PROPOSAL FOR

REORGANIZING AND RENAMING THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND ITS DEPARTMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF CONSELING AND PERSONNEL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, HIGHER EDUCATION AND

INTERNATIONAL EDCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICY STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTE FOR CHILD STUDY DEPARTMENT OF MEASUREMENT AND STATISTICS

DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

TO:

THE COLLEGE OF (tbd)

DEPARTMENT OF (tbd) DEPARTMENT OF (tbd) DEPARTMENT OF (tbd)

Effective July, 1, 2010

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK

Submitted by

Donna L. Wiseman, Dean

2

Table of Contents

3

PCC Cover Sheet

4

Overview of and Rationale for Reorganization The College of Education (COE) is seeking to reorganize through the consolidation of seven departments into three departments. This will create new synergy among the faculty, staff, and students; enable more focused cross-disciplinary work; and lead to greater prominence in our state as well as nationally and internationally. It also will provide the COE with the opportunity to reallocate our resources in a way to make us more efficient and flexible and thus more com-petitive in a modern, technologically enhanced teaching and learning environment. We are motivated by several factors:

o The reorganization is long-overdue, considering the changes in faculty, areas of scholar-ship, administrative procedures, availability of technology, and social conditions in edu-cation after more than 20 years.

o Faculty members seek modes of organization to support greater intellectual collabora-tion while creating a stronger College identity and competitive advantage around specific areas of expertise identified in its Strategic Plan.

o The College must position itself to compete in an environment in which human develop-ment and education programs and scholarship reflect innovation and embrace 21st Cen-tury opportunities and needs.

o The College must reduce duplication and unnecessary redundancy in programs and processes.

o The COE must increase its ability to respond quickly and decisively to state, national, and international needs and opportunities.

The existing seven departments are illustrated in Figure 1. They are essentially autonomous units; each with its own department chair, support staff, budgets, governance and committee representation. There are a number of existing centers and institutes, most of which operate within a single department with a singular focus. Collaboration—in teaching, research, and ser-vice—do not emerge naturally from this discrete arrangement. Opportunities to pursue a limited number of areas to excellence rather than a wide array of areas to competence also do not emerge naturally from this discrete arrangement.

As of July 1, 2009

EDMS

EDHD

EDHI

EDPS

EDSP

EDCI

EDCP

As of July 1, 2010

EDMSEDHD

EDHI

EDPSEDSP

EDCI

EDCPDepartment 2

Department 1 Department 3

C

I

interdisciplinarycenters

interdisciplinaryinstitutes

C

C

C

I

Figure 1 Figure 2

5

Figure 2 represents a more coherent intellectual clustering of seven departments into three de-partments that we seek through the reorganization. This arrangement, which places faculty with similar or complementary research interests and expertise within the same department, will faci-litate collaboration, while providing more flexibility and agility to respond to opportunities and needs. In some areas of scholarship, we will deepen the knowledge base within a department, instead of dispersing it among several departments. Graduate students will benefit from enriched cross-disciplinary masters' and doctoral training programs. Faculty will become more familiar with a variety of course offerings which better enables them to advise undergraduate and graduate students on electives that meet individual interests. New centers and institutes, or newly constituted versions of existing centers and institutes, will be positioned to enhance cross-disciplinary exploration of critical research questions. Staff functions will be evaluated to reduce duplication and ensure consistency in the implementation of administrative tasks. Another goal of the reorganization is to ensure that the COE is configured and poised to meet the ambitious goals in its 2009 Strategic Plan that are illustrated in Figure 3. The Plan calls on the College to move in new directions, establishing goals and benchmarks for undergraduate and graduate education, research, and partnerships, especially in the areas of equity and diver-sity, innovation and creativity, international education, and policy engagement. To help realize the four strategic initiatives, the reorganization, through the creation of fewer but more inter-related departments and cross-disciplinary centers and institutes that will emerge over time, will enable the COE to become a nimble, well-respected leader on pressing educational issues. This must all be accomplished while balancing our land grant, flagship, and research extensive status; keeping the best interests of students and faculty in the forefront; and making certain that the reorganization does no harm to national program rankings and identity.

Figure 3 The COE is particularly proud of its ranking among the top 25 colleges of education. Nine of our programs are ranked in the Top 15, with three ranking in the Top 10 including Counseling and Personnel Services, which ranks first in the nation for the tenth consecutive year. To continue its quest to achieve Top 10 status, the COE recognizes the need to constantly push forward to better position itself to complete in a rapidly changing environment in which our programs and scholarship reflect innovation and embrace the 21st century milieu. The proposed reorganiza-tion will help the College achieve these goals.

6

Context for Reorganizing History of COE Reorganizing/Renaming Since its origins, the COE has functioned with a variety of different structures. Initially con-ceived as a teacher training program, the College experienced a period of rapid growth during the 60’s and 70’s, which resulted in higher student enrollments, expanded program offerings, and an increased number of faculty. Responding to the changing composition of the College, the campus administration undertook efforts to reorganize the College, which ultimately led to the creation of five of the seven departments in existence today. In the 80's, the College’s prior-ities shifted significantly as research became a more dominant focus. The COE has undergone some changes in the last 20+ years, but not a wholesale reorganiza-tion such as what is being proposed here. The Early Childhood Education program, for exam-ple, moved from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction to the Department of Human De-velopment. More recently, in 2007, the Department of Education Policy and Leadership was reorganized into two new departments: Education Policy Studies and Education Leadership, Higher Education and International Education. With the completion of its 2009 Strategic Plan and urging from the campus administration, the COE recently initiated a period of self-reflection and analysis to study its existing seven depart-ment configuration in light of new COE goals. The following steps were undertaken:

o Between February and March 2009: Seven all-College meetings were held to surface ideas and concerns about reorganization.

o Between February and April 2009: A Dean's Advisory Committee for Reorganization met weekly to conceptualize and study various possible models for reorganizing.

o From February to the present: Dean sought advice of colleagues nationwide about their reorganizing plans and challenges.

o From February to the present: The COE has a password-protected website with all do-cumentation pertinent to the reorganization readily available, as well as an anonymous blog for college-wide input.

o From February to the present: The College Senate played a central role (see Table 1 ) in defining the process, deciding which models to move forward for a college-wide vote, determining voter eligibility1 according to the College Plan of Organization in collabora-tion with department chairs, and making recommendations to the Dean throughout the reorganization deliberations.

o September 2009: A college-wide meeting occurred to discuss the models that emerged from the Senate-defined process. That discussion included a review of financial data on the amount of external award funds, DRIF, outreach revenue, and projected administra-tive savings for each model under consideration. Also available was projected informa-tion on enrollments and degree production.

