COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONFACULTY AND STAFF

RETREAT

March 18, 2011

Friday Institute9-12

AGENDA

• Welcome & Plan for the Day• Friday Institute

– 5-year Review – Fleener– Summary of Accomplishments – Kleiman

• State of the College• Strategic Planning• Lunch• Faculty Business Meeting – Task

Forces– Faculty Mentoring– Communications Strategies– College Climate

FI – Five-Year Review: February 2-3, 2011

Review Team• Michael Golden, Principal, The Golden

Company, LLC. Former PA Deputy Secretary of Education; VP, Pearson Publishing; and VP, Microsoft.

• Tom Houlihan, Principal, Institute for Breakthrough Performance. Former Executive Director of the CCSSO and Education Advisor to North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt.

• Alan M. Lesgold, Dean of the College of Education, University of Pittsburgh.

• Tom K. Miller, Vice Provost for Distance Education and Learning Technology, NC State University.

FI Review Agenda

February 2Morning:

Meeting with FI Faculty, Staff and Project Personnel (22)

Afternoon:Interviews with External Constituents (NC State, Business & Gov’t Leaders, Partner Organization, School Leaders, Consultants)

(23)

February 3Morning:

College AdministratorsFaculty (23)

Afternoon:Draft Report Presented Orally

Stakeholder Representatives• Pat Ashley, Director of District and School Transformation

for the North Carolina, DPI• Myra Best, Special advisor to Governor Perdue and

previous director of the NC Elearning Commission.• Valerie Brown-Schild, Director of the Kenan Fellows

Program.• J.B. Buxton, founding principal of the Education

Innovations Group. Previously served as the Deputy State Superintendent of the NCDPI.

• Michael Cerreto, Consultant to the FI during the early planning process and then again to facilitate the strategic planning process.

• Scarlet Davis, Associate Superintendent of Watauga Public Schools.

• Chris Dede, Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, and consultant for the Friday Institute.

• Joe Freddoso, President and CEO of MCNC.

Stakeholder Representatives - continued

• Senator Howard Lee. Exe. Director of the NC Education Cabinet.

• Bill McNeal, Exe. director of the NC Association of School Administrators (NCASA), previously Superintendent of the Wake County Public School System.

• Diane Frost, Superintendent of Asheboro Public Schools. • Ann Goodnight, Director of Community Relations at SAS,

Board of Governors UNC system, FI National Advisory Board.

• Tony Habit, Executive Director, NC New Schools Project• William Harrison, Chair of the NC State Board of

Education and Governor Perdue’s senior advisor for education transformation

• Gary T. Henry, Professor of Public Policy Analysis, director of the Carolina Institute for Public Policy, and Senior Fellow at the Frank Porter Graham Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill.

• Neill Kimrey, Director of Instructional Technology at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

Stakeholder Representatives - continued• Elwood Peters, Outreach Coordinator for Centennial

Campus Middle School.• Jill Reinhart, Technology Director for Surry County

Schools.• Dr. Sharon Schulze, Director of The Science House at

NC State.• Wynn Smith, Technology Director for Wilson County

Schools. • Mark Sorrells, Senior Vice President for the Golden LEAF

Foundation. • Tricia Willoughby. Executive Director of the North

Carolina Business Committee for Education and member of the NC State Board of Education.

• Jim Zuiches, Vice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development at North Carolina State University.

FI Review: Overall Findings

Overall, the Review Team was extremely impressed by many facets of the Friday Institute, most notably the tremendous progress made toward achieving the original vision of the Institute. The leadership of the Institute, directed by Glenn Kleiman, has done an outstanding job in many areas.

FI Review: Overall Findings (con’d)

The Review Team was also impressed and “deeply appreciative” that the Institute created at a major land grant/Research 1 University is providing a shining example for other Universities of how practice and research can combine to make a significant difference in the lives of students and teachers through education transformation.

FI Review: Overall Findings (con’d)

• The Institute faces challenges; however, these challenges are minor when compared to the successes of the Friday Institute to date.

• The Institute is a jewel of the College of Education and of the University.

• Friday Institute [a] powerful tool for educational transformation.

