Proposed New Structure for the College of Education and Human Services

1. ProposedNew Structurefor the College of Education and Human Services

2. Reviewof the Process

3. Process Review • Initial decision by the Dean to modify the structure • Review with the Provost • Affirmation that organizational structure is the responsibility of the Administration - as long as it receives support of the majority of the appointed faculty through faculty governance • Agreement on the boundary conditions • Formation of the Faculty group by the Dean to assist with the design and the process • Selection based on representation of the various programs, breadth of faculty tenure, and breadth of faculty perspectives • Selection by the Dean of the external facilitator - seasoned organizational development consultant, familiar with COEHS, professional educator (Ed.D.), former University professor

4. Process Review • Kick-off meeting with the selected Faculty group - February 17 • Purpose of the activity • Process to be followed • Boundary conditions • Pre-session preparation by the consultant with the participating members of the Faculty Group • February 21 - March 6 • Twelve individual interviews conducted • Supporting enrollment and market data gathered and analyzed • Team members instructed to gather input from colleagues

5. Process Review • Initial full day off-site session by the Dean with the selected Faculty Group - March 10 • Review of the Charter and Goal - Proposed Rules of Engagement for the Faculty Team • The College Governance Model • Background Data • Analysis and Feedback From 12 Interviews • Placing the Feedback in the Systemic Model • Discussion of the Core • Discussion of C & I • Development of possible structures (individual work) • Post sharing by the Faculty team with the broader faculty - as requested and desired

6. Process Review • Development of the Proposed Structure by the Dean - March 10-31 • All Faculty invited by email from the Dean and at Faculty Assembly meetings to provide their inputs with any member of the Team • Dean met with a number of members of the team, with other faculty and with several faculty groups • Dean developed organizational structure • Second Faculty team off-site - half day - April 3 • Review of the proposed structure to the Faculty Team • Some adjustments made • 100 percent endorsement of the proposed plan (with adopted modifications) by the end of that session

7. Process Review • Proposed structure - as endorsed by the Faculty team - shared by the Dean with the faculty • Per email and attachment from the Dean • Subsequent discussions by members of the team with other faculty members • Continued invitations for individual meetings • Final refinements by the Dean • Review by the COEHS Faculty Assembly Executive Committee – April 17 – unanimous support of the plan and clarification on voting procedures • Formal Presentation to the Faculty - April 21- TODAY • Review of the process and the boundary conditions • Presentation of the new structure • Opportunity for discussion for complete understanding • Faculty discussions - input regarding implementation issues

8. Process Review • Faculty Assembly to Consider Reorganization on April 28 • Remaining approvals through the proper University process • To be implemented after April 28 per Faculty Assembly approval • The goal is to have the new structure fully approved and in place for the January, 2007 semester (possibly as early as August, 2006)

9. Structural DesignBoundary Conditions

10. Reorganization Boundary Conditions • Reorganization cannot require additional faculty or staff • Reorganization cannot cost more to run the College • Cannot increase number of 12 month administrators (4) • Department sizes cannot be smaller or larger than any we have today (12-40). Reduction in disparity of sizes is desirable • Services offices must have a clear and distinct purpose • No faculty member will lose his/her job or be demoted to a lower academic position based on reorganization • College hierarchy should not have more than 2 layers • Regular faculty must report to a Department Chair. Clinical faculty may report to a Chair or non-faculty Director. All employees should have one supervisor.

11. Reorganization Boundary Conditions • The final structure must be accepted by a majority vote of the faculty • The organizational structure is ultimately the responsibility of the Dean and cannot be delegated. The Dean must make the final decision and present it to the Faculty Association president and University administration for ratification • Academic Departments should be built around academic programs rather than service areas or philosophical orientations • Department names should reflect their functions - simplicity is best • The structure must be understandable to the broader community - including non-professional educators • The college must be structured around its mission - not political agendas or personnel issues • The structure should be future-focused - facilitating student enrollment and growth in fulfillment of the mission of the College

12. Today’s Meeting

13. Purpose • To share the new structure with the entire Faculty to ensure full understanding of the new structure - what it is; why it was created this way; how it will be implemented • To ensure understanding of the structure • To solicit Faculty inputs regarding any minor adjustments that might enhance this structure and to identify any concerns or issues regarding implementation • To establish comfort and support for Faculty endorsement