1 Faculty eligibility is defined as all those employed by the State full time with UM as instructors or as te-nure track faculty who hold the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor with an ap-pointment of at least 50% in the COE. Staff eligibility is defined as all other employees who are currently appointed and employed by the COE for greater than 50% time, who do not need to be reappointed every year. Also included shall be persons that have been employed greater than 50% time on temporary con-tractual positions by the COE for a continuous period of more than 5 years.

7

o September 2009: After two rounds of on-line anonymous voting, first among 6 models, then between 2 models, the Senate determined that 59% of the votes cast were in favor of the three-department model described here. Of the 204 eligible voters, 86% chose to exercise their right to vote.

Table 1:

College Senate Process for Reviewing and Voting on Reorganization Plans for the COE, as of 9/11/09 TARGET DATES/DEADLINES EVENT/STEP COMMENTS 9/23/09 (by noon) Proposals re amended models can

be presented by Department Chairs to the Senate Chair

To be considered, amended models must: (a) receive the majority of fa-culty votes from at least one dept; (b) relate to (i.e., represent a varia-tion of) one of the existing 3 models before the College; (c) relate to the College’s strategic plan; and (d) con-tain a rationale that addresses the proposal’s intellectual merits, impli-cations for the College and, if possi-ble, supporting (e.g., financial) data.

9/24 Senate steering committee to meet to decide which amended proposals meet the above four criteria and to specify a process for the second round of voting (see 10/5-10/7, be-low)

Dept chairs who submitted amended proposals will be notified of their proposal’s status by 2 pm; accepted proposals will be presented by de-velopers at College Assembly on 9/25.

9/25 All-College Assembly: Brief presen-tations of 3 existing models plus any amended models that are judged by the Senate steering committee to have met the above four criteria

Agenda details for the College As-sembly are still being worked out, but the major tasks are to present and discuss the existing and any amended models. The meeting will be facilitated by the Senate, with support from the Dean’s office.

9/28-9/30 Electronic vote on 3 existing models plus any amended models that are judged by the Senate steering com-mittee to have met the above four criteria

Individual faculty and staff* may vote “yes” or “no” on all models. To be maximally informative, votes will be tabulated by departmental affiliation, staff, and faculty (tenure-stream vs. non-tenure stream) categories. The vote tallies will be presented to the Senate Chair and Dean by 10/1.

10/2 Senate meeting to discuss vote re-sults; deal with remaining issues re reorganization; cull models down to those that are the most viable based on the initial yes/no vote and, possi-bly, additional (e.g., financial) con-siderations

All faculty and staff are welcomed to attend the Senate meeting, if their schedules permit.

10/5-10/7 Electronic vote on most viable 2 or more models

Details to be worked out but the ba-sic voting process will involve rank-ordering of the 2 or more most viable models. Individual faculty and staff may vote*. As before, results will be tabulated by departmental affiliation, staff, and faculty (tenure-stream vs. non-tenure stream) categories. The vote tallies will be presented to the Senate Chair and Dean by 10/8.

10/9/09 Dean to announce her decision re a model for reorganization to be for-warded to the Provost

8

At every step, the college-wide discussions revolved around the extent to which the seven de-partments or the emerging draft departmental structures would enable the COE to reach new heights of scholarship and leadership. It soon became clear that the COE must enhance its col-laborative research and exploit new technologies to prepare teachers, school leaders, and uni-versity faculty to navigate the extraordinary diversity that now characterizes almost every Amer-ican school setting. It also became clear that the work of the College must be more widely in-formed by cutting edge research results about cognition, learning, motivation, instruction, curri-culum, policymaking and research methodology. Thus, our exploration took into account not only the internal goals of the College listed here in the overview and our Strategic Plan, but also national trends that are described in the next three sections. Preparing Teachers for Tomorrow's Schools In a recent speech, the US Secretary of Education, The Honorable Arne Duncan, noted the challenge of recruiting and educating enough additional teachers to meet demand and how that responsibility would fall largely to schools of education. He also said that the distinguished schools of education need to place a premium on PK-12 student learning, while facilitating the transition of teachers from preparation to practice. Duncan further challenged education schools to meet the needs of “hard-to-staff” schools in high-poverty urban and rural schools and to recruit, prepare, place and support new teachers in these cities and communities. To meet this challenge, the College needs to be able to link its considerable research and facul-ty expertise to the preparation of our next generation of teachers. Reviews of research over the past 30 years have concluded that both subject matter knowledge and knowledge of teaching are important to teacher effectiveness and that fully prepared and certified teachers are better rated and more successful with students than teachers without this preparation (See Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Available research also suggests that among students who become teachers, those enrolled in formal pre-service preparation programs are more likely to be effective than those who do not have such training (Evertson, Hawley &.Zlotnick, 1985; Clift & Brady, 2005). Teachers in the 21st century will be required to have an understanding of how to use informa-tion technologies, make data-based decisions, be able to access and apply cutting edge re-search about how students learn, be knowledgeable and able to apply such research to their classroom, and be schooled in strategies to deal with the social and emotional well being of di-verse learners. These demands come within a rapidly changing context of teaching. Not only are the demographics of students changing, but the emphasis on higher levels of student achievement and greater accountability for teachers will necessitate better preparation in sub-ject matter content and pedagogy than previously required. Preparing Leaders and Professional Specialists Schools and communities need highly trained and competent leaders as much as they need skilled teachers. Master's level programs in educational leadership for beginning PK-12 and higher education administrators and advanced programs for mid-career teachers, school admin-istrators, counselors, and student development educators who will assume leadership positions in schools, colleges and universities, educational agencies and other community organizations need to be innovative in content as well as delivery options. In particular, professional practice doctorates and executive leadership programs are needed that engage learners in on-going in-quiry into complex problems of educational practice and focus on building skills in collaboration, relationship building, critical thinking and communication skills needed to work successfully with other educational professionals, students, parents, and researchers. The programs also must be grounded in a professional knowledge base that draws upon rigorous research and links theory with inquiry.

