S.02-83

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

?

Memorandum

TO:

Senate

?

FROM: ?

John Waterh's-7\

Chair, SCUFF

)4#W

Vice Presid6,7Academjc

RE:

Faculty of Education

?

DATE: ?

November2002

External Review

?

U,

The Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) has reviewed the External

Review Report prepared on the Faculty of Education in June, 2001 together with the

response from Dean R. Barrow and additional comments from the current Acting Dean

of Education, I. Andrews.

Motion:

That Senate concurs with the recommendations from the Senate Committee on

University Priorities concerning advice to the Faculty of Education on

priority items resulting from the external review as outlined in

S. 02-83

40

?

The report of the External Review Committee for the Faculty of Education was initially

written in April 2001 with a final version being submitted in June, 2001 following the

review site visit March 22 - 23, 2001. The response of the Dean was received on

November 30, 2001. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the

commencement of the review and the receipt of the various responses, a number of

issues raised by the external review team have already been dealt with or solutions are

in progress. In view of this, SCUP requested and received a report from the current

Acting Dean which provided an update of how the Faculty is attending to the various

points raised by the External Review Committee.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Faculty of Education and the Dean be advised

to continue to pursue the following as priority items:

1.

Faculty Environment and Governance

The External Review Committee (ERC) provided a number of valuable and thoughtful

recommendations in relation to the areas of communication, leadership, work

environment and governance within the Faculty. Since the time of the external review

site visit, the Faculty has undertaken a number of positive initiatives to address

concerns arising in these areas. The Faculty is urged to continue this work.

2.

Teacher Education

It is not apparent in the external review report that the Faculty of Education's strategy

for meeting the increasingly diversified demand for Teacher Education within the

---

Province was examined. Certainly, many of the recommendations, if carried out, would

strengthen the Faculty and its programs. However, no specific recommendations were

aimed at the review or development of a strategy to cope with the changing and

fluctuating demands in the area of teacher education. SCUP recommends that the

Faculty develop a flexible strategy that is responsive to the needs of teacher education

as well as taking into account developments occurring in other programs across the

Province.

3.

Curriculum

The Faculty of Education's Undergraduate Program Committee is encouraged to

remain attentive to the monitoring of program quality. It is recommended that the

Faculty give consideration to the articulation of broad curriculum goals across program

areas through its curriculum committees at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

4.

Technology and Technology Education

With respect to the recommendations concerning the use of technology and technology

education, there appears to be a number of initiatives already underway within the

Faculty. Further development and expansion in these areas will be necessary for the

Faculty to remain current in this field. Additional funding and training should be

targeted to these initiatives.

end.

C:

I. Andrews, Acting Dean, Faculty of Education

r

2

---

•

SCUP 02-106

Faculty of Education External Review Committee Report

?

SCUP: RECOMMENDATIONS

As requested, here are the Faculty of Education's comments regarding SCUP's

recommendations of the External Review Committee's Report and an update of how the

Faculty is attending to the various points raised by the External Review Committee in

June 2001. The subsequent recommendations prepared by SCUP for Senate regarding

the External Review Committee's Report are all addressed in this update document.

Overview

During the past few months the Faculty has established program priorities for 2002-2003

that represent the recommendations of each Program Area as discussed and consolidated

by each Program Area through their Program Committee and Program staff. The

recommendations of the External Review Committee Report have contributed to the

development of these recommendations for 2002-2003. Overarching themes related to

these Program Area recommendations include:

• collaboration among Program Areas

• enhancement of a stronger intellectual and social community among faculty and

students

.

?

?

• enhancement of the Faculty's involvement and profile in University-wide

?

initiatives

• exploration of initiatives among all Program Areas provincially and

internationally

1. Communication

Over the past year and a half the Faculty has initiated a regular colloquium series to assist

in the promotion of academic dialogue among Faculty, graduate students, staff, and other

members of the community of the Faculty of Education. A web-based Faculty/staff

newsletter has been established for preparation each semester, and at present the Faculty

is examining how we can institute a more comprehensive newsletter on a more regular

basis. Furthermore, there are plans to coordinate this newsletter with the Graduate

Programs newsletter as well establish a part-time staff position in the Faculty who will

work with all program areas to more regularly promote and profile achievements and

special events.

Another important initiative within Professional Programs is the strengthening of the

differentiated staffing of the Faculty Associates interacting with Faculty members.

Faculty and Faculty Associates are more interactively involved in the design and

implementation of the PDP modules and the Faculty research interests are in the forefront

of PDP module work. In addition, Faculty team-teaching and mentoring models have

.

?

?

been successfully piloted this year as teaching assignment options in Professional

?

Programs. Faculty and Faculty Associates also regularized the EDUC 402 symposia as

3.

---

an ongoing feature of the PDP curriculum. A link between Professional Programs and

Graduate Programs has been established through the RA work of two doctoral students.

In Graduate Programs two orientations, a graduate student-faculty retreat, summer

speakers program for off-campus students, and several smaller events to explore common

interests have been delivered successfully. Meanwhile support for faculty and student

research activities continues. Furthermore an implementation of new research-based

course evaluation instruments is underway and a handbook of policies and procedures for

staff, Faculty and students is under development.

Recently faculty, staff and representative teachers working in the school system met to

celebrate the program accomplishments of Field programs. This Faculty

"communication" event recognized the twenty year history of the Faculty's involvement

of program delivery of inservice certificates and diploma programs for teachers at the

district level throughout the Province.

2.

Teacher Education

Consolidating existing programs and developing new professional programs have been

high priorities during the past year. The consolidation of District partnerships with the

financial support for mentoring programs have been established for the majority of the

PDP modules. The NewTEC program in the north west region of the Province has been

expanded by the provision of places for First Nations student teachers. There has been a

fourth intake of students to the ITEM module in Mexico and a second intake to the

module in Trinidad. The program revision that allows for this PDP variation has now

been approved by the British Columbia College of Teachers. Consolidation has also

occurred by the closing of the NewCALTEC program this December. This closure is

offset by moving French Programs to base budget funding. Program delivery in the north

eastern region of the Province (Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson) continues

to flourish.

New Professional Programs are evidenced by the delivery of the Professional

Qualification Program (PQP). The PQP will complete its first year this December with

recurring funding for an intake in the Spring of 2003. The framework for the First

Nations' Developmental Standard Term Certificate also has been developed and will be

implemented in the Spring of 2003. Finally, the University College of the Fraser Valley

partnership program has been developed, funding secured, and university approval

granted for an implementation in the Fall of 2003.

Ultimately the flexible strategy of establishing teacher education modules to meet the

changing needs of teacher supply and demand in the Province is recognized as important

by the various stakeholders in public education.

3.

Graduate Diploma Program

.

L/.

---

• ?

Field Programs has completed twenty years of program delivery and recently the faculty,

staff and representative teachers.working in the school system met to celebrate these

accomplishments. In particular, during the past two years various credit, non credit, and

special projects (provincially and internationally have been delivered. For example, Field

Programs has successfully introduced the Graduate Diploma Program. More than 20

cohorts were active this past summer enrolling over 700 teachers.

The role of mentors in Field Programs is now well defined and we have added a new

level of instructor/supervisor in the form of the "adjunct inservice associate." The latter

has allowed an appreciable expansion of our TLITE graduate diploma program. Field

Programs has developed a new instructional model and created a web-supported

programs. Field Programs continues to work at the grassroots level, for example, in

supporting the fledgling "later literacy network." The non credit in-service program with

Greenland continues and Field Programs is seeking a contract for Jamaica. Finally the

undergraduate FTE "problem" has been resolved to ensure the enrolment of students

within the Faculty of Education complements the University's undergraduate enrolment

target.

4.

Curriculum

Concerning the item on curriculum, Undergraduate Programs has been addressing the

issue of program quality in an ongoing way. Recently, the Undergraduate Programs

Committee (UPC) has begun an examination of current course offerings in light of the

recommendations of the University Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee as

adopted by Senate in October 2002. It is the intent of UPC that Education courses be

well represented in the Writing Intensive, Quantitative, and Breadth selections. Grading

practices in Undergraduate Programs also are currently under review, particularly as

pertains to Designs for Learning courses. In a series of meetings, active discussion is

underway among faculty members who teach these courses. The evaluation of teaching

in Undergraduate Programs also is being examined with methods in addition to student

reports being researched and considered.

In addition, closer circulation between the Faculty's Undergraduate Programs and

Professional Programs in the delivery of the Professional Development Program has been

underway this past year. The forthcoming review of the Faculty's teacher education

program in 2003 by the BC College of Teachers will be an important aspect of this

program articulation with Professional Programs.

In Graduate Programs the Faculty is currently reviewing and making plans for the

development of several new programs to meet the needs of students, both on campus and

in the interior off campus locations.

5.

Technology and Technology Education

As mentioned in the SCUP Recommendations the Faculty has several initiatives

underway. However the establishment of the SFU Surrey Campus now offers a

c.

---

marvelous opportunity for the Faculty of Education to work with Applied Science and the

Faculty of Arts to participate in the Information Systems and Information Technology

agenda for the new Campus. All program areas: Undergraduate , Professional, Graduate,

and Field, and the International Teacher Education initiatives in the Faculty of Education

have a potential to become more involved in technology education as it applies to each of

the specific program goals of each program area. The education technology group of the

Faculty and faculty from the SFU Surrey campus are working together to initiate a

proposal for a Masters and/or Doctoral Program on Innovation in Education and

Technology.

Ian Andrews, Acting Dean

October 31, 2002

S

0

In

---

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

DEAN OF EDUCATION

Memorandum

7..