Question #1 – Mission & Goals

Is the FI successfully addressing its mission

– to advance education through innovation in teaching, learning, and leadership –

and its goal – to help schools become future-oriented organizations that build upon their traditional strengths while incorporating new learning content, teaching approaches, assessment practices, management strategies, and technology tools to best serve the students of today and tomorrow?

Recommendation – Question #1 Mission & Goals• It was an expectation among at least

some of the faculty that research should play a more central role. The Review Team recommends that an effort be made to seek and expand research opportunities that are aligned with the Institute’s current mission and efforts, while avoiding an expansion of the research portfolio in a way that would dilute the current work in any way.

Question #2 - Expectations

Is the Friday Institute successfully balancing the expectations of our multiple stakeholders, clients, and funders?

Findings – Question #2 Expectations• The Review Team found the expectations

of external stakeholders (which included business leaders, state officials, other education policy makers, and LEA clients) to be generally consistent, and this group collectively felt that their expectations are met and often exceeded by the work of the Institute.

Question #3 - Funding

• Does the Friday Institute have current funding and future funding opportunities that will enable it to be sustained and continue to develop?

• Is the Friday Institute successfully diversifying its funding?

• Is it well positioned for ongoing funding?

Findings – Question #3 Funding

• The Friday Institute has a strong funding base and its leaders and participants are well positioned to continue to secure competitive grants.

• The success of the Friday Institute in leading the North Carolina Race to the Top proposal is the strongest indication of its ability to make the case for major programmatic funding.

Question #4 - Opportunities

• Is the Friday Institute providing appropriate opportunities and support to further the work and careers of faculty, professional staff, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows?

Findings – Question #4 Opportunities

• The Friday Institute affords some experiences today for students and young doctorates that are truly exceptional. The Review Team felt that these opportunities and experiences were important components of the FI’s value.

• Even if one considered only a single venture, the Race to the Top involvement, the Friday Institute would be among the most unique and valuable innovation centers among university institutes around the nation.

• The opportunity to be enmeshed in one of the largest and most coherent efforts to transform American education has placed the Friday Institute squarely in the middle of leading efforts to reform education at all levels.

Findings – Question #4 Opportunities• The Institute has developed a focused and

coherent research portfolio.• Individual researchers expressed concern that

the Friday Institute should be supporting their specific research interests.

• The FI is doing exactly what was intended by the original funders and supporters of the Institute: namely, building a large and timely effort to bring the best available science to bear quickly on urgent educational needs.

• (Note: See forms for Friday Institute Rotating Research Fellows application process)

Question #5 – Quality of Scholarship

• Is the quality of scholarly activity by faculty, professional staff, and graduate students reflected in the collective output and visibility of the Friday Institute (publications, funded projects, outreach programs, advisory boards, etc.)?

Findings – Question #5 Quality• The Friday Institute enjoys an increasingly

positive reputation for the quality of its work. • The Institute is viewed as a proactive, nimble,

and productive organization with high-quality work that plays the role of connector, partner, and convener extremely well.

• The Institute has built visibility and credibility across the state. In some areas, like STEM education, digital literacy, and technology integration into the classroom, its faculty research excels, supported by a strong record of publication.

Recommendations – Question #5 Quality• We heard repeatedly in our interviews that the

output the Institute produces successfully connects the scholarly world to the world of educational practice.

• The prospect exists to articulate further the linkage between scholarly research and outreach to practitioners, rather than focusing on tradeoffs between the two roles.

• Perhaps the Friday Institute should be viewed as an agent of innovation in education practice that creates a foundation upon which new research can be built, while also exploring potential outreach to other research institutions to support its work.

Question #6 Management

• Is the Friday Institute well managed for strategic planning, finances, human resources, space and building operations, technology infrastructure and supports, and event management?

Findings – Question #6 Management• The Friday Institute has made positive

strides in its internal management and has become a unique and seemingly positive place to work.

• A Strategic Plan was developed and completed during the 2009-2010 academic year. The Strategic Plan has since been updated to provide timely guidance to the Institute’s mission and areas of focus over the next few years.

Findings – Question #6 Management

• Users praise the physical space, the quality of the event management staff, and the building location.