9

Preparing the Next Generation of Scholars To address the demands of the 21st century, new methods for supporting the teaching, learning and development of children, youth and young adults will need to be designed, tested and im-plemented (Eisenhart & DeHann, 2005). This will require scientists who are well trained in areas such as cognition, learning, motivation, and measurement and who also are prepared to grapple with the challenges of extending laboratory-derived knowledge to teaching and learning in complex, real-world environments. Researchers who can straddle the worlds of cognitive science and education practice are badly needed. Two recent national reports (Levine, Abler, & Rosich, 2004; NRC, 2004) that addressed the issue of how best to train the next generation of education researchers propose training in five broad areas: (1) diverse epistemological pers-pectives; (2) diverse methodological strategies; (3) the varied contexts of educational practice; (4) the principles of scientific inquiry; and (5) an cross-disciplinary research orientation. New technologies and research in neuroscience are beginning to open up a world of understanding about how children learn and develop into competent adults. Additionally, theories and models concerned with measuring what and how individuals learn are expanding and require that all young scholars have the opportunity to learn and apply state of the art research methodologies. Student Feedback Student feedback from exit and alumni surveys lend further support for the COE's reorganiza-tion efforts. Feedback from these survey instruments highlight the need to promote stronger col-laborations within and across academic programs in the College; enhance instruction related to technology and innovation; encourage cooperative partnerships between faculty in special edu-cation and elementary/secondary education, particularly with respect to curriculum develop-ment; and reduce course duplication in the teacher education programs.

COE Looking Forward

Vision and Mission The COE is committed to excellence in research, leadership development, teaching, and ser-vice that influences policy and practice related to education, assessment, counseling, and hu-man development in Maryland, nationally, and internationally. The COE seeks to provide intellectual leadership in creating and sustaining a world where every individual has equal access to life-long learning and opportunities for healthy development and where each person’s distinct abilities are nurtured from potential to achievement. This requires a commitment to equity and social justice, innovative and creative practices that enhance life-long learning in a technological age, opportunities to learn from international perspectives and contribute knowledge to the global community, and research-based policy solutions to our most intractable educational problems. Our dedicated and highly-regarded faculty, staff, student body, and alumni actualize this commitment through collaborative scholarship, excellent teach-ing and mentoring, and flexibility in responding to local, national and international needs. Three New Departments The College of Education therefore proposes reorganizing into three new academic depart-ments:

o In Department 1 (placeholder for new name and new text, pending faculty input), the combination of elementary, secondary, education of second language learners and spe-cial education will provide for a more integrated approach to the preparation of teachers in PK-12 settings. It will bring together general and special education, reflecting the do-minant approach within public schools and will support the development of program initi-atives that will enhance general educator knowledge in special education and special

10

educator knowledge of teaching and learning in subject matter. Both general teacher preparation and special educator preparation will be well served by this reorganization. Further, faculty in this department already are engaged in exciting research in areas re-lated to teaching and learning, such as how teachers develop their skills and effective in-terventions for increasing literacy among students with special educational needs. This research will continue and is likely to be incorporated even more seamlessly into prepa-ration programs in the new department configuration.

The proposed unit would also bring together faculty from three separate departments whose expertise is around educational policy issues. Bringing together our 'policy bench' would not only add internal depth through the new departmental entity, but would facilitate alliances with other units on campus, state and governmental agencies as well as professional associations in the Washington metropolitan area, thus positioning COE to better pursue its strategic initiative of policy engagement. Combining the faculty would also provide opportunities to develop unique graduate training programs, such as a cross-disciplinary and policy relevant doctoral programs, as well as other research initia-tives that are unique among our peer institutions. Finally, facilitating collaboration among faculty with expertise in educational foundations, diversity and social justice, minority and urban education, and civil rights and disabilities will better position the COE to meet the strategic initiative around issues of equity and diversity.

o Department 2 (placeholder) will concentrate on the preparation of counselors, school

leaders, student development and international leaders and policy makers who work in PK-12 schools, higher education environments, and community and professional asso-ciations. Combining faculty in this new unit would add depth to the student leadership minor introduced in fall 2008. The programs will promote students’ ability to think simul-taneously as researchers and practitioners and emphasize cutting edge research

Department 2 will attend to the professional preparation of counselors, PK-12 adminis-trators, and student development educators who work with individuals from diverse pop-ulations from kindergarten into adulthood, in both public and private agencies. Overall, the merging of the two departments will create opportunities to develop innovative lea-dership programs that foster alliances with professional associations and accreditation agencies and strengthen the University of Maryland’s preeminence in the preparation of PK-16 education and higher education leaders and personnel locally, nationally, and in-ternationally.

o In Department 3 (placeholder), the merging of the existing human development and

measurement and statistics units will provide an opportunity to enhance research and graduate programs in cognitive science, human development, and research methodolo-gy and assessment. Specifically, Department 3 will emphasize the theoretical and em-pirical traditions of developmental, educational psychology, and educational measure-ment. The unit will engage in studies of cognitive, neurobiological, affective and social processes that affect teaching and learning. Programs and research will focus on the development of testable research hypotheses, the application of powerful statistical tests to determine the plausibility of a given research hypothesis, and the design of experi-ments. Doctoral students graduating from programs in this department will take posi-tions at academic institutions across the world, public and private research institutes and government agencies devoted to research, policy, measurement, and statistics.