INo's',,

SCUP O2—

Job

To: John Waterhouse

From: Robin Barrow

Subject

Response to Faculty Review

Date:

2001-11-28

I have now received the response of the Faculty of Education to its recent review. I

apologize for the delay but, as you will see from the introduction it was caused by the

extensive consideration given to the matter. In my view, the response is comprehensive

and sensible: due acknowledgement is given to helpful suggestions and criticisms in the

review and appropriate commitment to action, while the generally positive tone of the

review is quietly welcomed.

It is my own belief that the various departments (defined by program areas in this faculty)

are extremely competently managed and continue to show considerable flare and

initiative in their various activities.

/2

RB:nr

C:

Executive Committee

S

7.

---

Response to Report of the External Review Committee?

Faculty of Education

?

November 2001

Prepared by

?

Tom O'Shea, Director, Field Programs?

Stephen Smith, Director, Professional Development Programs

?

Janny Thompson, Director, Undergraduate Programs

?

Kelleen Toohey, Director, Graduate Programs

The Faculty of Education has responded in a variety of ways to the report of the External

Review Committee: the Executive Committee discussed the report and how to organize

means for the community to respond to it at its July and September meetings; each

program area has invited all members of the Faculty to their September Program

Committee meetings to discuss program specific aspects of the report; a Faculty Retreat

was held for all tenure track faculty on October 1; staff met on October 17; and

individuals have forwarded individual responses to the Program Directors. A draft of this

document was circulated for discussion at the November Faculty meeting and revised in

light of that discussion into its final form for presentation to the Dean. As the four

program directors in the Faculty, we have been attentive to all of these sources of

information in forming this response. Responses to each of the Review Committee's 17

recommendations are provided below.

In general terms, we are appreciative of the positive tone of the report and, as may be

seen from the responses to specific recommendations below, believe that much of what

the Review Committee recommended was related to initiatives, practices, and discussions

already underway at the time of their visit. Thus, many of the recommendations have

served to "keep us on track" with a renewed sense of focus and commitment.

#1 Enhancing the facult

y

's sense of community

It was interesting that the first recommendation of the report concerned community

primarily with respect to staff, one of the groups within the faculty that expressed strong

satisfaction with the sense of community they had been able to build amongst themselves.

Staff have met and provided a written response to the report (Appendix A). Some of the

suggestions arising out of the faculty retreat, which will require discussion with staff,

included organizing an annual staff appreciation day and encouragement for staff to

attend colloquia presented by faculty members. The notion of having a senior staff

member assigned responsibility for staff affairs is also being explored with regard to its

desirability and feasibility for all parties. Graduate Programs produces a regular

newsletter that includes the kinds of items referred to in part iii of the Review

Committee's first recommendation. Two staff members from the CET, Shelley Porter

and Carson Au, published the first Faculty newsletter, based on contributions from

members of the faculty community, at the end of November.

0

---

Faculty of Education Response

2

For other facets of enhancing the faculty's sense of community, including developing

0 ?

mechanisms for intellectual exchange, see the response to recommendation #6.

#2 The Review Committee concurs with the suggestion made to it on several occasions

that consideration ought to be given to extending the term for facult

y

serving on program

committees to three years.

This recommendation received no support during discussions of the review committee's

report. A number of reasons were suggested for not lengthening the term, most of them

practical, and no one saw longer terms as desirable. It was also pointed out, during

discussions, that lengthening the term without increasing the membership of such

committees would have the effect of less turnover, and, therefore fewer faculty involved

in decision-making on such committees over any given time period. (Increasing the

membership of such committees is not feasible given the size of the faculty and the

number of faculty and university committees to be filled.)

# 3 The Review Committee believes that a non-departmentalized structure is quite viable

in a Facultv of this size, provided that changes are made in the present governance

structure to allow all tenure-line faculty the opportunit

y

for meaningful participation.

#4 We recommend the Faculty give serious consideration to revising its decision-making

structure so that the general faculty meeting becomes the main le

g

islative vehicle.

#5

The Review Committee suggests that it would be of value for the Faculty to develop a

published constitution or set of by-laws or "handbook" for whatever form of governance

is settled upon. The document should contain, inter alia. a clear statement of the values

that underlie the Mission Statement of the Faculty. and should also address the balance

that is regarded as the norm for apportionment of faculty effort between teaching.

research. and service (including service to the teaching profession of the province and the

nation.

Recommendations 3 through

5

all refer to governance. In discussions of the Review

Committee's report, there was no support for major changes to the existing governance

structure. The nondepartmentalized structure of the faculty, despite the difficulties it may

create, is viewed generally by faculty as providing opportunities to pursue scholarly

interests freely as they change and develop over the course of a career. The freedom

created by this structure facilitates interdisciplinary scholarship and is seen by many as a

strength of SFU's Faculty of Education relative to larger, departmentalized faculties

elsewhere.

Although there was no support for a major overhaul of the governance structure, there

was considerable enthusiasm for discussing and implementing smaller scale changes to

the practice of governance within the current structure, many of which would be aimed at

• ?

increasing opportunities for "meaningful participation." Some of the suggestions under

discussion and consideration include

q.

---

Faculty of Education Response

3

• making the Faculty budget widely available to tenure track faculty (the budget has been

presented each year at a Faculty Meeting but some faculty members are either unaware of

this practice or wish to be given more detail)

• routinely making the minutes of the Executive Committee and Program Committee

meetings available to tenure track faculty

Such information could be made available in electronic

form,

on a password protected

server, so that faculty could access them as desired and become better informed and

therefore better able to participate meaningfully at meetings.

• ensuring that no classes are scheduled to take place at the same time as Faculty

Meetings

The suggestion that the Faculty devote energy to developing a written constitution/set of

by-laws/or handbook received little support in discussions of the report. Much of the

governance of the Faculty is already described in written form—i.e., the mandate,

composition, and procedures for election of Program Committees, the Appointments

Committee, the Faculty Tenure Committee, and Program Directors. Although there is

enthusiasm for improving how we operate within our current governance structure, there

is little support for becoming any more legalistic or procedural and, indeed, some saw the

task of developing a written document of the sort described by the Review Committee as

a "black hole" task, likely to consume an inordinate amount of time on the part of a few•

faculty members and unlikely to achieve the desired pay off. Thus, in terms of

governance, the priority is seen to be continued discussion of and implementation of

changes to how we use current structures. One faculty retreat has already been held at

which such issues and ideas were discussed. The faculty is committed to immediate

implementation of the "bulleted" suggestions above and to continuing discussion of other

changes.

#6 That efforts continue to develop appropriate mechanisms for intellectual exchange

The Faculty is aware that many different ways of fostering a sense of intellectual

community should be explored given that our geographic location and some of our work

practices (e.g., reliance on e-mail; working off-campus, including teaching off-campus; a

large proportion of evenings classes and part-time graduate students; etc.) might make

establishing local, on-campus community more difficult. Graduate Programs intends to

continue to experiment with a variety of ways of sponsoring more intellectual exchange,

and will continue to prepare a newsletter for students, faculty and staff with the intent of

fostering more interaction among members of the wider Faculty.

Some recent developments and events in the Faculty that reflect our attention to building

community include the following:

/0.

---

Faculty of Education Response

4

(a)

In July, the Executive Committee supported (with funding) a proposal for an

. ?

approximately bi-weekly series of colloquia organized by a committee headed by

Dr. Jan van Aalst. The colloquia have been, and will continue to afford

opportunities for faculty and students to listen to and discuss presentations by

members of the faculty (e.g., Kieran Egan, who holds the Faculty's first CRC

chair was the first presenter in the series, Jack Martin, who holds the Faculty's

only Burnaby Mountain Chair, will present next semester) and by visitors.

(b)

This October, Graduate Programs held its usual Student Orientation Day for

graduate students during which 10 faculty members met with 60 new students.

On November 10, 11 faculty participated in a graduate student retreat organized

by the Education Graduate Students Association (EGSA). The EGSA and the

Graduate Student Office intend to continue to offer such events—about once a

month for the academic year, so that graduate students might gradually come to

feel more connected with the academic community. Some faculty as well have

expressed interest in building community across students at different stages in

their study—with finding ways for graduate, undergraduate and student teachers

to participate in common projects. Efforts will continue on this objective, with

GPC and the office of GP continually considering practices of community.

(c)

It is worth emphasizing that, in addition to the 19 or so tenure-line Faculty

teaching assignments to the PDP each year, the university seconds 48 teachers to

teach in Professional Programs as Faculty Associates and Coordinators.

Professional Programs utilizes close to half of the Faculty's teaching personnel

and is the most visible community core within the Faculty. While the

. ?

enhancement "the faculty's sense of community" requires efforts beyond

Professional Programs, there are a number of ongoing Professional Programs'

initiatives that are worth noting:

• The thirty-five days of FA contract given over to professional

development shall continue to be framed, in part, around the idea of

"community-building." Faculty will continue to be engaged with their

seconded colleagues in the development and delivery of the August,

October, December, February and April Programs into which these days

are clustered.

• In February of 1999 and 2000, the Coordinators and Staff of Professional

Programs organized a Faculty-wide Conference that brought together tenure-line

Faculty, seconded Faculty and Graduate students.

• A 402 symposium, with presentations by tenure-line and seconded Faculty was

reintroduced in the Fall of 2000. This symposium continues to involve teaching

personnel in a visible, community-building event.

• Professional Programs has taken on the task of organizing, on behalf of the

Faculty of Education, the Western Canadian Association of Student Teaching

conference for the Spring of 2002. This conference and the planning for it will

1/.

---

Faculty of Education Response

5

provide yet another occasion for bringing tenure-line and seconded Faculty

together.

