Dean Deborah Loewenberg Ball's slides from her State of the School Address at the All-School Meeting on October 2, 2009

1. ALL-SCHOOL MEETING 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
9:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m.
Schorling Auditorium

2. Our guest
Terrence McDonald
Arthur F. Thurnau Professor
Professor of History
Dean, College of Literature,
Science, and the Arts
2

3. 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

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
2009 Pattishall Award
• Patricio Herbst
• Betsy Davis
CONGRATULATIONS,
PAT AND BETSY!
4

5. 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

6. 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

7. New Faculty
 Peter Bahr, assistant professor, CSHPE
 Timothy Boerst, clinical associate professor
 Kathleen Graves, clinical associate professor
7

8. 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

9. A few basic facts:
Faculty composition and quality
10% 88 faculty:
10%  59 in the tenure track
 13 research scientists
44%
10%  1 instructor
 7 lecturers
7%
 8 clinical practice faculty
19% 28 joint with other units
Professors 56% female
Associate Professors
Assistant Professors 20% minority
Lecturers and Instructors
Research Scientists
Clinical Practice Faculty
9

10. 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

11. Enrollments
Teacher certification (418) 14%
25%
313 undergraduate 11%
 103 elementary
 210 secondary
105 master’s (MAC)
50%
 47 elementary
 58 secondary
Undergraduate elementary
Undergraduate secondary
76% female Elementary MAC
16% under-represented minority Secondary MAC
11

12. Enrollments
Graduate (385): 9% 14%
101 regular MA students 9%
 48 Educational Studies (ES)
 53 Higher Education (CSHPE) 15%
14%
284 PhD students
 134 Educational Studies (ES)
 86 Higher Education (CSHPE)
 32 Combined Program in 39%
Education and Psychology (CPEP)
 32 Joint Program in English and
MA ES MA CSHPE
Education (JPEE) PhD ES PhD CSHPE
PhD CPEP PhD JPEE
72% female
18% under-represented minority
12

13. Graduate Enrollments
100 In State Out of State International
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Elementary Secondary
PhD JPEE PhD CPEP PhD CSHPE PhD ES MA CSHPE MA ES
MAC MAC
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
13

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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, 6 7 3 3,346, 2 1 4 1,203, 5 4 1
19

20. 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

21. Research Funding Update
FY08 FY09 FY10
 65 submitted:  73 submitted:  18 submitted:
$46.7M $59.1M $38.4M
 30 awarded:  28 awarded:
$23.1M $22.4M
 28 pending:
$14.3M
 35 denied  17 denied:
$20.7M
21

22. Development
1. Total gifts down in 2009: amount and
number of donors: “campaign fatigue” and
the economy
2. But: Major new prospects
22

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 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 (fforzani@umich.edu).

27. 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

28. If not it’s the budget or other dire things
happening to us,
then what do we have to be scared of?

29. 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

30. What makes ed schools vulnerable?
 Low status of the 1. Lack of clarity of the nature of education
teaching profession research, and lack of persuasiveness about
 Lost: disconnected its quality, relevance, or rigor
from schools and 2. Little evidence for the “edge” of an
from the disciplines education school preparation for teaching
(Lagemann) 3. The “Rodney Dangerfield” phenomenon
 Seen as weak and the failure to take the problem
compared with the seriously
arts and sciences 4. Our own disbelief and the critical turn
disciplines 5. Our tendency toward undisciplined
advocacy
6. Mission drift
30

31. What is the unique mission of the
school of education (like us) at a
research university (like U-M)?

32. 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
33

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. Framework for
strategic thinking and decisions
40

41. 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

42. 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

43. Thank you!