11

Strengthening of Degree Programs and Outreach The proposed reorganization recognizes the high rankings of many of our existing programs by maintaining their current identity albeit within a different structure; this keeps faculty together in arrangements that allow them to work with familiar colleagues while broadening the spectrum of faculty expertise whose research may be complementary. Moreover, additional faculty will be responsible for the teaching, advising, and support of students in the program, which will be im-portant as campus-wide 'right-sizing' is implemented. At the same time, we must reduce unne-cessary duplication and redundancy in programs. Changes to programs are not being submitted with this document but will be reviewed and re-vised after faculty are moved to the new departments and have an opportunity to discuss and merge programs as necessary. For the foreseeable future, few, if any, new resources will be forthcoming from the state or the campus except through reallocation. For this reason, ability to secure external support for re-search and professional preparation, outreach and other entrepreneurial initiatives will become more important in the College. In order to be better positioned to take advantage of new com-petitions and demands from local educational agencies and our state, the reorganization will create more efficient structures in which to create cross-disciplinary programs for practitioners in school and community settings, regionally and internationally, as well as scholars who will ad-dress the next generation of issues in teaching and learning.

Peer Institutions At a fairly general level, the mission of Colleges of Education in institutions of higher education nationwide is quite consistent. Faculty seek to prepare professionals for all aspects of the PK-20 educational spectrum, to conduct cutting edge research into human learning and develop-ment as well as to expand evidence-based practices for the education of children, adolescents and adults. Finally, the colleges contribute to the national research-based policy dialogue about formal and informal education. However, the ways in which colleges organize themselves to carry out this mission differs from site to site. Appendices A and B contain synopses of the organizational structures of COE's peer institu-tions. Appendix A includes data on the land grant institutions among US News and World Re-port Top 25. Appendix B contains data on COE's aspirational peers.

Administrative Organization

The COE will continue to be an academic unit reporting directly to the Provost like other colleg-es and schools at UM. The College administrative structure includes a Dean; Associate Deans for Research and Graduate Education and for Undergraduate and Teacher Education Pro-grams, Outreach, and International Initiatives; Assistant Deans for Administration, Planning and Assessment and for Finance; and an Executive Director for Development and External Rela-tions, as well as Institute Directors for the Maryland Institute for Minority Achievement and Ur-ban Education and the Maryland English Institute. Department chairs from each new depart-ment will serve on the Dean’s Council of Chairs, which serves as a leadership team for the col-lege. The COE administrative structure is presented in Appendix C.

12

Departmental Leadership The Dean has articulated a plan for identifying new departmental leadership. Existing chairs will continue to serve until June 30, 2010. During the spring semester, an interim chair for each new department will be named by the Dean; interim and existing chairs will work collaboratively to plan the transition from the seven departments to the proposed three departments. Interim chairs' appointments will take effect on July 1, 2010 and will serve until permanent department chairs are selected. New departments can begin a search for a permanent chair anytime after July 1. Departments will be encouraged to select a permanent department chair from internal candidates. If an inter-nal search does not seem appropriate, departments may request an external search after pro-viding the Dean with justification and consideration of available resources. The actual Chair search will be guided by the College Plan of Organization and our established search process. COE Senate Reorganization Responsibilities The COE Senate has begun to identify specific tasks related to reorganization. Currently, the Senate will focus on issues related to the 1) College Organization Plan, 2) renaming the Col-lege, and 3) the roles of Centers and Institutes in the reorganized structure. This list may ex-pand as new issues arise. Planning Efforts across the College The proposed new departments have begun organizational meetings and retreats to explore optimal ways to move forward in the new configuration. Attention focuses on generating ideas for a new department title, mission, goals, and collaborative initiatives as well as an inclusive process that can be used to implement a new plan of organization. Each faculty member will receive a personalized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) speci-fying his or her new tenure home. In consultation with the Provost's office, the Dean's office is developing a process for considering promotion and tenure for assistant and associate profes-sors within the newly organized departments; this process will be articulated in the appropriate MOUs. Staff work groups have been meeting to provide input into the restructuring of the college infra-structure and support services. With representation from across the existing departments, dis-cussion centers on three key areas: (1) business/financial matters, (2) student and curriculum issues, and (3) general office operations. The outcomes of these discussions will be shared with the Council of Chairs. The COE website is routinely updated to include new postings. A new blog thread dedicated to the reorganization implementation is available. The blog enhances the possibility of conversa-tion across the College and was widely used in advance of the voting process to select the final reorganization model.

Academic Programs and Student Enrollment

Table 2 shows the student enrollments by degree level in the COE for the past three years. Fall 2009 enrollments are allocated in the last three columns according to the new department struc-ture. Appendix D includes a detailed table, which shows how student enrollments in the existing seven departments map to the proposed three-department configuration. No changes are antic-ipated in the overall College enrollments for the immediate future. However, new program con-

13

figurations and shifts in student enrollment patterns may evolve over time as faculty from the existing seven departments collaborate on curriculum development efforts related to the COE Strategic Plan initiatives. Note that student enrollments for Department 1 are higher than the other two departments. This is to be expected given the large number of teacher education candidates and undergraduate majors housed in this unit: 68% of the students enrolled in Department 1 (962/1408) are teach-er education majors, including 712 undergraduate students and 250 graduate level teacher education candidates. Although the program enrollments for Department 1 seem disproportio-nately higher compared to the other units, the figures are somewhat deceiving, because many advising and student support services for teacher education majors can be offered through a centralized delivery system, which reduces overall demands on faculty time.

TABLE 2: Student Enrollments for COE and Proposed New Departments COLLEGE Totals:

Fall 2007 Enrollments

Fall 2008 Enrollments

Fall 2009 Enrollments

Fall 09: EDUC

(Undecided)

Fall 09:

Dept 1

Fall 09:

Dept 2

Fall 09:

Dept 3 Bachelors 701 724 841 12 712 n/a 117 Masters 548 580 553 395 116 42 Doctoral 642 679 633 289 249 95 Grad Certificate 28 84 35 11 8 16

Adv Spec Stud 5 3 1 1 0 0

Total # Students 1924 2070 2063 12 1408 373 270

Total # Minors n/a 167 272 99 23 150

Resources Faculty Redistribution Faculty rank distribution summaries for the current and new Departments are presented in Ap-pendix E. Migration of faculty from current to new Departments is presented in Appendix F. Following the lead of the campus, all forthcoming vacant faculty lines will revert to the Dean's office so that they may be reallocated to new directions and/or initiatives called for in the COE Strategic Plan. In the near future, new hires in specialty areas will be engaged in research and programmatic thrusts that are identified in the Strategic Plan (i.e. learning sciences, STEM, or technology and media). There will be some new hires to sustain high levels of productivity in programs that have lost faculty due to retirements or departures, but not necessarily as one-to-one replacements as has occurred in the past. Staff Redistribution Distribution of existing support staff in the COE will be conducted with an effort to minimize on-going program disruption and to ensure equity relative to faculty redistribution. Specifically, three well-staffed business offices will provide administrative support to each of the new units. Administrative and clerical staff will be distributed equitably across the new units and the College to assure that all three departments are staffed to provide seamless services and support.