• The technology infrastructure aids greatly in establishing this welcoming, modern, and effective space, as does its co-location with the Centennial Campus Middle School.

Recommendations – Question #6 Management• The Friday Institute should pursue

continued diversification of funding so that it is not dependent on any one source of funds, either public or private.

• It should also propose ways to rethink allocations across the College and University to enable it to take greater advantage of the funds it secures for NC State.

Friday Institute Report of Activities – Glenn Kleiman

BREAK!!!

State of the College

• Context– University Strategic Plan– Academic Courses and Programs Task Force– Budget– Strategic Realignments within the University

Framework for State of College Report: Perspectives on University Strategic Goals

• Goal 1: Enhance the success of our students through educational innovation

• Goal 2: Enhance scholarship and research by investing in faculty and infrastructure

• Goal 3: Enhance interdisciplinary scholarship to address the grand challenges of society

• Goal 4: Enhance organizational excellence by creating a culture of constant improvement

• Goal 5: Enhance local and global engagement through focused strategic partnerships

UG1: Student Success & Educational Innovation – CED Successes• Redesigned all teacher education and

leadership programs• Redesigned student support services• Strategically integrated undergraduate

(TDE) and masters programs (NLGL)• Created college Ph.D. research core• Created common doctoral core (LPAHE)

UG2: Investing in Faculty Infrastructure• Five active searches

– Tremendous pools of candidates– Four nearing completion; other identifying final

pool• Create centralized pre and post grants

support• Challenges

– No raises– Potentially larger classes– Potentially fewer graduate assistantships

UG3: Interdisciplinary Scholarship to Address the Grand Challenges of Society• Pockets of success

– Early College High• Need to focus on what this means for our

college• Need to consider “reorganizing graduate

training into more flexible graduate fields of study” and lowering “barriers between disciplines and departments”

Academic Productivity Report to the Provost: Implications for CED

• Low productivity programs identified– Some were old programs still on the

books– Some were new programs still

developing– Others need to consider strategies for

combining with other programs• Specific recommendations made

– Combined STEM education (masters and doctoral)

– http://www.provost.ncsu.edu/

Basis for Analyses: Graduate Program Overall Analysis Variables1. Enrollment overall 2. Enrollment/number of

faculty 3. Applications overall 4. Applications/number

of faculty 5. Degrees awarded

overall

6. Degrees

awarded/number of faculty

7. GRE verbal scores 8. GRE quantitative

scores 9. GRE writing scores 10.Selectivity in

admissions (admitted/applications)

Dimensions of Program Effectiveness and Efficiency

• Productivity—overall enrollment and overall degrees awarded

• Efficiency—enrollment/faculty and degrees awarded/faculty

• Demand—applications and applications/faculty

• Student Quality—GRE scores and selectivity

Analysis of Specific Attributes of Programs

• Least Productive (defined as having both the lowest enrollments and degrees awarded)

• Least Efficient (defined as having both the lowest enrollments per faculty and degrees awarded per faculty)

• Least Demand (defined as having both the lowest number of applications overall and the lowest applications per graduate faculty)

• Quality of students is jeopardized by low selection and selectivity (defined as having both the lowest number of applications and lowest selectivity)

• Students are least academically prepared (defined as having both the lowest verbal and quantitative scores or all the lowest verbal, quantitative, and writing scores)

CED Graduate Programs of Concern

CED Programs

Doctoral Programs Masters Programs

Technology Education Elementary Education

Human Resource Development

Instructional Technology

Technology Education

*These are programs that appeared in the bottom quartiles of 5 or more of the rankings by variable in the overall analysis and/or were identified as programs of concern in the analysis of specific attributes of programs.

Specific Recommendation - STEM• Department of STEM Education - combine the

three separate programs as one graduate program in STEM Education.

• This could be a groundbreaking program … encouraging courses and scholarship in STEM education as well as in mathematics, science, and technical education.

• This new configuration may give the program a marketing advantage that would attract more applicants, thus providing the opportunity for increasing productivity, efficiency, and student quality.

