects, as well as address graduate student issues and review program plans. Adding two more departments would significantly increase the work load, and make a job which is presently very difficult, even more difficult. Remember, the School of Education includes more graduate students than all of the rest of the University, combined.

Released time for program coordination There are program specific issues that require specific skill and knowledge to execute, for example, portfolio assessment, program credentialing, content standards, and curriculum issues.

Faculty buy-in This is a huge issue which requires serious inclusion, nurturing, facilitation, and communication.

Teaching Concerns How can this Realignment take place if there is currently no funding to hire enough faculty to teach classes?

We need highly qualified faculty to teach courses.

Our president has stated that we need to address the need for ESL teachers, but does not yet support our Bilingual/Multicultural Education Program.

Personnel Issues: Utilization of faculty resources Selection of a future dean, associate dean, assistant deans (criteria, faculty input) A “super dean” will not be found. The appointment will likely turn out to be a “political” appointment.

Education has unique needs that need unique support. A skilled and knowledgeable leader will be needed that is able to take the School of Education through accreditation, address regional education needs, as well as develop outreach programs and obtain grant and research support.

The timing for this proposal and the addition of non-education departments to the School of Education suggests that the administration has already selected our next dean.

How does the administration expect faculty to participate in a national search for a Dean in Fall 09 if the new school alignment plan is not clear to faculty who in Fall 09 will be busy learning and planning about the new program? Restructuring systems means lots of dialogue and discussion, which cannot take place by June, especially with faculty leaving for the summer break. Strongly consider extending the time from four months to a year. More time for transition is necessary.

Interest/concerns expressed by members of the School of Natural Science and Math.

Interest/concerns expressed by members of the Social Work and Criminal Justice Depts. Members of the Criminal Justice Department don’t want to become part of the School of Education.

Members of the Social Work Department said they are “neutral” about joining the School of Education. However, evidently there is a strong sentiment within the Humanities and Social Science School that faculty there want to get rid of the Social Work Department because of personality conflicts and because it is so expensive.

Interest/concerns expressed by members of the School of Education Do faculty and staff actually care any longer?

RTP RTP will be a major factor. Our roles in service and scholarly activities vary greatly from liberal studies, social work and criminal justice. Whose ideas will prevail? Selection of immediate administration (dean) will be difficult, at best. Try to find one who has experience in all the domains scheduled to be housed under this new school. Faculty in liberal studies don’t teach teacher track courses exclusively. How would they work in two different schools?

Role of CFA

Search procedures

Mentorship

Curriculum Issues: Accreditation (management; responsibilities for; administrative oversight) The proposal does nothing to address accreditation issues and processes.

Credentialing (preparation, specific credentials, and support staff)

Potential for faculty collaboration Relocating subject matter faculty to respective discipline departments at CSUB will create isolation and not integration in teacher education.

School/community collaboration Liberal studies (philosophical home) Now the liberal studies teaching track is just moving—now lame.

Role of the school curriculum committee The School Curriculum Committee examines new course proposals and new programs from the perspective of the school as a whole, rather than from the perspective of any member’s individual program. The vision and values of the School of Education which emphasize public education would change to a “community health” perspective involving education with social work and criminal justice. While social work and criminal justice are important, so is sociology and political science and philosophy and psychology. All of the social sciences contribute to our understanding of education. There are more school nurses than social workers. But education is our focus, and inclusion of any of these other broad fields which have so many applications besides education would detract from our focus.

Marketing Issues: Potential gain for the School of Education Liberal studies with School of Education.

We lose!

This could actually hurt us, with the exception of bringing liberal studies, teacher track, under the umbrella. Students don’t want a more diversified curriculum or faculty. They want programs specifically tailored to meet their needs, which is one reason why the privates are so successful.

Marketing for the School of Education has been lacking.

Potential gain for the Social Work and Criminology Departments They gain.

Potential gain for the Physical Education Department More resources for the School of Education may mean more of PEAK’s “production” can stay with PEAK, so it can grow.

Potential gain for the Marriage and Family Counseling Program It will be able to merge with the school counseling program, but it is doubtful whether this will lead to a growing student enrollment.

Consistency with the history of CSUB Identity of the School of Education Our credential and graduate programs are in dire need of a creative, dynamic and intense campaign to compete with the private universities.

Historically, CSU’s identity has been with teacher education. If not teacher education, then what? The identity of the School of Education is being lost at other CSU’s where non- education departments have been added.

Financial Issues: Overall: Wouldn’t it be easier to solve our financial problems with organizational structures we know, rather than with a new structure?

How does this new proposed school contribute to budget augmentation and to the positive advancement of CSUB?

How does the Realignment Proposal save money for CSUB?