14. Process for Today • Lunch 12:00 - 12:45 • Presentation of the new structure 12:45 - 1:30 • Facilitated table group discussions 1:30 - 2:30 Each table led by a member of the Team Each table assigned to ensure heterogeneity Structured questions plus open discussion • Break 2:30 - 2:45 • Facilitator Feedback from the Tables 2:45 - 3:30 • Open questions and discussion 3:30 - 3:50 • Call to action and adjournment 3:50 - 4:00

15. Rules of Engagement • Our common goal is to serve the College as the highest priority - not personal agendas • Roles and jobs are checked at the door - no “positional” behaviors • No fixed positions - we give ourselves permission to change our minds based on perspectives that come from really listening to each other • Everyone has the responsibility to both contribute and listen to others • The spirit of engagement is dialogue - listening for understanding. Debating from a fixed position is not acceptable. Taking turns talking without first listening for understanding is not acceptable

16. Background Data

17. 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs 21-25 yrs 26-30 yrs 30-35 yrs Faculty Longevity Number Of Faculty

18. 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 Faculty Longevity Number Of Faculty 1-10 yrs 11-20 yrs 21-30+ yrs

19. Ed Minor 1000 900 800 Middle-K-12-PE-Sport 700 Special Ed 600 Number Of Majors Secondary 500 400 300 Elementary 200 Total = 782 Total = 798 Total = 790 Total = 762 Total = 1028 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Undergraduate Enrollment

20. 100 Doctoral 107 388 91 1000 92 89 900 425 369 442 Ed Minor 800 409 Graduate 700 600 Middle-K-12-PE-Sport Number Of Majors 500 Special Ed 400 Secondary 300 200 Grand Total = 1322 Grand Total = 1256 Grand Total = 1315 Grand Total = 1263 Grand Total = 1516 100 Elementary 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Adding Graduate Enrollment

21. 1400 1200 1000 New Hires With 4 yr Degrees But No Certification 800 600 400 UNF Educ Grads UNF Educ Grads UNF Educ Grads 200 2003 2004 2005 Duval County School New Hires 1299 1140 724 Number Of New Teacher Hires

22. Notes fromMarch 10 Meeting

23. Faculty Team Rules of Engagement

24. Comm. Member Comm. Member Comm. Member Comm. Member Comm. Member Committee - Defined goal or purpose “Home” Organization “Home” Organization “Home” Organization “Home” Organization “Home” Organization A Committee • Committee has a defined goal or purpose • Individuals are sent as “representatives” to the Committee • Their primary allegiance is to “those that sent them” • Individuals try to achieve the common goal • Get as much as possible for their group • Give up as little as possible • If push comes to shove, interest of the home group comes first

25. Team Member Team Member Team Goal Team Leader Team Member Team Member A Team • Team has an established goal • Team members committed to the team goal and to each other • Leader has a larger role but is member of the team • Goal cannot be achieved if any part is missing • Team goal is primary - over individual or “home organization” goals

26. Agreed Rules of Engagement • We will function as a Team - not as a Committee • Team goals serve the College as the highest priority - not personal agendas • Roles and job are checked at the door - no “positional” behaviors • Consensus is the basis for decision-making; not voting or unanimity • No fixed positions - we give ourselves permission to change our minds based on new data and perspectives that come from really listening to each other • Consensus prevails - the “right of infinite refusal” is not acceptable

27. Agreed Rules of Engagement • Decisions are based on “what’s right,” not “who’s right” - determined by facts and analysis; not opinion management • Everyone has the responsibility to both contribute and listen to others • The spirit of engagement is dialogue - listening for understanding. Debating from a fixed position is not acceptable. Taking turns talking without first listening for understanding is not acceptable

28. COEHSGovernance Model

29. Our Governance Model • COEHS follows the traditional academic governance model • Governance is shared between Faculty and Administration • Faculty has primary responsibility for curriculum, instruction and faculty selection, retention and promotion • Administration has veto authority if it believes that faculty decisions violate the College Charter, its fiduciary or legal responsibilities, or its academic standards • Administration has primary responsibility for organization, budget, scheduling, and administrative matters • Faculty must support major Administrative decisions with a majority vote