UG4: Culture of Constant Improvement• COACHE, COMID and Disability Surveys of

College Climate and Culture• Need to critically look at programs of

strength and programs in need of improvement/focus– Academic Productivity Report– Strategic Plan Draft Report

• Student data base• Diversifying funding

System of Assessments Guiding Education

UG 4: Diversifying FundingJuly 1, 2010 – March 15, 2011

• Dollars Requested: $32 million• Number of Proposals Submitted: 54• Dollars Funded: $12 million • Number of Proposals Awarded: 13

Of those funded, 3 are Race to the Top grants:• Fusarelli/Militello: $3.57 million• Emer: $3.3 million• Kleiman/Corn/Stallings: $2.68

TOTAL: $9.55 million

UG4: Diversifying Funding Sources

New sponsors/grant programs this year:• US Dept. of Commerce/National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Storberg-Walker/Chapman; $605,000

• NSF RAPID grant (program for quick-response research) Sztajn; $200,000

• BellJAR Foundation, Williams/Blanchard; $75,000

Diversifying Funding: Development

$896,360 Subtotal Gifts $5,000 and Above  $31,440 Gifts Less Than $5000  $927,800 Total Year to Date Gift Activity: July 1, 2010 to March 16, 2011

 

$326,781

Last Year’s Total: July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 

Please note that only $34,045 of the gift and non-governmental grant activity to date is unrestricted. The vast majority of gifts and non-governmental grants are restricted to a specific purpose.

Overall giving is up 174%

Budget Context

Departments & Units Total Reduction

Permanent Budget % of Total Budget

Dean's Units 332,442 3,693,801 22.06%

CICE 232,531 2,583,675 15.43%

Teaching Prog (CICE) 4,339 48,212 0.29%

Elementary Education 96,050 1,067,218 6.37%

LPAHE 186,040 2,264,285 12.34%

STEM 211,537 2,350,416 14.04%

FI 132,949 1,477,206 8.82%

Pre-College (FI Unit) 13,070 145,220 0.87%

CRMSE (FI Unit) 7,700 85,555 0.51%

DE 290,443 3,029,977 19.27%

1,507,101 16,745,565 100.00%

Budget Trends

01-02   06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

Continuing State Funds 8,766,761 12,828,112 14,238,002 17,765,412 16,780,157 16,962,836 17,338,311

Reductions 126,134 - 68,529 2,425,128 924,675 - 1,507,101Provost's

Perm Alloc (Enrollment

Funds) 838,142 720,000 817,865 766,803 - 20,000 230,937

Research Expenditures 1,334,369 2,232,582 3,804,732 5,080,193 4,326,850 3,924,634

F&A Allocations 73,671 194,275 147,535 199,873 265,126 220,770

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

ReductionsProvost's Perm Alloc (Enrollment Funds)F&A AllocationsContinuing State FundsResearch Expenditures

Allocations, reductions, and expenditures FYs 02-12

CURRENT CHALLENGE – 9% CUT

• Strategies– Preserve academic core and research faculty

(including continuing searches for new faculty)– Reduce or streamline non-sustaining outreach

programs – Consolidate support services as staff attrition

occurs– Reduce departmental support through lapsed

salary – Eliminate service courses and sections while

protecting college core programs by • combining sections of courses, where possible• eliminating service courses, where possible

F&A FY 11 Allocations from Funds Generated in FY 10

Unit Totals

CICE $ 37,935

ELE $ 1,961

LPAHE $ 874

STEM $145,250

FI $ 34,750

Total $220,770

UG5: Enhance Local and Global Engagement

• Passport to Success – Engagement Activities

• Teaching Fellows Junior-Year Enrichment Experience in Costa Rica

• SAY Village Living and Learning Center outreach

• AASEA Most Engaged Student Organization Award

• Teaching Fellows Blood Drive• Tuere, Heather, Tim – Outstanding

Extension Service Awards

Student Engagements

• Mega Blood Drive - August 2010 – 569 units• Washington, DC Experience - October 2010• Relay-4-Life - April 2010, April 2011

