32nd Faculty Senate

Vol. 32, No. 4

October 2, 1997

I. Roll Call.

Present: Barmore, Claflin, Duquette, Egle, Grant, Haupert, Host, Kraemer, S. Krajewski, Lazinger, MacDonald, L. Nelson, J. Parker, N. Pati, Prucha, Reithel, D. Riley, Roskos, Shanks, Snowberg, Socha, P. Taylor, Willey, Wingate.

II. Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the September 18, 1997, meeting were approved as distributed.

III. Chair�s Report.

A. M/S/P to approve the following Senate Executive Committee nominees to serve on the ad hoc Calendar Committee: Rich Snowberg, Bob Wingate.

B. M/S/P to approve the following Senate Executive Committee nominees to serve on the ad hoc Honors Program Committee: Diane Cannon, David Miller, Joy Pahl, Dick Sullivan, Sara Sullivan, Laraine Unbehaun.

C. The annual West Central Wisconsin Consortium (WCWC) Grievance & Appeals Workshop is scheduled for Thursday, October 16, 1997, at the UW-River Falls campus. Mr. John Tallman, System Legal Counsel, will conduct the workshop which runs from 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Any interested faculty member is invited to attend with reservations requested by October 14th. Contact the faculty senate office for further details.

IV. Open Forum on the Proposed Change in the Academic Structure of UW-L.

The following individuals spoke on the proposed change in academic structure at UW-LaCrosse:

S. Price - supports the plan and believes the change will help focus activities and efforts. Presently, the College of HPER houses 25% of the education majors on campus. The strategic alliance has natural ties such as the special physical education program and special education; the master of social work and the therapeutic recreation program. It will allow for collaborative efforts and an opportunity for growth.

M. Gibson - supports the plan and sees no problem coexisting and even sees new opportunities for collaboration.

J. Batesky - supports the plan with guarded optimism. He welcomes the opportunity for growth.

J. Steffen - (written remarks read by J. Batesky) supports the plan and the coordinated effort especially with physical education teacher education. He sees the process as more streamlined and easier for the educational institutions where students are placed to work with one individual rather than several.

G. Wegner - wants a delay. He believes teacher education is deeply rooted in the liberal arts. He is more concerned about the structure and referred to a "call for citizenship education" (Thomas Jefferson). He doesn�t believe the current structure has had time to grow, and suggested a one-year delay in implementation of a plan.

K. Travers - believes that no reorganization will efficiently replace what we are already doing. Presently there is only one student teaching office handling all of the placements. She further believes that "irreparable damage" will be done if the proposed plan is adopted, and has in fact today submitted her resignation effective 1/2/98.

Senator Duquette asked for examples of damage. Travers believes there is a "drastic" difference in the educational philosophy of placements between the College of HPER and Teacher Education but failed to elaborate specifically.

E. Cason - reported that the majority of the School of Education faculty from whom she has heard, oppose the reorganization (17 oppose, 3 favor, 1 abstain). She cited poor timing with the NCATE review next spring, the nationwide liberal studies affiliation trend of the national reform movement in education, the progress in improving the quality of the education program as called for in the last NCATE review, and the concerns of local school districts as reasons to vote against the reorganization proposal.

T. Greenwood - said she came to UW-L because of teacher education�s link to liberal studies.

J. Bulk - favors the reorganization plan from a practical approach. CLS as it is now organized is cumbersome, awkward and has not served the unit well as evidenced with the most recent budget model and the difference in program demands from NCATE and DPI.

J. Gallagher - endorses the proposed plan which he calls reasonable and logical. It is a win-win opportunity. He is particularly concerned about the humanities and social sciences which have suffered under the current structure.

N. Navar - endorses the proposed plan as practical and welcomes another allied health unit into the structure. Presently she chairs a department which houses two accredited non-teaching majors. There have not been any problems co-existing.

L. Slinger - asked for a one-year extension to study the issue. She is concerned about the philosophical commitment to teacher education.

C. Frye - listed collaborative efforts, partnerships with schools, new competitive admissions policy, and the recent adoption of program outcomes/standards as evidence of the commitment towards the success of the School of Education.