Inequality in funding of programs (the Social Work Program is very expensive)

Greater diversification of academic programs within the proposed alignment will demand increased costs and resources. Where will this come from?

We already have inequality. More undergrad students will bring in more funding.

Can’t see any savings, only more cost. Grant funding now is based on collaboration across schools, not departments. This could actually hurt our ability to get grants.

Is this the optimal time to undertake an expensive endeavor? Would not the dollars be better spent short term on program support while we plan for long term change?

Letterhead reprinting; business card reprinting; reprinting of forms. This area alone will cost over $200,000.

Signage (indoor and outdoor) change costs

Retraining personnel

Other Issues: Individually workable facets of the proposal Liberal studies and Teacher Education Department faculty should and could work well together. There could be a potential benefit for credentialing and collaboration, even though we have separate degrees and credentials. This is one area where a “seamless” transition and possible increase in enrollment could occur. Curriculum, however, will be distinctly different, with some collaboration with the field experience components. What we have is a one-stop shop, with the exception of liberal studies. Adding other components eliminates the “one-stop” shop.

The Marriage and Family Counseling Program should either be in the School of Education or in the Humanities and Social Science School. Presently it is in both schools. Since the lab for this program is in the School of Education building, the whole program should be in the School of Education. Unworkable facets of the proposal

Office space

History of the proposed model, elsewhere: Would like to see in the plan a step where affected faculty members from the “New School” visit a campus who has gone through a similar restructuring process and have them share findings with CSUB faculty. Additionally having faculty from the reconfigured campus come to CSUB and give their input might provide key information to avoid pitfalls.

CSU-Dominguez Hills Faculty at CSU-Dominguez Hills state that NCATE accreditation there is in trouble, because they have not yet informed NCATE of the major changes which have been made. The dean of the new larger school does not have an education background, so they have had to appoint a “director” of education who presumably will have to do what the former school of education dean, did. They haven’t yet figured out what they are going to do regarding RTP, or with regard to faculty representation on university committees. Their multi-cultural program is being reduced to a minor. They looked to their central administration to champion education; instead education has lost its identity there.

CSU-East Bay Cal Poly-Pomona At Cal Poly-Pomona their school includes a couple minor departments, but this hasn’t had much effect. Faculty spoken to said there hadn’t been any synergy between education departments and the outside departments. The faculty senate took a strong stand against mixing other departments with education.

CSU-Fullerton

How the proposal fits with the University’s short- and long-term goals We need to educate the administration about what we do and how we go about preparing teachers, counselors, and administrators.

Where are the short term (6 months to a year) goals/plans? Long-term goals (2-3 years)?

While some of our students do go into private education, the School of Education supports and values public education.

The proposal begins by talking about “changes.” The biggest change is that education is becoming ever more important. Educators recognize that social work and criminal justice are important and appropriately include community considerations within their courses. But the main focus of a school of education should be on child development, pedagogy, curriculum development, school counseling, and educational administration.

Cross-disciplinary work can occur now. A new structure is not needed.

The School of Education was required to develop a “culture of evidence” for NCATE and CTC accreditation. Bringing in additional departments will make maintaining that culture more difficult, as it is already suffering due to a lack of staff.

If lack of enrollment is the main problem, the School of Education should be asked to focus on that problem. Presently, we have just heard that 40 hours per week of staff time is being devoted to recruitment. That effort has not been well organized or even recognized by the faculty. The faculty would be willing to assist with recruitment.

The idea of creating “new models of para-professional and professional preparation” is surely a dream and not based on reality. Teachers and administrators are being laid off. School districts will surely not be hiring new types of para-professionals/professionals.

Who will be the dean during this coming year? Excluding the future dean from the school planning process does not anticipate a strong leadership role for this future dean, unless someone has already been selected. How the proposal fits with national trends In 1980, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. Pres. Ronald Reagan tried to dismantle the Department of Education. In contrast, Pres. Obama is placing increasing emphasis upon education. We should not go back to the days when social services and education were in one department.

Other miscellaneous comments: The “realignment” process is vague. More details are needed!

The proposal has a lot of fluff and not much substance—a weak rationale and minimal statement of the issues and problems.

The proposal lacks sufficient detail on the internal and external impact. It also lacks a financial impact analysis and a budget.

The new name—School of Human Services and Education—minimizes the important role of education and the preparation of educational professionals.

We need feedback from the community and the public schools.

The history of other models has not been explored enough.

We have lost enrollment. We lost ten teacher candidates this Winter because we only offered one section of each class in phase one and those classes were filled three weeks into registration. We have documentation that these candidates went to Point Loma and Fresno Pacific. Additionally, as Richard Weigelt has so aptly stated: the privates have subsisted successfully for some time now at an additional cost to candidates. We should be the only game in town because of cost. What are we doing wrong that they are doing right?