– top 5 in donations raised (2010); – CED student recognized top 3 in raising

donations– most creative site

• “Waiting for Superman” Event - April 11-13, 2011

• Shack-a-Thon - September 2010 - top 5

Other Student Engagements• RAMP-UP Family STEM nights at local elementary

and middle schools• MSEN-Pre-College Saturday Academy• Tutoring at the Wade Edwards Learning Labs

(WELL)• Recruitment for Teaching Fellows & Teacher

Education @ NC state• Collaboration with other campuses

– Kickball tournament with UNC-CH, Meredith, Campbell, NCCU

– Professional Educators Conference - February 2011– Intramural sports

   

UG 5: International + Distance Education Alliance (I+DEA) – Grant Holley• Coordinate development of new

partnerships• Coordinate student international

experiences• Develop opportunities for international

faculty development and research• Facilitate faculty exchanges• Facilitate international student

recruitment• Facilitate Fulbright applications

International Partnerships

• International Partnerships– Federal University of Parana-Curitiba,

Brazil– Beijing Royal School-Beijing, China– Roehampton University-London,

England– Pskov State Pedagogical Institute-Pskov,

Russia– University of San Jose-San Jose, Costa

Rica

Questions or Comments?

1-1 Survey

Strategic Planning

College Mission Statement: The College of Education is a voice of innovation for learning across the life span. We prepare professionals who educate and lead. Our inquiry and practice reflect integrity, a commitment to social justice, and the value of diversity in a global community.

Vision

• To be the “go-to” place for innovative approaches and creative solutions to educational challenges– Corollary 1: Creating 21st century learning

environments– Corollary 2: Impacting change through teaching,

research and policy

To be a nationally ranked, research-intensive, professional College of Education with distinction for working, teaching and learning in technology enhanced environments

Strengths and Values

Globalization

Inter-disciplinarity

Research & Policy Impact

Diversity21st Century Perspective

STEM

Teacher Ed

Leadership

Technology

Innovation

NCSU2010

NCSU2011

Score (113) 51 (66)

Peer assessment score (5.0 highest) 3.0 3.1

Assessment score by superintendents (5.0 highest) 3.8 4.0

Average GRE verbal score, entering doctoral students 504 524

Average GRE quantitative score, entering doctoral students 591 599

Doctoral programs acceptance rate 45.0% 42.8%

Proportion FT faculty receiving educational awards or editors 1.3% 3.8%

Average amount of externally funded research expenditure per faculty member (in thousands) $60.0 $103

Proportion of FT T/TT faculty engaged in externally funded research 51.4% 65.4%

Total amount of externally funded research conducted by the school (in millions) $4.4 $8.1

NCSU Graduate CED Rankings

How Rankings Were Calculated• Quality assessment (weighted by .40) 

– Peer Assessment Score (.25) – Superintendent Assessment Score (.15)

• Student Selectivity (weighted by .18)– Mean GRE Verbal Scores (.06) – Mean GRE Quantitative Scores (.06) – Acceptance Rate (.06)

• Faculty Resources (weighted by .12) – Student-Faculty Ratio (.045) – Percent of Faculty With Awards (.025). – Doctoral Degrees Granted (.05) 

• Research Activity (weighted by .30) – Total Research Expenditures (.15) – Average Expenditures Per Faculty Member (.15)

Questions to Programs

1. Where is your program (or could it be) in the Strengths and Values matrix?

2. How are you successfully addressing college and university mission and goals?

3. Is your program area successfully balancing the expectations of your multiple stakeholders, clients, and funders?

4. Is your program area providing appropriate opportunities and support to further the work and careers of faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows?

5. Is the quality of scholarly activity by faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students reflected in the collective output and visibility of the program area (publications, funded projects, outreach programs, advisory boards, etc.)?

6. Is your program area well managed for strategic planning, finances, human resources, course offerings, technology infrastructure and supports, communications and events?

7. Where can we obtain some visionary synergies?

Radical Idea – Major Restructuring

• Division of Initial and Advanced Licensure – (DIAL)

• Graduate School of Education– Division of STEM Education– Division of New Literacies and Global Learning– Division of Education Professions, Leadership

& Policy

Discussion

• Within your program areas, discuss these questions.– Please record your responses to these

questions

• Whole group discussion