• Representatives of Professional Programs form part of the planning committee

for next year's PD? Alumni reunion, which is a key Faculty of Education and

University Advancement Office initiative to reach the 15,000 plus graduates of

the PD?. It is expected that this event will be a very public celebration of the

Faculty community-building to which Professional Programs has contributed

since 1965.

#7 We urge the UPC to maintain its vigilance in monitoring the qualit

y

of the courses

offered under its aegis.

The Undergraduate Programs Committee, like all other program committees in the

Faculty, will of course, maintain such vigilance, and is open to suggestions about ways in

which to do so.

#8 Discussion of the desirability of 3 year versus 2 year appointments for FAs and continued

fine-tuning of the PD? model.

Although contrary to Policy Paper Al2.06 governing faculty associates in the Faculty of

Education, third-year appointments have been granted in cases of particular programmatic need

over the past

5

years. In March of 1999 a Professional Programs Sub-Committee

.

was struck to

examine the terms of reference of FA employment and to consider the warrants for re-

appointment beyond the second year. At the February 2000 meeting of the Professional

Programs Committee it was agreed that the policy for re-appointment of FAs to a second year

needed to be more strictly applied and the policy modified for compensatory third-year

appointments. The matter has again been discussed at the September meeting of the Professional

Programs Committee with no clear resolution of the benefits and drawbacks of three year

appointments. The PPC and the Faculty will continue to debate the merits of such

appointments, but for the coming year Policy Paper A 12.06 will remain in force.

In terms of fine-tuning the "differentiated staffing model," a number of initiatives have already

been outlined in the Faculty of Education's "Three year plan" (January 2001). These initiatives

are in keeping with the "report of the external review committee" and focus on reconceptualizing

the Faculty Associate role such that it is not confined merely to professional development

program delivery. Specific initiatives include:

(i)

promoting module-based inquiry as a shared interest of the PD? instructional teams;

(ii)

providing support for Faculty Associates and Coordinators to work with tenure-line Faculty

in investigating their module work and present ideas from this work at symposia, conferences

and scholarly fora;

(iii)

and continuing to use part of FA program time to engage tenure-line Faculty, Faculty

Associates and Coordinators in critical review, evaluation and development of module formats.

/?.

---

Faculty of Education Response

6

#9 Fostering more semester-long teaching in which tenure-line faculty and FAs work together

The tension between tenure-line Faculty and Faculty Associates in the delivery of Professional

Programs is a long-standing one that is not easily resolved although it must certainly be

addressed. The integrated 401/2 format that replaced the earlier half-semester of practice

followed by a half-semester of theory requires joint planning by module team members to ensure

semester-long teaching partnerships between tenure-line Faculty and Faculty Associates.

Initiatives to achieve this goal and address the tensions that arise along the way include:

(i)

developing identifiable PD? modules for Faculty members to which they can commit their

teaching and research energies from one year to the next;

(ii)

creating mentoring programs for School Associates and Student Teachers affiliated with the

PD? modules in which tenure-line Faculty and Faculty Associates can work alongside one

another;

(iii)

and instituting semester meetings of Faculty members assigned to Professional Programs to

discuss best practices with respect to module, cross-module and site-based PDP teaching

assignments.

#10 Refining the sequence of courses in the PD?

This recommendation is prompted by questions about the placement of the EDUC 404

coursework in the PDP sequence and concerns over the coordination of the EDUC 404 courses.

In relation to the question of EDUC 404 placement, we do not agree that a middle placement is

necessarily the best option. The original model of the PD? proposed a final semester of student

reflection and inquiry that would be served by EDUC 404 coursework. But if the prevailing

view is that EDUC 404 provides methods preparation for teaching then a placement of this

preparation prior to EDUC 405 makes sense. The "report of the external review committee"

acknowledges there is not easy answer to the PD? sequencing concerns, however, once again,

some initiatives have been taken to address these concerns.

(i)

EDUC 404 coursework has been delivered outside the summer semester to PD? students who

begin in the Fall. On a pilot basis, courses have been inserted in the December-Januar

y

period

between EDUC 401/2 and EDUC 405 and taught durin

g

the EDUC 405 semester. These courses

have had mixed success. For the coming Spring semester a science methods course is being

offered to PD? students in the EDUC 405 component of the Secondary Math/Science module.

(ii)

Joint Undergraduate Programs Committee and Professional Programs Committee meetings

were held in the 2000-2001. A number of ideas and models for restructuring the sequence of

courses in the PD? were generated. These will be tabled at future joint program meetings.

# 11 The Review Committee is of the opinion that it is possible to reduce the apparent

conflict between SFU graduate program norms and the Graduate Diploma in Education

in

13

---

/

Faculty of Education Response

7

a manner that should satisf

y the valid concerns of both the Faculty and of SFU graduate

administrators. The Review Committee therefore recommends that the Faculty explore

the feasibility of requiring students in the diploma program to maintain a portfolio of

documents that indicate their professional growth during the period in which the

y

are

enrolled, and which would have to be assessed before graduation (for example. via a

face-to-face meeting with two program faculty).

In the body of its report, the Review Committee noted that all indications were that the

Faculty is doing an excellent job regarding professional development of teachers in

British Columbia, and that they had heard nothing but praise for the newly-implemented

Graduate Diploma program. The Committee concurred that it was inappropriate for the

program to have a minimum GPA requirement or to require that work in the program

should be done for a letter-grade. The analogy they drew was that of a master class in a

performance field, where students are working to progressively change their practice

under the guidance of a program mentor. We are gratified that the Committee viewed

this program in such a favourable light.

We are, however, somewhat mystified by the assertion that there exist "valid concerns"

about the program and SFU's graduate program norms, not having heard those expressed

to the Director or Program Committee in the past. As it happens, since the inception of

the Diploma Program in Fall, 2000, we have been keeping the requirements for the

diploma in mind and have put into place some mechanisms to ensure that teachers will

maximize their opportunity to improve their teaching practice. A number of the

Committee's suggestions, for example the use journal reflections, have been part of the

ongoing work required of teachers in the program. We have been moving toward a

requirement for all thematic offerings of the Graduate Diploma that students demonstrate

their understanding by means of what we call a "demonstration festival." This is very

much in line with the Committee's recommendation to require a final portfolio to

document professional growth. All students create a "baseline portfolio" in their first

semester, maintain a "working portfolio" throughout the two years, and construct a

"demonstration portfolio" at the end of their program. The latter is evaluated as

satisfactory/unsatisfactory based on teachers' responses to the questions: What have I

learned? Why is this learning important to me? How did I go about learning? How could

I use what I learned in the future? and What do I want or need to learn next?

In summary, we concur with the Committee's recommendation and have put into place

the suggested Graduate Diploma requirement.

#12 We recommend that the Faculty develop an introductor

y

methods course or research

seminar that would be taken by all incoming doctoral students, and possibly by some

Masters' students as well. This course should help to establish a sense of intellectual

community amongst the students and provide them with opportunities to meet faculty

members outside their direct fields of study.

Some faculty members noted at discussions about this recommendation that some

programs (Educational Leadership and Psychology of Education) already do hold

/4L

---

Faculty of Education Response

8

seminars for students that are aimed at introducing members of faculty outside their

• ?

direct field of study, using the Education 840-0 course number. Some faculty felt that

because of the diversity of students' interests, cohort-specific seminars (such as those

already in place) were the way to build intellectual community. Other discussions

centered around whether a methods" course was required, and this recommendation was

discussed at length at the Graduate Programs Committee (GPC) meeting on September

27 and again at the Faculty retreat on October I.- There was widespread support for the

recommendation, with some discussion of how such a seminar would be scheduled, what

topics it might examine and so on. It seemed that the majority of Faculty members fell

that a "methodology" course was not precisely what was required, but rather a course

with rather wider objectives in which students could develop relationships with one

another and a wider range of faculty members than is now the case.

In addition, GPC is currently considering a proposal for a course (possibly non-credit) in

Academic Writing that might be taken by a cross section of graduate students across

programs. The aims of such a course would be to familiarize students further with

conventions and disputes within the discourse of educational research. Another possible

outcome might be the development of an enhanced sense of intellectual community

among the students.

An intriguing suggestion was for a weekly meeting of students and faculty to deal with a

number of issues such as: academic writing, preparing grant proposals, doing research,

and so on. A faculty member has expressed interest in teaching/coordinating such a

S ?

course and discussion will continue about this. A proposal for an academic writing

course will be considered at the next GPC meeting.

#13 We urge that the GPC examine the problems experienced by graduate students

including the timing of comprehensive examinations, as well as the timeliness and nature

of feedback provided on them: the scheduling of classes: the five-unit (as against three-

unit) offerings: the availability of training in methodology, particularly in qualitative

research methods: and cross-disciplinary studies.

Responses to each of these matters will be considered in turn:

a)

Timing of comprehensive examinations. Comprehensive examinations are

required within the semester following completion of coursework, and the

Review team felt that such a deadline precluded students gaining further

research experience or reflecting adequately on coursework. One solution to

this problem was recommended by the former Director, Dr. Phil Winne—for

students to register On Leave, or in a directed readings or fieldwork course as

they prepared for their comprehensives. This timeline will be discussed in

future meetings of GPC, and students' opinions about it will be canvassed as

part of that discussion.

b)

The scheduling of classes. Scheduling of courses is a continual challenge, so

as to avoid conflicts for students and to meet faculty members' preferences

Is

---

Faculty of Education Response

9

and needs. Most on-campus courses are scheduled during evenings from

Monday to Thursday, while off-campus courses t

y

pically meet on weekends,

and some on-campus courses have experimented with weekend formats. We

intend to continue to explore alternatives in scheduling.

c)

Five-unit courses are more common in graduate programs than three-credit

offerings. In planning for new programs, faculty are encouraged to think

about being more flexible in course design and delivery. Several initiatives

are currently underway to develop more variety in this regard.

d)

The availability of training in methodology, particularly in qualitative research

methods. The faculty's qualitative research course Education

867-5

is offered

about once a year at present. Many faculty members who do qualitative

methodology could teach this course, and variations on this course are being

currently discussed.

e)

Cross —disciplinary studies. Little discussion about this matter has occurred

so far. In future meetings of GPC and with faculty members planning new

programs or reforms to existing programs, this matter will be addressed.