14

Required Physical Resources No additional space is being requested as a result of the reorganization. Existing space will be reconfigured and reallocated to enhance collaboration and cross-fertilization in the new depart-ments. The Benjamin Building is in serious need of updating and, in the process, a more livable envi-ronment should emerge especially in designing spaces that are flexible and promote interaction. Additionally, during the reorganizing, space requirements for faculty laboratories will be re-viewed and acted upon as needed, while doctoral student spaces will be enhanced. Compara-ble office space, computers, and any other specialized equipment associated with a faculty member’s research will move with the faculty member and the program. In some cases, if poss-ible, additional resources will be provided to assist in moving and re-configuration of office and administrative spaces. The College will use the Department of Facilities' Planning In-House Recommendations for Space Use Program to provide an initial blueprint for space allocation in the Benjamin Building and Cole Field House. Financial Resource Needs and Sources The data presented in Appendix G represents the combined financial resources of the three new departments.

o Current base budget funds and the FTEs associated with occupied faculty lines will move with the faculty member to the new department. Vacant FTE and associated budget allocations will revert to the Dean’s office for redistribution.

o Operating and graduate assistant hard budget funds will move with the current depart-ment to its placement among the three new departments.

o Extramural grant and contract funds will reside in the department of the Principal Investi-gator’s affiliation

o Net balances at the end of FY'10 in current departments for DRIF, Outreach and other revolving accounts will move with the unit to the new department. Use of those funds—other than the specified DRIF in faculty MOUs—will be determined by the new depart-ment leadership.

o Staff FTE and associated budget will be allocated to each department once staffing structures are determined.

In most cases, existing departmental budgets will be allocated to programs, pooled when ap-propriate, and reviewed to remove redundancy and improve efficiency. Letters of Support Forthcoming PCC Cover Sheets and Brief Narratives for Renaming: Departments of EDHD and EDMS to XXX Departments of EDHI and EDCP to XXX Departments of EDCI, EDPS, and EDSP to XXX College of Education to College of XXX

15

REFERENCES Smith, Marilyn Cochran & Zeichner, K.M. (2005). Studying teacher education: A report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eisenhart, M. & De Haan, R.L. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 3-13. Clift, R.T. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.) Studying teacher education: A report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 425-476. Evertson, C.M.; Hawley, W.D. & Zlotnick, M. (1985). Making a difference in educational quality through teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 2-12. Levine, F., Abler, R.F., & Rosich, K.J. (2004). Education and training in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences: A plan of action. A Report to the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation. National Research Council (2004). Advancing scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

APPENDIX A: US News Top 25 Land Grant Education Graduate Schools (as of 4/1/2009)

Rank Name

2007 Total graduate education

enrollment

Mission Departments or Programs Notes

12 University of Wisconsin--Madison 1,168 N/A

• Art Department• Counseling Psychology Department• Curriculum and Instruction Department• Dance Program• Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis Department• Educational Policy Studies Department• Educational Psychology Department• Kinesiology Department• Occupational Therapy Program• Rehabilitation Psychology & Special Education Department

1. School of Education includes eight departments and two stand-alone programs.2. Quantitative Methods Program is housed in the Department of Educational Psychology.

The College of Education at Michigan State University has a mission of LEADERSHIP, SCHOLARSHIP, AND SERVICE IN EDUCATION. WE PREPARE PROFESSIONALS FOR LEADERSHIP ROLES IN EDUCATION. Teaching is central to our scholarly identity and to the way we serve the educational needs of communities. We strive to develop and implement excellent, dynamic programs for the preparation of educators.

14 Michigan State University 1,658

WE SEEK TO UNDERSTAND, REFORM AND IMPROVE EDUCATION. We study the processes of human learning and development. We move beyond analysis to promote education policy reform and assist in implementation. We seek to improve the conditions of learning and teaching for everyone in a technological society. We conduct comprehensive, rigorous research that addresses the needs and problems of practice. We strengthen connections between theory and practice through partnerships with schools and communities. WE EXAMINE ISSUES OF EDUCATION ACROSS THE LIFESPAN. We seek to understand how children and adults learn and develop, and how educators can best use that knowledge for benefit of all learners. We recognize that all educators are themselves learners and we are committed to providing opportunities for their continuous professional development. We strive to sustain our College as a scholarly community for students, faculty and staff

• Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education• Department of Educational Administration• Department of Kinesiology• Department of Teacher Education

Measurement and Quantitative Methods Program (Doctoral Program) is housed in Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education.

16 Ohio State University 1,206 N/A

• Department of Consumer Sciences • School of Educational Policy & Leadership • Department of Human Development and Family Science • Department of Human Nutrition • School of Physical Activity & Educational Services • School of Teaching & Learning

1.Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement is housed in School of Educational Policy and Leadership.2.Special Education is housed in School of Physical Activity and Educational Services

APPENDIX A: US News Top 25 Land Grant Education Graduate Schools (as of 4/1/2009)

Rank Name

2007 Total graduate education

enrollment

Mission Departments or Programs Notes

17 University of Minnesota--Twin Cities 2,615

The new College of Education and Human Development is a world leader in discovering, creating, sharing, and applying principles and practices of multiculturalism and multidisciplinary scholarship to advance teaching and learning and to enhance the psychological, physical, and social development of children, youth, and adults across the lifespan in families, organizations, and communities.

• Curriculum and Instruction• Educational Policy and Administration• Educational Psychology*• Family Social Science• Institute of Child Development• Postsecondary Teaching and Learning• School of Kinesiology• School of Social Work• Work and Human Resource Education

Both Special Education and the quantitative methods in education (QME) track are housed in the Department of Educational Psychology.