30. Our Governance Model • The primary organizational structure in the College is the Department • Departments are built on the academic programs placed within them • Departments have the responsibility and authority to define the curriculum and instructional regarding their programs • Departments have primary responsibility for the selection of their faculty and for determining their work assignments • Departments are responsible for the quality of the learning experience for the students who are majoring in the programs housed in their Departments

31. Interview Feedback

32. Issues Identified in Interviews • Lack of collaboration and collegiality 16 • Not listening to each other • Turf and territoriality • Defensiveness and protection of areas of control • Lobbying on positions, vote counting, pressure applied to non-tenured faculty • Politics over substance

33. Issues Identified in Interviews • Conflict over the Core 13 • What are the competencies - content - that should comprise the core • Who should be eligible/allowed to teach core courses • How should the core be delivered - separate courses or embedded • Who has the right and authority to decide these matters

34. Issues Identified in Interviews • C&I is Unwieldy and Dysfunctional 9 • Too large and bureaucratic • Ongoing in-fighting • Conflicts between Elementary Education and everyone else • K-12 programs do not feel they get adequate attention • So many programs and issues that decision-making is too slow • Lots of internal dissension - 3 chairs in 6 years

35. Issues Identified in Interviews • Alternative Certification Programs Not Meeting Needs 6 • We only offer our standard courses that do not meet their needs • They do not fit well with pre-service students • Not all faculty believe we should be serving this population • We are not addressing the needs of our markets and clients

36. Issues Identified in Interviews • Barriers Maintained Between Program Areas 6 • Strong barriers and turf between programs in C&I • Elementary education against everyone else • Turf and territoriality are the dominant forces • Unwillingness to share courses, students, methods, etc.

37. Issues Identified in Interviews • We do not adequately serve our non K-12 students 3 • Many educators in non-traditional settings • Many of these in Leadership and Doctoral programs • Counseling students in non-school settings largely ignored • Lack of interest in meeting needs of Alternative Certification population

38. Issues Identified in Interviews • Alternative instructional delivery needed 3 • More interactive • On-line learning • Shared courses • Differential delivery • Competencies embedded in courses

39. Placing the FeedbackIn TheOrganizational System

40. Your Organization Is a System • Perfectly designed to create the results it consistently produces • Complex and interdependent • Actively seeking and creating homeostasis - therefore single point changes are rarely effective • With systemic delays between cause and effect • With several leverage points - often counter-intuitive • System changes create both intended and unintended results

41. Organizational System Model

42. Alt. Cert. Programs not meeting needs Lack of collaboration Conflict with the Core C&I unwieldy and dysfunctional Alternative instructional delivery needed Barriers between program areas Not serving non K-12 students Long-term faculty unwilling to share control Placing Our Issues in the Model

43. SESSION NOTES

44. The Core

45. Defining the Core • The Core represents the knowledge, skills and competencies required for ALL teacher education programs at COEHS • There are five categories of competencies that represent the core • Human development and learning • Instructional planning • Classroom management • Assessment • The exceptional learner

46. Defining the Core • Core competencies are considered foundational for all teacher education • The specific courses that represent the core are: • Nature of the Learner • The Learning Process • Assessment of Learning and Behavior • Classroom Management and Communication • Psychology and Education of Exceptional Learners

47. Core Undergraduate Requirements • Undergraduate students must take any three of the five core courses • The competencies reflected in the other two courses must be shown in their program of study in some fashion - other courses, embedded instruction, field experience, etc. • The State of Florida has specified the following core requirements • Assessment • Classroom management • Human growth and development

48. The Fundamental Core Question • If the core represents the set of CORE (essential) competencies (knowledge and skill) necessary for effective teaching….. • How do we ensure that every single person in teacher education acquires these core competencies

49. The Core - Packaging Choices • Alternative #1 - Provide one set of specific, defined courses that are required of ALL students and ensure 100 percent compliance to this requirement • Alternative #2 - Break the core competencies down into a larger set of smaller instructional modules (Units). Students would then be required to take some number of Units from each of the five designated categories. • Alternative #3 - Infusion. Build an instructional model in which the core competencies are embedded in the courses offered by each program area

50. The Core - Packaging Choices • Alternative #4 - Develop a blend of some number of required universal courses for all students plus some program-specific courses • Choice - Students must take all the core courses or some number from the total • This model can also include infusion of some competencies into other courses • Alternative #5 - Any combination of the above