Senator Duquette asked how the proposed restructure might negatively impact on the triad? She responded that the comparison was simply an attempt to provide information to the senate and did not assert that it would be damaging.

K. Koppelman - has confidence that no matter what the outcome, the education faculty will do what they have to do. He would however, suggest we take a year or two to discuss and develop a plan for reorganization which everyone could embrace. He believes in the strong governance tradition of addressing issues in learning communities.

T. Barkauskas - favors the reorganization plan as good for the university as a whole. He believes that the smaller overall units of more equal size will be good for education, as well as for liberal studies which has the important role of maintaining a meaningful general education program.

D. Snyder - asked if teacher education is better served in the current structure. Does it help with the goal of general education? Were resources available for CLS programs? And, lastly, is the school of education well served by its affiliation with CLS? He does not believe so. He endorses the reorganization proposal and believes that the two smaller college/alliance can become a substantial contributor in the overall structure of the academic community.

P. DiRocco - was speaking for the proposal. He does not see the move as a threat to any unit and in fact could be a creative opportunity. He urged senators to base their decision on what�s best for the university community.

D. Miller - is strongly in favor of the reorganization proposal. Practically speaking the present administrative structure is cumbersome. The size of the college is too large and is concerned with many different issues. It has been hard for the college to maintain balance, focus, and support.

D. Stroud - is in favor of the reorganization and is convinced that regardless of the vote, educational experiences will not be hindered by the proposed structure. His colleagues support the reorganization, and believe that two smaller units can be more effective. CLS will have more direction, focus and opportunity to do things together. He also noted that when Education had college status, they had not clamored to join with the humanities and social science units.

G. Walsko - distributed a Statement on the Reorganization Proposal from Carol Kirk (School of Education), a 10/2/97 letter from Ken Bates (Principal at Logan High School) to Dr. Greenwood, and a communication from M. Glen Jenkins (Principal at Longfellow Middle School). He reiterated earlier concerns about new rules, partnership agreements, and job descriptions.

D. Hastad - used four points to guide his thinking regarding the reorganization proposal. Philosophies which share a common thread and are sensitive to outside accreditations. Process�the proposal represents the painstaking process which the P/VC used in consulting with department chairs, individual faculty/staff, governance and university leaders. Benefits�the reorganization makes sense and creates opportunities for broad support. CLS will be better focused and strategically positioned to begin the search for a new Dean. There are real dollar savings in not replacing a graduate dean. The Director of the School of Education will be able to devote full-time to the task of overseeing that unit, and there will be a real opportunity to create a new and exciting college. Personal Comments�his roots are in teacher education holding a Bachelor�s, Master�s, and Ph.D. degree in education with a 21 year record of experience and support for education. He is devoted to strengthening the School of Education.

Senator Shanks asked if Dean Hastad could address the difference in philosophies. He responded that once the reorganization plan was adopted, that would be the time to sit down and talk about the different philosophical strategies.

H. Hagar - believes that Social Work could be housed in any structure. Presently some 30+ credits for the major rest in CLS. She believes the Master of Social Work will work well in the proposed reorganization, and that it makes sense to place the School of Education under the umbrella of the Strategic Alliance.

D. Kistner - favors the proposal, and believes the Social Work program will work well in the new Alliance. In his role of Interim Dean, College of Science & Allied Health, he has heard nothing to the contrary regarding the proposal.

G. Sudhakaran - favors the reorganization proposal. In his role as Chair of the Physics Department he serves on the Teacher Education Council and offers workshops for Physical Science students. He does not believe the reorganization will be detrimental to teacher education, or affect collaborative efforts, or reduce opportunities for physics students seeking certification.

J. Heim - favors reorganization; although he shares many concerns expressed earlier, he believes the Strategic Alliance makes a lot of sense from an organizational structure. One clear advantage is that its a small step which would be easier to pull back should that be necessary. The proposal is innovative and sound while the current system does not work.

B. Chaney - described her conflicted feelings and the conflicting advice she has received.

E. Wood - supports the reorganization proposal and he stressed the importance of acknowledging the value of self-determination.

V. Old Business.

VI. New Business.

VII. Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Submitted by

James R. Parker, Secretary