Comprehensive review of the graduate curriculum has been seen as a priority

in the faculty's three-year plan and this issue will be addressed within that

framework as well.

#14 Support for initiatives with respect to the use of technology and technology edtication

An Educational Technology committee, with Faculty Associate, Coordinator, tenure-line Faculty

and CET staff representation was struck in 1999. Since then this committee has organized

Workshops as part of FA program times and generally promoted the instructional use of

computer technologies in the PDP modules. A report on the incorporation of ICT in Professional

Programs was provided by Dr. C. Amundsen to Professional Programs in the Summer of 2001.

Current initiatives involve:

a)

Discussions with Apple Canada representatives to provide lease or purchase options

for Faculty Associate access to iBooks;

b)

The adoption of "First Class Conferencing" across the PDP modules;

c)

and the assignment of tenure-line Faculty with expertise in the use of technology and

technology education to designated PD? modules.

#15

We point out that the expanded use of technology needs to be discussed with

reference to three specific areas within the Faculty. These are the proposed new program

in "Teaching and Learning in an Information Technology Environment:" the degree to

which efforts are to be made beyond this initiative in the technolo

g

y education domain

and how far the faculty plans to become more technologically-oriented in its wider

program offerings, outreach/in-service efforts. and research.

/'

---

Faculty of Education Response

10

S ?

The program "Teaching and Learning in an Information Technology Environment"

(TL[TE) was originally developed as a post-baccalaureate program, and offered through

Field Programs. More recently, it has been revised and offered as a Graduate Diploma

program. The program does not draw on faculty and technical staff resources, as

suggested by the External Review Committee, at least to any extent greater than other

Graduate Diploma programs. Moreover, Field Programs has recently created a field-

based position (Adjunct Inservice Associate) to ensure that the TLITE offerings can be

expanded without requiring additional faculty resources.

The Committee's suggestion that the faculty should examine the place of technology

education within the faculty is being addressed in several ways. We have recently

appointed two tenure-line faculty whose area of interest is education and technology.

They form part a working group who are developing and coordinating new programs in

education and technology. The result has been the introduction of two new

undergraduate courses and revisions to two more, and a new undergraduate minor in

Education and Technology. The group has also developed a new Masters specialization

in Education and Technology, which was initiated in the Fall, 2001 semester. The

program includes two completely revised courses on educational uses of technology, and

perspectives on technology-supported learning. Finally, the group is exploring the

possibility of creating an interdisciplinary PhD program, and has recommended ways in

which technology education can be infused into the pre-service teacher education

S

?

program.

The remaining question is how

far

the faculty plans to become more technologically-

oriented in its wider program offerings, outreach/in-service efforts, and research. It must

be said that not all faculty members whole-heartedly embrace the use of technology in

teaching and learning, certainly not in the form characteristic of current "on-line

learning" options. Nevertheless, the core faculty identified above will continue to

undertake curriculum revisions and research into optimizing the use of technology. The

Field Programs area has already introduced a curriculum-based web-supported variant of

its TLITE program in the area of literacy education (LitNET). The program will consist

of three intensive summer institutes and four semesters of on-line mentor-supported

classroom investigations of individual practice. Similar programs in Special Education

and in French Immersion Education are currently being developed, and one in Numeracy

is under consideration.

#16 We believe it to be imperative that the Faculty persist with its efforts aimed at

addressing the issues affecting First Nations and cultural minority students.

There is widespread support for following through on this recommendation. Past support

for such a direction in Graduate Programs is evident in the now operating First Nations

Master's cohort program in North Vancouver, and previous programs in Haida G'waii,

Kamloops and elsewhere and in the availability of such courses as Education 855-5:

S ?

Multicultural and Race Relations Education: Policy Development and Program

Implementation. Further effort is of course also required and Graduate Programs

I1

---

Faculty of Education Response

11

recognizes that the need for cultural minority and First Nations educational leaders will

only increase in future. Means of encouraging First Nations and cultural minority

participation in Graduate programs will continue to be a priority. As noted in the

materials provided to the Review Committee in anticipation of their visit, efforts are

underway to regularize the first undergraduate course to focus specifically on First

Nations education.

As well as the information collected by the BC College of Teachers in its surveys of graduates

from the BC teacher education programs, the Professional Program has authorized a survey of

PDP students which will provide self-identificatory data on cultural affiliations. This data is

being collated by Dr. J. Beynon in light of Stats Can categories. Such baseline data provides a

context for the efforts we are making to attract minority students into Professional Programs and

to create First Nations Programs within the rubric of the PDP. Specific initiatives are:

a)

the piloting of the Professional Qualification Program in the spring of 2002 as a certification

program for teachers from other countries. At the application deadline for this program, there

were thirty candidates from 16 different countries.

b)

Our North West Teacher Education Consortium will continue to include first nations issues as

part of its program delivery;

c)

Professional Program developments with the Sto:lo, Nisga'a, Musqueam and Squamish

nations continue to take shape under the guidance of Dr. C. Kenny.

It should be noted that the 2002 Western Canadian Association of Student Teaching

Conference which Professional Programs is organizing has as its theme "The promise of

Responsive/Responsible Teacher Education." A key reason for adopting this theme is to

highlight the cultural responsiveness of Professional Programs and the various initiatives

we have adopted towards "addressing the issues affecting First Nation and cultural

minority students."

#17 We commend the adoption of—and stress the importance of maintaining—a strong

mentoring program for new facult

y

members.

The Faculty appreciates recognition of efforts in this area and will endeavour to improve

and maintain such efforts through various means of welcoming new faculty members and

orienting them to the Faculty.

0

If

---

Faculty of Education Response

12

S

October 23, 2001

The CUPE staff in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University would

like to thank the members of the External Review Committee for their thoughtful

response to our submission. We enjoyed and appreciated having a voice in this

process and meeting with the members one-on-one.

Overall, we agreed with their ideas and suggestions, but there was some

skepticism surrounding implementation; or where we go from here. In order to

move forward we are seeking assurances of a strong commitment from senior

levels of management to work together to build on the recommendations of the

Review Committee. Our expectation is that the External Review report be

5 ?

transformed into a

working

document that will provide direction for future

discussion and dialogue in order to build a conducive and responsive working

environment.

It is felt that many of the issues identified in the report relating to communication

and community could be ameliorated with minor process improvements. We

are committed to beginning these discussions as soon as possible.

These are exciting times in the Faculty of Education. Beginning this year and

continuing over the next five years, at least, we are looking at a dramatic

turnover of staff by way of retirement as well as new Directors in Graduate

Programs, Undergraduate Programs, Associate Dean and the Dean himself. All

of these events have the potential to act as a catalyst for change. We are

optimistic at the prospect and look forward to actively participating with our

---

Faculty of Education Response

13

colleagues at all levels to improve communications processes, to reach out to the

disenfranchised and to build on our sense of community.

Respectfully submitted,

CUPE Staff in the Faculty of

Education

Simon Fraser University

r

MI

---

SCUP O2-

/O(

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

?

FOR THE

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

APRIL 2001

•

?

D.C. Phillips, External Review Chair

Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

School of Education

Stanford University

\.2.

oJ

/

Cr /

Romulo F. Magsino

?

Dean, Faculty of Education

?

University of Manitoba

We wish to acknowledge the assistance given to us during our site visit to

?

SFU, and during our subsequent deliberations, by Irene M. Gordon,

?

Associate Professor of Business Administration at SFU.

---

2

S

External Review Overview and Recommendations

The External Review Committee has found that overall the Faculty of Education at

Simon Fraser University is a dynamic and strong academic unit. However, there are a few

areas where the Committee thinks some improvements might be made that could further

enhance the operation and reputation of the Faculty. These recommendations are

provided below in summary form with the details and background provided in the body

of the report.

Recommendations

1. ?

To enhance the faculty's sense of community

we recommend that the following

steps be given serious consideration:

?

. .

?

0

1)

?

identification of a senior member of the administration of the Faculty

(preferably not a faculty member) who will have staff affairs as an important

charge; this individual would serve both as an advocate for staff at the highest

levels in the Faculty and as the channel via which members of staff can have

relevant input, and also would organize staff development activities;

ii)

holding regular meetings of staff across the whole organization (perhaps twice

per semester, for approximately an hour); these meetings would serve as

occasions for the sharing of news, they could provide occasions for staff

development activities; and they could provide opportunities for staff to

become acquainted with new faculty members or with interesting research

projects that are located within the organization;

iii)

production of a regular newsletter or webpage that contains staff, faculty, and

student news; that recognizes milestones such as arrivals or retirements; and

that discusses other matters of importance such as new research or program

initiatives.

ou

---

?

2. ?

The Review Committee concurs with the suggestion made to it on several

occasions that consideration ou

g

ht to be given to extendin

g

the term for faculty

servin

g

on program committees to three years.

The Review Committee believes that a non-departmentalized structure is quite

viable in a Facult

y

of this size, provided that changes are made in the present

governance structure to allow all tenure-line facult

y

the opportunit

y for

meaningful .participation.

?

4.

?

We recommend the Faculty give serious consideration to revising its decision-

making structure so that the general faculty meeting becomes the main legislative

vehicle.