21 University of Connecticut (Neag) 810

The mission of the Neag School of Education is leadership, scholarship, inquiry, and service. We work to develop students with strong ethical standards into educators, clinicians, practitioners, researchers, scholars, and leaders dedicated to improving education, health and wellness for all children and adults. By so doing, we strive to improve and enhance the quality of life in our ever-changing society.

Teacher Education Unit:• Integrated Bachelor's/Master's Program (IB/M)• Teacher Certification Program for College Graduates (TCPCG)Departments:• Curriculum and Instruction (EDCI)• Educational Leadership (EDLR)• Educational Psychology (EPSY)• Kinesiology (EKIN)• Physical Therapy (PT)

Both Measurement, Evaluation, and Assessment (MEA) Program and Special Education Program are housed in the Department of Educational Psychology.

• Physical Therapy (PT)

24 Utah State University 1,073

As members of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services we provide teaching, service, and research in a variety of disciplines to improve the teaching/learning transaction wherever it takes place and to increase the effectiveness of services for individuals, families, communities, schools, and organizations. To achieve this mission, we are committed to:

Offering high quality graduate and undergraduate programs in education and human services that are innovative and widely accessible; Supporting and nurturing a faculty committed to masterful teaching and cutting-edge research; Establishing and maintaining nationally visible research centers to advance knowledge and professional practices; Fostering partnerships to enhance the quality of education and human services in our local and extended communities; Extending the impact of our instructional and research programs nationally and globally; Maintaining a technological infrastructure to enhance the College's visibility and accessibility regionally, nationally, and internationally; Enhancing the diversity of our faculty, staff, and students; and Supporting instructional, research, and service programs that cultivate dedication to building a more just and equitable society

Departments• Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education• Family, Consumer, and Human Development• Health, Physical Education, and Recreation• Instructional Technology & Learning Sciences• Psychology• School of Teacher Education and Leadership (Elementary/Secondary Education)• Special Education and RehabilitationUnits• Emma Eccles Jones Center for Early Childhood Education• Center for Persons with Disabilities • Center for the School of the Future• Edith Bowen Laboratory School • STEM Education Initiative (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education)

APPENDIX A: US News Top 25 Land Grant Education Graduate Schools (as of 4/1/2009)

Rank Name

2007 Total graduate education

enrollment

Mission Departments or Programs Notes

25 University of Georgia 2,471

The College of Education at the University of Georgia has a public contract with the citizens of the state and nation to define and achieve its land and sea grant, level one research missions. That responsibility is to provide the highest level of leadership in furthering education, communication, life long learning, and health and well-being for all citizens. This mission must be pursued at local, state, national, and international levels and it must permeate academic preparation programs, community collaborations and partnerships, and the domains of teaching, research, and service.

The College of Education will be known for its systematic inquiry, the scholarship of teaching, and the commitment to service through partnerships as guiding principles for our actions. We have established core principles as a way to express our dedication to excellence in education at all levels.

• Communication Sciences and Special Education; • Counseling and Human Development Services; • Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology; • Elementary and Social Studies Education; • Kinesiology;• Language and Literacy Education; • Lifelong Education, Administration and Policy; • Mathematics and Science Education; • Workforce Education, Leadership and Social Foundations

The Research, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics (REMS) Program is housed in the Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology.

The mission of the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is:

25 University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign 1,148

to maintain and enhance our position as a leader in research on critical issues in education. to be leaders in the preparation of teachers, preschool through secondary education, by using the latest advances in educational research; and to prepare leaders at the doctoral level who will assume positions as faculty at other universities, as school administrators, and as policy makers at the state and federal level. to serve the State of Illinois and the nation through our continuing professional development program for educators, including the development of alternative certification programs, and through outreach to P-12 schools, state government, community colleges, community agencies and private companies.

• Curriculum & Instruction • Educational Organization and Leadership • Educational Policy Studies • Educational Psychology • Human Resource Education • Special Education

Studies In Interpretive, Statistical, Measurement and Evaluative Methodologies For Education (Queries)is housed in the Department of Educational Psychology.

25 University of Maryland--College Park 1,226

Note:University of California--Berkeley was CA's original land-grant college, but UC Davis and UC Riverside later assumed much of that role.

Page 1Page 1

APPENDIX B"Peer" COE Organizational Structure ( Feb. 2009)

University of Illinois, Urban-Champaign

College of Education

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor School of

Education

University of NC at ChapeHill School of Education

l UCLA Department of EducationUniversity of Berkeley

Graduate School of Education

Academic Departments Academic Units Areas Housed in the Graduate school of education & information studies Areas of Study

Curriculum & Instruction Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE) Teaching and Learning Graduate Programs Cognition and Development

Educational Organization and Leadership

Combined Program in Education and Psychology (CPEP) Educational Leadership Urban Schooling (Ph.D.)

Language and Literacy, Society and Culture

Educational Policy Studies Joint Program in English and Education (JPEE) Culture, Curriculum and Change Student Affairs (M.Ed.)

Policy, Organization, Measurement, and Evaluation

Educational Psychology Educational Studies (ES)* Human Development and Psychological Studies

Educational Leadership Program (Ed.D.)

School wide program: Leadership for Educational Equity Program (LEEP)

Human Resource Education Higher Education and Organizational Change (MA; Ph.D.)

Special Education Principal Leadership Institute (M.Ed.) Psychological Studies in Education (MA; Ph.D.) Social Research Methodology (MA; Ph.D.) Advanced Quantitative Methods in Education Research (Ph.D.) Social Sciences & Comparative Education (MA; Ph.D.) Teacher Education Program (M.Ed.) Joint Doctoral Program with Cal State Fresno (Ph.D.) Learning Sciences at UCLA (Ph.D.) Undergraduate ProgramsEducation Studies Minor DLAP

*A large program with a number of specializations: nine Ph.D., eleven academic Masters, two Masters with certification, and two undergraduate teacher certification specializations. These specialties are organized within four administrative units. http://www.soe.umich.edu/es/specializations/index.html

Page 2Page 2

APPENDIX B"Peer" COE Organizational Structure ( Feb. 2009)

