Seidel School of Education and Professional Studies

Teacher Education Council

Minutes

Date: October 13, 1998, 3:30 - 4:30 p.m.

Location: The Commons, Room 204

In attendance: B. Barnett (Dean), J. Bing (Secondary / K-12 Professional Program, Assoc. Dean), C. Chappell (School Psychology Program Director), L. Hoen (Mathematics),

N. Michelson (M.Ed. Program Director), K. Milner (M.Ed. School Administration),

D. Rieck (Chemistry), G. Rossi (PDS Coordinator), H. Schriver (Director of Field Experiences), D. Thatcher (Undergraduate Program Director), A. White (Modern Languages), E. Whitford (Education Department Chair), J. Whitney (History), C. Wood (Physical Education, Teacher Education, Director)

1. B. Barnett welcomed faculty to the first meeting of the Teacher Education Council (TEC), the policy making group for teacher education and school personnel programs. Faculty introduced themselves and identified their relationship to TEC.

2. B. Barnett reviewed the Seidel School restructuring effective Summer, 1999, including appointment of J. Bing - Assoc. Dean, E. Whitford - Education Department Chair, D. Thatcher - Undergraduate Program Director, N. Michelson - M.Ed. Program Director, J. Jenne - MAT Program Director, and G. Rossi - PDS Coordinator.

3. B. Barnett announced that the NCATE Board of Examiner=s would be on campus for their visit on October 23 - 27, 1999.

4. Prior to review of the TEC Constitution and Bylaws, B. Barnett commented on the importance of trust and faith in one another about what we don=t understand and may feel uncomfortable, and of the benefit of the process in producing quality teachers and school personnel. A. White inquired about where TEC fits in the decision making hierarchy of the university. TEC will be policy making for admission, retention, and exit decisions in programs. University Curriculum Committee (UCC) has final say related to recommendations, but curriculum recommendations would pass from the schools to TEC to UCC. C. Wood inquired about what the implications of meeting twice a semester were for making curriculum decisions. D. Thatcher observed we can call special meetings to review curriculum decisions. K. Milner inquired about the reason for having TEC. There is no other place stakeholders can come together to discuss teacher education and school personnel programs. We must come together and work together as a body of teacher education.

During discussion of the Constitution and Bylaws the following comments were offered to clarify the role and responsibilities of the TEC. Scheduling and course delivery are department matters, but cycle of courses could be reviewed by TEC. N. Michelson inquired about what happens when an unacceptable proposal is received. TEC must have the power to set policy. A. White commented everybody needs to operate in good trust and faith and we may need a clause to revise the constitution. Currently, policy proposals are in the form of recommend with comments, or not recommend with comments. B. Barnett proposed TEC language would parallel that of the school level. TEC needs to be alerted to curriculum changes prior to action. TEC would look at proposals in light of national standards. For example, an M.A., ESL program proposal would go from Fulton Curriculum Committee, to Fulton Dean, to TEC, to Graduate Council. The final policy-maker is the Provost or President.

Following this discussion, TEC reviewed, revised, and approved with modifications, the attached Teacher Education Council Constitution and Bylaws (see attached).