?

S. ?

The Review Committee suggests that it would be of value for the Faculty to

S

develop a published constitution or set of by-laws or "handbook" for whatever

form of governance is settled Mn. This document should contain, inter alia a

clear statement of the values that underlie the Mission Statement of the Faculty

and should also address the balance that is regarded as the norm for

apportionment of facult

y

effort between teachin

g

, research, and service (including

service to the teaching profession of the province and the nation.

6.

We recommend that efforts continue to develop appropriate mechanisms for

intellectual exchange - such as Faculty retreats, colloquia, time set aside for

discussion of research at faculty meetings. or establishin

g

the custom of

distributing repnnt

7.

We ur

g

e the UPC to maintain its vi

gilance

in monitorin

g

the quality of the courses

offered under its aegis.

---

8.

We recommend that the Facult

y

reopen discussion of the desirability

of three year

versus two

y

ear appointments for FAs, and continues to fine-tune the PDP model.

9.

The facult

y

should find wa

y

s to foster more semester-long team-teaching in

which tenure-line facult

y

and FAs work together.

10.

We ur g

e the Facult

y

to continue its efforts to refine the sequence of courses in th

e

PDP and to resolve the problems internal to 404. which mi

g

ht necessitate

reexamination of the governance structure for 404, or which might be addressed

through a joint taskforce of the two relevant committees.

11.

The Review Committee is of the opinion that it is possible to reduce the apparent

conflict between SFU graduate program norms and the Graduate Diploma

Program in Education in a manner that should satisf

y

the valid concerns of both

the Facult y

and of SFU

g

raduate administrators. The Review Committee therefore

recommends that the Facult

y

explore the feasibilit

y

of requiring students inTh

diploma program to maintain a portfolio of documents that indicate their

fessionai growth during the period in which the

y

are enrolled, and which

would have to be assessed before graduation (for example, via a face-to-fac

e

meeting with two program faculty).

12.

We recommend that the Faculty develop an introductory methods course or

research seminar that would be taken by all incoming doctoral students, and

possibl y b y

some Masters' students as well. This course should help to establish a

sense of intellectual communit

y

amongst the students and provide them with

opportunities to meet facult

y

members outside their direct fields of study.

13.

We urge that the GPC examine the problems experienced b

y

graduate student

including the timing of comprehensive examinations, as well as the timeliness and

nature of feedback provided on them: the schedulin

g

of classes: the five-unit (as

---

against three-unit) offerings: the availabilit

y

of training in methodology,

particularl

y

in qualitative research methods: and cross.disciplinarv studies.

14.

Man

y

Faculties of Education of comparable size have greater resources available

to suDport initiatives with respect to the use of technology and technology

-

education. We recommend that serious consideration be given to increasingih

funding for initiatives in this

g

eneral domain at SF

15.

We point out that the expanded use of technolog

y

needs to be discussed with

reference to three specific areas within the Facult

y

. These are the proposed new

program in "Teaching and Learning in an Information Technology Environment":

the degree to which efforts are to be made beyond this initiative in the technology

education domain: and how far the facult

y

plans to become more technologically!

oriented in its wider program offerings, outreachiin-service efforts, and research.

16.

We believe it to be imperative that the Facult

y

persist with its efforts aimed M

addressing the issues affecting First Nation and cultural minority students.

17.

We commend the adoption of— and stress the importance of maintainin

g

- a

strong mentoring program for new faculty members.

0

---

6

1. ?

Introduction and background to the review

It is important to state clearly at the outset that the members of the Review Committee

were impressed by the Faculty of Education: It is strong in research, with many

individuals who have done work that has won recognition in the scholarly community

throughout North America and beyond; and yet at the same time members of the Faculty

are mounting effective and well-designed programs for the initial training of practitioners

and for the further education (or "in-service training") of experienced teachers throughout

the province. Its other undergraduate and graduate level courses are of good quality and

overall are running smoothly; and there is some innovative activity in the area of

international programs and technology. Also, the Faculty has been undergoing a process

of renewal that appears at this stage to have been very successful; strong appointments

appear to have been made.

This is not to say, of course, that there are not small problems here and there, and one or

two important challenges are not yet being effectively met; but the overall impression on.

us has been of an academic unit which has been doing excellent work and which stands in

high repute in the relevant professional communities. Members of the Faculty are largely

aware of the problems with which they have to deal, and a start has been made in

addressing these via the process of consultation and discussion that culminated in the Self

Stud

y

prior to the present external review; and much work was also done in the course of

preparing the new Three Year Plan adopted in January 2001. These two documents were,

in our judgment, admirable for their clarity and forthrightness, and we found them to be

extremely helpful in understanding the current thinking of members of Faculty.

As background to this review, it seems to us to be important to bear in mind that Faculties

of Education around the world have severe - and rather similar - pressures upon them,

and the Faculty at Simon Fraser can be gauged, in large measure, by the way in which it

has responded to these. Teaching in elementary and high schools is an extremely

demanding profession, in which success is constrained by social factors that lie outside

the ambit of the classroom. (Among others: breakdown of the family and traditional

.

---

7

social support mechanisms for children; the declining respect for learning; ill-discipline;

the relatively low economic and social status of teachers; the oftentimes inadequate

financial support for schooling and vital ancillary support services; a steady stream of

immigrants and students from linguistic and cultural minority groups, for whom the

traditional curricula and teaching methods are not always appropriate; the tendency for

social problems such as poverty, violence, and drug abuse to move across into schools -

with the attendant and unrealistic expectation that these will be resolved by schools). As a

result many teachers suffer from burnout and leave the profession after serving for only a

few years, and in many societies declining numbers of individuals find a career in

teaching to be attractive. It is an understatement to say that preparing individuals to enter

such a profession offers great challenges!

But there are further complexities: This is a period of rising interest in the policy of "class

size reduction" (to enact which, an increase in the number of teachers is required), and in

many areas there is also an increasing student population. Thus, most societies suffer

from a current - or projected future - shortage of teachers (a shortage from which the

province of British Columbia is not insulated). In addition, many university Faculties of

Education are regarded by those who work in schools as being an "ivory tower", with

little interest in - or expertise in - the demands of practice. To make matters worse, while

facing pressure to produce more teachers, who are better equipped to work in real

schools, Faculties of Education face increasing pressure from the central administrations

in their home institutions to do the sort of work which universities traditionally value - to

produce publishable research, to win research grants and awards, and to contribute to

traditional undergraduate education as well as to produce research-oriented graduate

students. As will be seen from our report, the Faculty at Simon Fraser is not free from

such pressures, but on balance is effectively handling the resulting juggling act". The

pressures, however, inevitably create some internal tensions. (It is arguable that faculty

members in education are not as free to pursue their own research or teaching agenda as

their colleagues in - for example - traditional departments of history, psychology or

philosophy; and they face pressures to be socially relevant that are far greater than those

felt by many of their colleagues across campus. And while some individuals in Faculties

---

8

of Education have been recruited because of their familiarity

with

practice, others were

recruited for their proficiency as researchers, and - as is common in many Faculties of

Education around the globe - there can be internal jostling for recognition and resources

between members of these groups. This latter situation must not be exaggerated, for a

number of individuals have a foot firmly in each camp.)

The statistics collected at Simon Fraser in preparation for the external review support our

general conclusion that the Faculty of Education is coping well with the disparate

demands placed upon it. The total Fit has been rising steadily; the graduate FTE has

undergone slight fluctuation but currently is about the same as it was in

1995-96,

while

the undergraduate FTE has risen from

1359

in

95-96

to

1586

in

99-00

(the last year for

which figures were available); however, the total number of majors and minors (actual

and intended) has fallen approximately 14% over a five-year period. The review

Committee was not alarmed by this, for there is a natural rhythm in university

enrollments, and there are periods when careers in Education seem less attractive to

students than other options that they might have; seethe earlier discussion for some of

the uncontrollable external factors currently operating. (We also note that the fall in

Education numbers is small in comparison to the decline in enrollment in Arts; but in

neither case of course should the fall in numbers be taken to indicate that the social

significance of these academic areas has declined.) As might be expected, the Faculty

attracts students who are slightly older than the Simon Fraser norm, at both the

undergraduate and graduate levels; and the majority of students at all levels is female. An

extremely healthy sign is that the graduation rate after five years is highest in the

university for those students admitted directly from BC 12, and is only narrowly behind

the highest for students "admitted from other categories"; graduate students have

graduation rates that are well within Simon Fraser norms. Another significant statistic is

that 91% of graduates from the Faculty of Education report that they would take the same

program again (compared with about 80% for Simon Fraser in general); significantly

more than the university norm report that their educational goals were achieved within

the Faculty of Education, and 70.2% (compared with 65.1%) stated that they found a

permanent job within twelve months of graduating. With respect to research activity,

c29

---

according to figures reported by the Dean, since the last external review 64% of the

faculty have received outside funding; 79% of tenure track faculty have been awarded

funding, and proportionally the Faculty is slightly higher than the SFU average for

SSHRC funding. Overall there has been some decline in the average funding achieved,

but the Review Committee is not greatly concerned by this - funding for educational

research (nationally and internationally) is far from stable, and furthermore in a Faculty

where a vigorous process of renewal has been occurring some decline in funding is to be

expected as new and younger faculty members "find their feet". It is clear to us that there

has been a prominent research ethos in the Faculty, and we do not expect this to change -

if anything we expect it to strengthen - with the new appointments.