University of Wisconsion-Madison School of Education

University of Minnesota CollegeEducation and Human Developm

of ent

Vanderbilt College of EducatioHuman Development

n and University of Georgia College of Education

Academic Departments Academic departments Academic Departments Academic Departments

Art Department Curriculum and InstructionHuman and Organizational Developm(HOD)

ent Communication Sciences and Special Education

Counseling Psychology Department Educational Policy and Administration Leadership, Policy and Organizations (LPO) Counseling and Human Development Services

Curriculum and Instruction Department Educational Psychology*Psychology and Human Development(PSYCH)

Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology

Dance Program Family Social Science Special Education (SPED) Elementary and Social Studies Education Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis Department Institute of Child Development Teaching and Learning (T&L) Kinesiology Educational Policy Studies Department Postsecondary Teaching and Learning Language and Literacy Education

Educational Psychology Department School of Kinesiology Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy

Kinesiology Department School of Social Work Mathematics and Science Education

Occupational Therapy Program Work and Human Resource EducationWorkforce Education, Leadership, and Social Foundations

Rehabilitation Psychology & Special Education Department

*Offers programs in psychological foundations of education, research methods, and the practice and science of counseling psychology, school psychology, and special education

APPENDIX C College of Education Administrative Organizational Chart

Julia Mosley Assistant to the Dean

Donna L. Wiseman Dean

College Advancement

Kathleen Angeletti Assistant Dean Administration, Planning & Assessment

April Patty Assistant Dean Finance

Administrative and Fiscal Support

Department Chairs

Department 1

Department 2

Margaret McLaughlin Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education

Stephen Koziol Interim Assoc. Dean Undergraduate & Teacher Education Programs, Outreach & International Initiatives

Academic, Research Support and K-16 Relations

Department 3

Carla Maxwell Ray Executive Director Development & External Relations

Stephanie Timmons Brown Exec. Director Maryland Institute for Minority Achievement and Urban Education

Elizabeth Driver Acting Director Maryland English Institute

12.01.09

Appendix D:  Mapping of Program Enrollments from Existing Departments to Proposed New Units  

Existing Departments/ Programs 

Fall 2007 Enrollments 

Fall 2008 Enrollments 

Fall 2009 Enrollments 

3‐Year Mean 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New  Department 1 

(EDCI, EDPS, EDSP) 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New Department 2 (EDCP, EDHI) 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New Department 3 (EDHD, EDMS) 

Curriculum & Instruction (EDCI) 

            

Bachelors  500  515  636  550  636     Masters  286  312  284  294  284     Doctoral  152  175  177  168  177     Grad Certificate: Literacy Coaching  28  64  11  34  11     

Total # Students  966  1066  1108  1046  1108     Minor:  Second Language Ed  *  5  23  *  23     Minor:  Secondary Education  32  15  15  21  15     Total # Minors  32  20 38 38               Education Policy Studies (EDPS) 

             

Masters  29  29  21  26  21     Doctoral  74  68  58  67  58     Total # Grad Students  103  97  79  93  79                    Special Education (EDSP)               Bachelors  76  82  76  78  76     Masters  89  88  90  89  90     Doctoral  43  57  54  51  54     Advanced Special Students  5  3  1  3  1     Total # Students  213  230  221  221  221     Minor:  Special Education  54  70 61 62  61    Department 1 Totals:               Bachelors  576  597  712  628  712     Masters  404  429  395  409  395     Doctoral  269  300  289  286  289     Graduate Certificate  28  64  11  34  11     Advanced Special Students  5  3  1  3  1     Total # Students  1282  1393  1408  1360  1408     Total # Minors  86  90 99 92  99    

Appendix D:  Mapping of Program Enrollments from Existing Departments to Proposed New Units  

Existing Departments/ Programs 

Fall 2007 Enrollments 

Fall 2008 Enrollments 

Fall 2009 Enrollments 

3‐Year Mean 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New  Department 1 

(EDCI, EDPS, EDSP) 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New Department 2 (EDCP, EDHI) 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New Department 3 (EDHD, EDMS) 

Counseling & Personnel Services (EDCP) 

            

Masters  53  61  58  57       58Doctoral  123  132  119  125       119Grad Certificate: PVR  *  4 8 6   8  Total # Students   176  197  185  188       185Minor:  Leadership Studies  *  8  23  *       23

               Ed Leadership, Higher Ed & International Ed (EDHI) 

             

Masters  51  42  58  50       58Doctoral  146  142  130  139       130Total # Students  197  184  188  189       188Department 2 Totals:               Masters  104  103  116  107    116   Doctoral  269  274  249  264    249   Graduate Certificate  *  4 8 6 8Total # Grad Students  373  381  373  377    373   Total # Minors  *  8 23 * 23Human Development (EDHD) 

             

Bachelors  106  114  117  112      117 Masters  34  40  32  35      32 Doctoral  63  63  57  61      57 Total # Students  203  217  206  208      206 Minor:  Human Development  *  69  150  *      150 

               Msmt, Stat & Eval (EDMS)               Masters  6  8  10  8      10 Doctoral  41  42  38  40      38 Grad Certificates  *  16 16 16      16

Total # Grad Students  47  66  64  64      64 

Appendix D:  Mapping of Program Enrollments from Existing Departments to Proposed New Units  

Existing Departments/ Programs 

Fall 2007 Enrollments 

Fall 2008 Enrollments 

Fall 2009 Enrollments 

3‐Year Mean 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New  Department 1 

(EDCI, EDPS, EDSP) 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New Department 2 (EDCP, EDHI) 

# F09 Enrollments to 

New Department 3 (EDHD, EDMS) 

Department 3 Totals:               Bachelors  106  114  117  112      117 Masters  40  48  42  43      42 Doctoral  104  105  95  101      95 Graduate Certificate  *  16  16  16      16 Total # Students  250  283  270  272      270 Total # Minors  *  69 150 * 150Bachelors – Undecided Education (08010) 

 19 

 13 

 12 

 15 

     

Total Undecided EDUC  19  13  12  15        COLLEGE  Totals: 