The self-report of the Faculty raised, in several places, issues pertaining to "culture", and

inevitably a great deal of our time during the site visit was taken up with pursuing this

wide topic with tenure-line faculty and faculty associates, support and senior

administrative staff, and students; we will discuss our findings in the following section of

• ?

the report. Then we shall turn to undergraduate and graduate level programs for

prospective or practicing teachers; then to graduate research training; and finally we will

present a brief discussion of resources and technology, and several miscellaneous items.

2.

Issues of "culture", communication, and governance

The groups with which we met impressed us with their friendliness and high morale, yet

it was obvious from the written documents that some tenure-line faculty feel disaffected;

as none of the latter individuals met with us (or at least did not identify themselves to us

and failed to express their views face-to-face or later by email) we cannot authoritatively

address their concerns, which seem to center around the dual perceptions that a sense of

community is lacking and that the governance structure of the Faculty is hierarchical (the

implication being that this has the effect of disenfranchising some individuals). However,

we do have something to say on both of these interrelated matters in the following

discussion; although it should be noted that some of the comments made to us by faculty

who did meet with us, or who did respond to our invitation to communicate privately

---

10

with us later, directly contradicted the views that seem to be held by those who are

disaffected. These comments were to the effect that the Faculty was a good place to

work; one individual who contacted us via email wrote that some other places where

he/she* had worked or knew of were "riddled with political battles... (and were) very

unproductive", whereas at SFU "the old battleground and divisions are slowly

dissipating", and friendships and working relationships are continuing to develop. This

statement reflects the conclusion that we reached on the basis of our site visit. (*We are

deliberately preserving anonymity here.)

The support staff, and the core administrative (APSA) staff, gave no signs of being

disaffected; on the contrary, they were spirited in expressing their pride in working in a

Faculty that was productive and that they regarded as doing strong, socially relevant

work. (However, in common with support staff in many comparable institutions, there

was concern that workloads were increasing without concomitant increase in

remuneration or improvement of working conditions.) The members of the Review

Committee were of the opinion that the Faculty was indeed lucky to have such dedicated

individuals among its ranks.

Members of the staff (we here use the generic term "staff' to refer to all non-faculty

members) reported, however, certain deficiencies in the channels of communication

between the various functional units within the Faculty as a whole; indeed, the view

seemed commonly held that the Faculty was not a unified and cohesive community at all

- there was a good degree of cohesion and communication within functional units, but

this did not seem to be mirrored at the level of the whole organization. Parallel to this,

there was widespread agreement that often the "larger picture" of what was happening in

the Faculty was not available to the staff— such things as the overall direction in which

the Faculty was moving, a faculty member receiving a prestigious award, arrival of a new

faculty member, an important program change in an area outside the one in which they

worked. In short, the staff impressed us, on the whole, as being hard working and

?

0

30

---

dedicated members of the community, often with many years of service; yet in some

respects they were treated as peripheral, and they gained information that was important

to them as members of the organization through informal channels. Hand-in-hand with

this, they felt the lack of a regularly-appearing faculty-staff newsletter; and a number of

them keenly felt that they lacked an advocate at the higher decision-making levels in the

Faculty, where policies or specific decisions were made that affected them, but without

the benefit of their input or a recognized channel being available through which they

could communicate their views. (The view was commonly held that those senior

members of staff who belonged to APSA did not usually see their role as including

advocacy on behalf of the staff they supervised.)

On the basis of our wider discussions during the site visit, the members of the Review

Committee concluded that these issues raised by the staff had validity, and are important

- and probably relatively easy - to address. We therefore recommend that the following

steps be given serious consideration:

. ?

i) ?

identification of a senior member of the administration of the Faculty

(preferably not a faculty member) who will have staff affairs as an important

charge; this individual would serve both as an advocate for staff at the highest

levels in the Faculty and as the channel via which members of staff can have

relevant input, and also would organize staff development activities;

ii)

holding regular meetings of staff across the whole organization (perhaps twice

per semester, for approximately an hour); these meetings would serve as

occasions for the sharing of news, they could provide occasions for staff

development activities; and they could provide opportunities for staff to

become acquainted with new faculty members or with interesting research

projects that are located within the organization;

iii)

production of a regular newsletter or webpage that contains staff, faculty, and

student news; that recognizes milestones such as arrivals or retirements; and

that discusses other matters of importance such as new research or program

initiatives.

31

---

'1

Steps such as these would help to ftirther a sense of community within the Faculty, and

would be appreciated not only by members of staff, but also by faculty and graduate

students.

Faculty

governance and communication.

A large number of models of academic governance exist; some of these are hardly

democratic and do not provide opportunities for faculty to candidly express their views

and to genuinely participate in decision-making. The model currently extant in the

Faculty of Education at SFU seems to be democratic, but - rather than being a "Greek"

style of democracy (or governance via a "town meeting" or "committee of the whole") it

is best described as representational democracy or governance by sub-committees. As far

as we could ascertain, much of the initial decision-making and policy setting in the

Faculty occurs in the committees that govern the various programs; each of these

committees includes a tenure-line faculty Director who serves for three years

(renewable), and four tenure-line faculty members who are elected or ratified by election

and who serve overlapping terms of two years each and then rotate off. (Thus, over time,

a faculty member can gain experience on a number of these program committees.)

Decisions are reported to and sometimes discussed at general faculty meetings, but as far

as we could ascertain in practice the system actually operates in such a way that many

final decisions are taken by the Faculty Executive Committee (or at the very least there is

a widespread perception on the part of those with whom we spoke that this is the actual

situation "On the ground"); the members of the Executive are the Dean, Associate Dean,

and the Directors of Graduate Programs, Field Programs, and Professional Programs.

There is a Faculty Appointments Committee, chaired by the Associate Dean, and on

which three program directors again serve; and there is a Faculty Tenure Committee

which is chaired by a faculty member with a three-year term, and which has six other

faculty who all serve one-year terms.

At our meetings with faculty, the Review Committee several times heard the comment

(which was sometimes disputed) that the two year term for members of the program

32.

---

13

com.mittees was too short - an individual was just becoming expert on the often complex

. ?

matters dealt with by a particular program committee when his or her term of office

expired. The Review Committee concurs with the suggestion made to it on several

occasions that consideration ought to be given to extending the term for facult

y

serving

on program committees to three years.

In reflecting upon this governance structure, and after reading faculty comments in the

self-study document and after meeting with many faculty, it was clear to the Review

Committee that in effect this structure places a considerable degree of decision-making

power in the hands of the Deans and a small number of individuals who serve for

substantial periods of time as Directors of the various programs and also are members of

the Faculty Executive along with the Deans. Whether this is a strong or weak point is

probably debatable, as is the issue of whether or not this is a result of the formal structure

of the organization or whether it occurs as a result ofthe way the system actually operates

in practice. The crucial thing to note - in understanding the attitude of many faculty

members to this system of governance - is that in any given year most faculty members

do not have direct decision-making responsibility, for the majority do not serve on any

committee in any given year; and even those who do so of course do not have a direct

voice in decisions made by other committees. Evidently the way in which faculty

meetings are conducted does not mitigate the sense that many have that the decision-

making action occurs elsewhere; even the device of "faculty forums" does not seem to be

mitigating this feeling, which we judge to be quite widespread although it is not

universally held.

In short, although the present governance structure has a number of positive points in its

favor, it has the (presumably unintended) consequence of producing a feeling of

disenfranchisement on the part of some faculty members. Even some of those individuals

who regard the Faculty as a good place to work, regard this structure as "hierarchical",

and on a number of occasions we heard the remark that general faculty meetings were

pointless and not worth attending. One individual with an otherwise positive attitude

towards the Faculty summed this up to us in the following words: "This is a widespread

33

---

14

bone of contention and also contributes to lower morale, since going to a faculty meeting

is not perceived by many to be of any use." The opinion was expressed to us that even the

name "Executive Committee" fostered a sense of hierarchy that was counterproductive;

and one person remarked that an email invitation from the Executive to comment

(electronically) on a policy document was no substitute for discussion and decision at a

meeting of the whole faculty (although formally it could be claimed that faculty input had

been sought).

The sense on the part of many faculty members that there is no vehicle for them to have

direct, meaningful input into the decision-making process is exacerbated by the fact that

the faculty is not departmentalized but has much of its governance in the hands of the

program committees on which, in any given year, the majority of faculty do not serve.

There is strong but by no means unanimous support for dividing the Faculty into more-

or-less self-governing departments that would give all tenure-track individuals a direct

voice in - for example - matters pertaining to programs, appointments, and promotion

and tenure decisions. (The latter were occasionally said to be "mysterious"; but we note.

that public discussion of tenure criteria has been taking place, at the initiation of members

of the FTC.)

The Review Committee believes that a non-departmentalized structure is quite viable in a

Faculty of this size, provided that changes are made in the present governance structure

to allow all tenure-line faculty the opportunit

y

for meaningfiul participation. Faculty

governance is a complex matter; any system is likely to have strengths but also

weaknesses, and individuals of good will can be expected to disagree with respect to the

style of governance that they favor. This being said, members of the Review Committee

heard criticisms of the current structure (or, perhaps more accurately, of the way in which

the current structure actually operates in practice) so often, and favorable comments less

frequently, that we recommend the Facult

y

give serious consideration to revising-its

decision-making structure so that the general facult

y

meeting becomes the main

legislative vehicle; and that program committees be reconstituted as committees of the

faculty as a whole which report to the faculty, and which make recommendations that

?

0

34

---

15

require full faculty discussion and endorsement. On such a model, the Executive

Committee would become an administrative coordinating committee but not the main

decision-making group (except for administrative and budgetary matters where the Dean,

Associate Dean, and program directors have - and must retain - line authority), and a

change in name might be considered that reflects this new role.

The Review Committee also suggests that it would be of value for the Facult

y

to develop

a published constitution or set of by-laws for whatever form of governance is settled

Won. This document ought to include clear statements of the main mission(s) of the

Faculty; the balance that is regarded as the norm for apportionment of effort between

teaching, research and service (including service to the teaching profession in the

province and the nation); the criteria for tenure specific to the Faculty of Education; and

the procedures to be adopted in deciding upon areas for new appointments, and for

resolving the tension - that arises in many Faculties of Education when appointments are

discussed - between meeting the teaching needs of programs and keeping the Faculty's

• ?

research profile at the cutting edge. (This last issue is one that several individuals cited as.

being decisive in them believing that the Faculty ought to adopt a departmental structure;

it was suggested that the current administrative structure tips the balance in the making of

appointments towards satisfying the needs of teaching programs; they think that a

departmental structure would at least allow the thorough airing of opposing views.)

Finally - and most delicately - the document could try to establish norms for faculty

interaction and debate. Occasionally there have been personality clashes within the

Faculty that have led to severe (although evidently limited) breakdowns in civility; on

occasions when such breakdowns occur - even though they are limited to a small number

of individuals - it is inevitable that the whole community will suffer. (Even a few

graduate students commented to us that in the past they had been aware of examples of

breakdown of civility and had been disturbed by them.) All members of Faculty need to

remember that democratic governance, including the right to debate and vote, does not

guarantee any one group of individuals the right to expect that their viewpoint will

prevail. We were pleased to note that many faculty members felt that recently the

atmosphere in the Faculty had become friendlier and more cooperative.

3

---

16

Finally, as perhaps indicated in the foregoing remarks, the breakdown in communication

that the Review Committee detected between members of the staff (including members of

APSA), between many of the staff and faculty, and between staff and the senior

administration of the Faculty, also seems to exist at the intra-faculty level as well. A

number of faculty reported that they are largely unaware of each other's current areas of

intellectual interest and recent publications; and we recommend that efforts continue to

develop appropriate mechanisms for intellectual exchange - such as colloquia, time set

aside for discussion of research at facult

y

meetings, or establishing the custom of

distributing reprints. Practices such as these, together with the occasional Faculty-wide

and inclusive social events that are held, should go some way towards establishing the

sense of community that many individuals report as currently missing.

3. Undergraduate and graduate level professional programs

Undergraduate programs in general.

The Faculty has a wide variety of undergraduate offerings that, as indicated by the

summary statistics and evaluative comments available to us, are in a healthy state. The

only small "red flag" detected by the Review Committee - which we were not able to

.investigate in depth - was a concern raised by only a small number of individunfis that

some o' the

11nd

ergmdualLgourses might be lacking in rigor, and so we urge the UPC to

remain attentive in monitoring the qualit

y

of the courses that fall under its aegis.

However, we formed the impression that in general the Faculty was quite attentive to the

undergraduate program. The Three Year Plan bears witness to the careful planning that

has taken place, and describes how the Faculty proposes to react as the new requirements

for the undergraduate preparation of teachers in the province become operative. We

commend the Faculty for its work here.

Under g

raduate professional development program (PDP'.

310

---

17

So far as we could ascertain, the PDP stands in high repute in teacher education circles in

the province and nationally; the program has a relatively complex structure that,

nevertheless, is flexible enough so that with an increase in resources it would be able to

respond to increased demand relatively quickly - it could cope with an expanded number

of students, as conceivably might be required in future to meet the projected shortage of

teachers in BC. Currently the PD? accounts for slightly more than a third of the

undergraduate enrollment in education courses at SFU. Although tenure-line faculty are

involved in the program, it is true to say that the program would founder without the

contribution of the Faculty Associates (FM), who in some modules seem to undertake

the bulk of the work. The tenure-line faculty are mainly involved during the regular

academic year; but much of the work of the program proceeds in the summer, when these

faculty account only for a small proportion of the instruction. (Indeed, the important set

of units offered under the umbrella of 404 are in large part taught by sessional

instructors.) The widespread use of expert teachers who are seconded for periods of two

•

?

years to serve as FM is the essence of the "Differentiated Staffing Model" that the

Faculty has quite self-consciously adopted in order to deal with the traditional tension

that exists in all good Faculties of Education between offering high-quality practitioner-

oriented training and carrying out cutting-edge research and research training.

Two major sets of issues were brought to our attention during the site visit: (1) the role of

the FM, and their conditions of work; and (2) the proper sequencing of the important

courses Education 40112 (Integration of Theory and Practice), 405 (Teaching Semester),

and 404 (On-campus Course Work Semester), together with some issues internal to 404.

Both of these sets involve extremely complex matters, and it is difficult for a Review

Committee that has made only a brief site visit to offer authoritative recommendations;

our discussions during the course of our time in the Faculty made it clear, however, that

the Professional Programs Committee (with its considerable expertise) was engaged in

meaningful discussion of these and other matters. (Among the latter, where the PPC is

being quite attentive, are the needs to update technology education, to maintain and

0

?

perhaps develop further an international focus of interest, to monitor programs with

37

---

18

respect to issues of social justice, to ensure that the curricula in courses are not too Euro-

centric, and to increase the number of aboriginal teachers.)

?

0

With respect to the first of the two major issues mentioned above - the work conditions

of employment of the FAs - the Review Committee judges the "Differentiated Staffing

Model" to have been successful in allowing the Faculty to meet the challenge of

producing well-trained teachers. It is a testament to the standing of the model in the

professional community throughout BC, and the way it operates at SFU, that many

experienced teachers desire to serve as FM (generally individuals do not wish to work in

a program that is regarded as weak)! That being said, we recommend that the Faculty

reopens discussion of the desirability of three

years

as the norm for FA appointments

versus the current practice of one year with the possibilit

y

of a one-Year renewal, and we

recommend that the Facult

y

continue to fine-tune the model. The Review Committee

understands that it is inherent in the model that FAs not be kept away from their fulitime

work in schools for an extended period, but the case is also reasonable that after two

years an FA is just becoming expert in this role and thus a third year would be extremely.

fruitful for all parties. The Facult

y

should also find wa

ys

to foster more semester-long

team-teaching in which tenure-line facult

y

and FAs work together. The Review

Committee believes that FAa would welcome this (and that this would help integrate

them more fully into the Faculty), and that students would profit from the blending of

theoretical and research-based material with professional knowledge that would occur;

tenure-line faculty would also profit, as more familiarity with good professional practice

can lead to the identification of fruitful lines of research, and can also aid in

dissemination efforts. (Members of the Review Committee heard the remark that in some

modules the theoretical work that is required in the training of potential teachers is also

carried out by the FAs, due to the lack of full participation by tenure-track faculty. On the

other hand we also heard that some faculty complain that FAs have "taken over" too

many responsibilities! Thus there appears to be a tension here - or at least a serious

difference in perception - that needs to be resolved.)

0

---

19

With respect to the second set of issues, pertaining to the sequencing of core courses in

the PDP, we confess to having even less insights to offer, and we see no easy answers on

the horizon. Some students enter the three-semester 401/2, 404, 405 sequence in Fall, and

others enter in Spring; logistically, however, it seems inevitable that 404 be offered only

in summer, which in practice necessitates the use of sessional instructors. This scheduling

of 404 also means that some students will take it after the other two courses, while others

take it between 401/2 and 405. We agree that this produces some incoherence, and share

the view that 404 would probably work best if taken before the 405 practicum. We also

accept that 404 itself is not well-coordinated with the other offerings (the instructors in

404 are not always well-informed about what is happening in the other courses, and vice-

versa) - a problem that may

be exacerbated

by the fact that 404 is controlled by the

Undergraduate Programs Committee and not the Professional Programs Committee. We

urge the Facult y

to continue its efforts to refine this sequence and to resolve the problems

internal to 404. which ma

y

necessitate reexamination of the governance structure for 404

or which mi

g

ht be addressed throu

g

h a joint taskforce of the two relevant committees; we

. ?

recognize that it

is

almost inevitable that solution of these problems is likely to be

"satisfycing" rather than optimum.

Field program: Graduate Diploma in Advanced Professional Studies.

The Review Committee congratulates the Faculty of Education on its strong commitment

to contributing to the further professional development of the teachers in BC schools.

Clearly this is socially important work, and it is difficult to do well; all the indications are

that the Faculty is doing an excellent job here. The Field Programs are very popular,

which is an indication of their high standing in the eyes of members of the teaching

profession.

The main issue that was brought to our attention was the somewhat anomalous nature of

the Graduate Diploma program; originally this had been a post-baccalaureate program,

but in Fall 2000 it officially changed to graduate status. It is anomalous in the sense that -

in contrast to SFU norms for graduate level programs - no GPA is required for

3d

---

20

admission, and no courses are taken for a letter grade. It needs to be stressed that the

Review Committee heard nothing but praise for this program during the discussions we

had about it with a number of different groups. On the contrary, it was universally

recognized that the program is an appropriate one for a Faculty of Education to mount;

and it was widely perceived to be making an excellent contribution by giving experienced

teachers the opportunity to reflect (with expert assistance) about issues arising from their

professional practice. It is because the program has this character that members of the

Faculty feel strongly that it is inappropriate to assign letter grades.

The Review Committee is of the opinion that

it

is possible to reduce the apparent conflict

with SFU norms in a manner that should satisfy the valid concerns of both the FacuIt

and of SFU graduate administrators.

In the first place, although there is no GPA requirement for entry into the graduate

Diploma program, there Ke requirements: Those in the program must have both a

bachelor's degree and have completed a program of pre-professional teacher education,

and have a documented record of excellent service as a teacher. The Review Committee

concurs that it is inappropriate for the program to have a minimum GPA requirement.