Fall 2007 Enrollments 

Fall 2008 Enrollments 

Fall 2009 Enrollments 

Fall 09: EDUC (Undecided)  Fall 09: Dept 1  Fall 09: Dept 2  Fall 09: Dept 3 

Bachelors  701  724  841  12  712    117 Masters  548  580  553    395  116  42 Doctoral  642  679  633    289  249  95 Graduate Certificate  28  84  35    11  8  16 Advanced Special Students  5  3  1    1  *  * Total # Students  1924  2070  2063  12  1408  373  270 Total # Minors  *  167  272    99 23  150

 

Appendix EFaculty Rank Distribution

for proposed new 3 departments

Department Assistant Associate Professor Total

Department 1 14 12 24 50

Department 2 8 7 10 26

Department 3 7 6 11 24

a

Appendix F Proposed Faculty Affiliation

Last Name First Faculty rank Current department Proposed AffiliationAfflerbach Peter Professor EDCI Department 1Alexander Patricia Professor EDHD Department 3Beckman Paula Professor EDSP Department 1Bolger Donald Asst Prof EDHD Department 3Brantlinger Andrew Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Bryan Julia Asst Prof EDCP Department 2Burke Philip Professor EDSP Department 1Cabrera Alberto Professor EDHI Department 2Cabrera Natasha Assoc Prof EDHD Department 3Campbell Patricia Assoc Prof EDCI Department 1Chazan Daniel Assoc Prof EDCI Department 1Clark Lawrence Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Coffey Janet Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Croninger Robert Assoc Prof EDPS Department 1Davis Thomas Asst Prof EDHI Department 2De La Paz Susan Assoc Prof EDSP Department 1Drakeford William Asst Prof EDSP Department 1Dreher Mariam Professor EDCI Department 1Drezner Noah Asst Prof EDHI Department 2Edwards Ann Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Egel Andrew Professor EDSP Department 1Fabian Ellen Assoc Prof EDCP Department 2Fox Nathan Professor EDHD Department 3Fries-Britt Sharon Assoc Prof EDHI Department 2Gold Paul Asst Prof EDCP Department 2Gottfredson Gary Professor EDCP Department 2Hall Nathan Asst Prof EDHD Department 3Hammer David Professor EDCI Department 1Hancock Gregory Professor EDMS Department 3Harring Jeffrey Asst Prof EDMS Department 3Herschbach Dennis Assoc Prof EDPS Department 1Hoffman Mary Ann Professor EDCP Department 2Holliday William Professor EDCI Department 1Hughes Sherrick Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Hultgren Francine Professor EDPS Department 1Hyler Maria Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Inkelas Karen Assoc Prof EDCP Department 2Jiao Hong Asst Prof EDMS Department 3Jones Susan Assoc Prof EDCP Department 2Jones-harden Brenda Assoc Prof EDHD Department 3Killen Melanie Professor EDHD Department 3Kivlighan Dennis Professor EDCP Department 2Klees Steven Professor EDHI Department 2Klein Elisa Assoc Prof EDHD Department 3Kohl Frances Assoc Prof EDSP Department 1Komives Susan Professor EDCP Department 2Koziol Stephen Professor EDCI/Assoc Dean Department 1Lee Courtland Professor EDCP Department 2Lent Robert Professor EDCP Department 2Leone Peter Professor EDSP Department 1Lieber Joan Ann Professor EDSP Department 1Lin Jing Professor EDHI Department 2Lissitz Robert Professor EDMS Department 3Maccini Paula Assoc Prof EDSP Department 1MacDonald Victoria M Asst Prof EDCI Department 1MacDonald-Wilson Kim Lorrai Asst Prof EDCP Department 2Macready George Professor EDMS Department 3Malen Betty Professor EDPS Department 1Marcus Robert Assoc Prof EDHD Department 3

n

Martin-Beltran Melinda Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Mawhinney Hanne Assoc Prof EDHI Department 2McCaleb Joseph Assoc Prof EDCI Department 1McGinnis James Professor EDCI Department 1McLaughlin Margaret Professor EDSP/Assoc Dean Department 1Miller Matthew Asst Prof EDCP Department 2Mislevy Robert Professor EDMS Department 3Monte-Sano Chauncey Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Moon Sherril Professor EDSP Department 1Neubert Debra An Professor EDSP Department 1North Connie Asst Prof EDCI Department 1O'Flahavan John Assoc Prof EDCI Department 1O'Meara KerryAnn Assoc Prof EDHI Department 2Oxford Rebecca Professor EDCI Department 1Peercy Megan Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Quaye Stephen Asst Prof EDCP Department 2Ramani Geetha Asst Prof EDHD Department 3Rice Jennifer Assoc Prof EDPS Department 1Robertson-Tchabo Elizabeth Assoc Prof EDHD Department 3Rowe Meredith Asst Prof EDHD Department 3Rubin Kenneth Professor EDHD Department 3Rupp Andre Asst Prof EDMS Department 3Saracho Olivia Professor EDCI Department 1Selden Steven Professor EDPS Department 1Silverman Rebecca Asst Prof EDSP Department 1Slater Wayne Assoc Prof EDCI Department 1Speece Deborah Professor EDSP Department 1Stieff Mike Asst Prof EDCI Department 1Strein William Assoc Prof EDCP Department 2Stromquist Nelly Professor EDHI Department 2Sullivan Denis Professor EDCI Department 1Teglasi-Golubcow Hedwig Professor EDCP Department 2Titus Marvin Asst Prof EDHI Department 2Torney-Purta Judith Professor EDHD Department 3Turner Jennifer Assoc Prof EDCI Department 1Valli Linda Professor EDCI Department 1Vansledright Bruce Professor EDCI Department 1Wang Min Assoc Prof EDHD Department 3Wentzel Kathryn Professor EDHD Department 3Wiseman Donna Professor EDCI/Dean Department 1Wigfield Allan Professor EDHD Department 3

Appendix GBudget Table for new department structure

FY09Budgeted Budgeted Faculty External Award DRIF

Faculty FTE Salary funds GA Funds Operating Dollars Recv'd earned FY 08

Department 1 45.5 $4,701,220 $554,606 $0 $9,273,741 $146,336Department 2 27.75 $2,683,623 $59,217 $0 $1,390,731 $44,743Department 3 24 $2,533,514 $306,026 $40,487 $2,559,716 $109,234

* staff FTE and budget will be distributed once staffing patterns are identified for each department