Many teachers who are interested in joining the program, of course, have excellent

undergraduate records; but some candidates for the program may be individuals who

completed a degree many years ago with a low GPA but who have flourished in their

profession, and can document that they have undergone further growth that makes them

suitable candidates for renewed university work - especially the closely-mentored kind of

work that is demanded in this particular program.

Second, although it can be argued either way, the Review Committee believes that it is

inappropriate to require that the work in this program (or even part of it) should be done

for a letter-grade. The program is highly individualized, which raises the issue of how

equity in grading could be attained across individual cases. Even more to the point, the

work is analogous in nature to a "master class" in a performance field, where the students

are working, and progressively changing their practice, in close collaboration with a

---

21

program mentor - a core feature of the program that vitiates easy assessment in terms of a

letter grade. However, current educational practice in a number of advanced professional

programs in North America (in teacher education as well as in the arts) points the way to

a useful resolution of the tension here - it is possible to adopt an assessment mechanism

that guarantees to the University that candidates for the Diploma have reached a

satisfactory level of attainment, and which at the same time is fully in harmony with the

educational aims of the program and which indeed would be helpful to both the faculty in

the program and to the students themselves. We refer to assessment by way of portfolio

development. The Review Committee therefore recommends that the Facult

y

explore the

feasibility of requiring that students in the program maintain a portfolio that documents

their professional growth during the period in which they are enrolled, and which would

have to be assessed before graduation (for example, via a face-to-face meeting with two

program facult

y).

The portfolio could include such things as lesson plans, journal

reflections written after teaching, syllabi and annotations and critical reflections on these,

examples of assignments given by the teacher to his/her students, examples of student

. work to show the type of feedback that has been given, short discussions of professional

books and journal articles that have been recommended by a faculty mentor, and perhaps

even short videotapes of lessons taught by the candidate.

4. Graduate programs and research training

The Review Committee discussed graduate training with several groups of faculty, with

the Graduate Programs Committee, and with a small group of MA and doctoral students.

The Faculty has a broad range of graduate programs - some taken via dissertation or

thesis and some taken via coursework - and some are located on campus and others are

based at regional centers. Input we received about these programs reflected the different

needs and desiderata operating. The Review Committee noted that the Faculty had been

encouraging enrollment of masters level students in the M.Ed program rather than in MA

4Lj

---

22

programs requiring a thesis, as a way of lowering the extraordinarily high supervision

loads on individual faculty members. Overall, in this general domain few "red flags"

came to our attention, either via the documents that were provided to us or in the

meetings we conducted, although it was clear to

.

us that further "fine tuning" could result

in helpful improvements especially with respect to making these various programs

"student friendly".

Perhaps the main message delivered by the students we met was one that had become

familiar to us in other contexts (although it should be noted that this group was hardly

representative of the entire graduate population): The students whose MA or doctoral

program was based at the main campus reported that they had little sense of belonging to

a cohort or community of scholars-in-training; and each of the students stated that they

knew only a relatively small number of their fellows. The lack of a sense of cohort is

exacerbated by the facts that there is no common intellectual experience shared by all the

doctoral students, and also by the lack of funding that restricts the ability of students to be

in fuiltime residence on campus. On the other hand, it was reported to us by a couple of

students that - in their perception - discussion of the needs of graduate programs was

overly shaped by a focus upon the comparatively small number of MA and doctoral

students who were able to be resident on campus; in their experience students working in

the field or at other sites were not usually part of the community of discourse about the

nature of courses and related matters. (Students resident on campus, however, made a

parallel point!)

The allocation of space to serve as a common room or graduate student center is a step in

the right direction, although clearly this does not go far enough. The Review Committee

believes that students engaged in research are an important resource for each other,

recommends that the Facult y

develop an introductor y

methods course or research seminar

that would be taken b

y

at least all incoming doctoral students, and which would help to

establish a sense of intellectual communit

y amongst them. Such a course or seminar

might also make some inroads into another problem: Students reported that it was

difficult to get to know faculty who work in areas other than their own specific fields;

I12

---

23

they made the reasonable point that they had much to [earn from exposure to different

approaches to educational research, and it was important for them to become familiar

with the intellectual resources represented across the Faculty at large. We also urge the

GPC to examine degree requirements and to seek curricular wa

y s to address this, and the

following related, problems. The scheduling of classes throughout the week was

sometimes problematic (there were evidently some clashes), and the frequent use of five-

unit offerings rather than three-unit ones made it difficult for students to take more than

two courses in any one semester. There was also a feeling amongst the students that key

methodological training was not always available; and they especially pointed to the need

for regular teaching of qualitative research methods. (It was reported that some excellent

training was available for the limited number of students who were able to obtain

positions as RAs on faculty research projects.) Furthermore, it was suggested that

students in the psychology area would profit by reintroduction of the requirement that

some work in history or philosophy be taken. The remark was also made that it was not

always bureaucratically simple to take courses outside the Faculty of Education, even

0

?

when these seemed very relevant to the interests of the student.

We can convey two anecdotes by way of summary of the points above. First, a graduate

student who contacted the Review Committee noted that he/she had been attracted to the

Faculty at SFU because its non-departmentalized structure seemed to offer the possibility

of taking meaningful amounts of cross-disciplinary work - an expectation that turned out

to be chimerical. Second, during the course of our conversation with students the

Committee heard the telling remark that "Things that are not required don't happen."

Finally, the Review Committee had a conversation with students about the timing of

"comprehensives"; some felt that the pressure to take these in, at the latest, the semester

following completion of coursework was counterproductive, as such a deadline did not

allow time for the gaining of further research experience or for adequate reflection. Yet,

despite the press to take the comprehensives in a timely manner, feedback was often far

from prompt and sometimes was cursory at best.

---

24

All the matters above struck the Review Committee as worthy of pursuit, and again

urge the GPC to evaluate and to address these concerns; it does not seem wise for a

Review Committee to attempt to micro-manage such matters.

5. Resources, technology, and miscellaneous matters

A variety of other issues came to our attention during our visit, ones that were not

conveniently discussable in the previous sections of our report; we offer some short

disconnected comments below.

. All academic units have the capacity to make good use of increased resources,

and the Review Committee would not, of course, look negatively upon an

increase in budget for the Faculty of Education. However, there was a strong

sense among the faculty groups with which we met that the Faculty had been

treated fairly by the central administration at SFU. Faculty members are

hardworking, productive, and relatively entrepreneurial, and are making good use

of the resources that they do have available. Support staff, as we reported earlier,

feel that they are working harder and carrying more responsibilities than was the

case some years ago, but this does not seem to have negatively impacted their

morale or their effectiveness. It is worth stressing, however, that the Faculty

offers a complex array of programs, many of them field based and located off

campus, and this indeed creates a heavy administrative burden that ought to be

looked upon sympathetically when resources are allocated.

• In addition, Faculties of Education are under great pressure to cope with the world

of technology - in their own teaching, research, and administration, but especially

with respect to helping teachers in training, and teachers and schools, learn how to

effectively incorporate technology into classrooms. (Many would regard this latter

enterprise as being in the long run a key to continued economic expansion of

society at large. Traditional academic departments do not face similar pressures.)

The Faculty has an impressive technology center that appears to us to be under

41V

---

25

intelligent leadership, and we were impressed with what was being done with

relatively limited resources. Man y Faculties of Education of comparable size have

greater resources available to support initiatives with respect to the use of

technolog y

and technolog y

education, and we recommend that serious

consideration be given to increasing the funding for initiatives in this general

domain at SFU. This recommendation is especially pertinent in light of the

program development that has been taking place within the Faculty partly in

response to the pressures listed above - the proposed new program "Teaching and

Learning in an Information Technology Environment" is innovative, and makes

interesting use of summer workshops and web-based instruction, but

it

wili of

necessity draw on faculty and technical staff resources. We note that this new

program, and the degree of further expansion of efforts in the technology

education domain, were not discussed in any detail in the Faculty's "Three Year

Plan", and it is not clear to us how far the Faculty itself will become technically-

oriented or how deep its program offerings and research efforts will be.

recommend that these matters be the subject of further detailed discussion and

planning within the Faculty.

. The "Three Year Plan" also only contains brief reference to proposed expansion

of efforts with respect to First Nation educational issues, and we encourage the

Facult

y

to persist with efforts in this important domain.

• As far as we could ascertain, the Faculty is monitoring carefully developments in

the north of the province, with the expected heightened presence of the University

of Northern British Columbia; we noted, too, the growing level of activity

throughout the province of other universities (some from the USA) in the

apparently (currently) lucrative "distance education" market, especially in the

field of education itself; from what we know about some of these programs, they

are far from comparable in quality with the Simon Fraser program. We agree with

the line taken by the Faculty, namely, that in the foreseeable future there will be a

45.

---

26

place for a high quality program, staffed by faculty with the caliber of those at

SFU - but clearly the Faculty must remain vigilant and creative.

?

0

• We also noted during the site visit that over the past few years a number of good

appointments have been made as senior faculty members have retired, and we

commend the adoption of— and stress the importance of maintainin

g

- a strong

mentoring program. Several years will elapse before another wave of retirements

hits the faculty, and this will allow time for taking stock both of the teaching

needs of the Faculty but also of the research trajectory.

In conclusion, we reiterate the point made at the outset: The Faculty is strong, and is

doing good work both in its training of students and in its research. The ideas set out

in the "Three Year Plan" are important to bring

to fruition, and the places for

improvement noted both in the "Self Study" and in the present report merit further

sustained attention. The Faculty deserves the good reputation

that it holds both within

SFU, within the professional educational community throughout BC, and in the

educational research communities worldwide.

DCP

RFM

June 2001

0

Z

4