.
S.94-54
FOR INFORMATION
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC?
MEMORANDUM
To:
?
Senate
From:
?
J.
M. Munro, Chair
Senate Committee on Academic Planning
Subject: ?
External Review - Faculty of Education
Date: ?
July 20, 1994
Attached for the information of Senate is a summary of the external review of the Faculty
of Education which was carried out in July, 1993. The report and the response of the
Department were reviewed by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning at its meeting
of July 6, 1994 and the Committee approved a motion to receive the report. The full
report and the response of the Department are available from the Secretary of Senate for
senators to review.
1k. &A/^o
1
• ?
External Review - Summary for Senate
Faculty of Education
The External Review Committee visited the Faculty of Education in May, 1993, and reported in
July, 1993. The committee had the following composition:
Chair
?
Dr. Ian Winchester
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Members ?
Dr. Geoff Milburn
University
.
of Western Ontario
Dr. Nancy Zimpher
Ohio State University
Internal member ?
Dr. Ellen Gee
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, SFU.
The overall view of the Faculty of Education is that it is a very successful unit which has been
performing three main tasks well for a quarter of a century. It has produced numerous school
teachers for British Columbia. It has produced a number of people who graduated from the
• undergraduate program with a B.Ed. degree and who subsequently went on to a variety of careers
and it has had a successful graduate program. All of these things are to be commended. The
future for all three parts of the program is bright in the short run, and with some adjustments
should continue successfully well into the next century. On top of this, the research and
publication record of the faculty is outstanding in comparison with other Canadian Faculties of
Education.
On the other hand, there are a few factors which tend to suggest that the future cannot be exactly
like the past and that preparation for this future will require some adjustments. One of these is
connected with the changing university system in British Columbia. Another has to do with the
general tone of restraint and the general desire for "more for the money" which has hit B.C. as
well as the rest of Canada. The third has to do with the increasing feminization of both the
complement of graduate students and. the university teaching force, an important factor in the
present and future of the Faculty of-Education at Simon Fraser. A final factor is related to the
rapidly changing demographics of British Columbia, particularly greater Vancouver, namely the
transformation of the area from a traditional Anglo-Celtic bastion to that of a large cosmopolitan
centre. The future of the Faculty largely depends upon how it copes with these factors.
S ?
,•
5 August,
.1994
2
The committee received some submissions which led the committee to note that the
climate of the Faculty is not welcoming to junior faculty, particularly junior female faculty,
and that allegations were made that sexual and political harassment had occurred.
The Review Committee made a number of recommendations and suggestions which are
summarized here.
1.
The revision of the B.Ed. degree be completed and implemented.
2.
There should be more harmonization in the admission of students from the
Undergraduate Program to the Professional Development Program.
3.
The ratio of regular faculty to Faculty Associates should not decrease.
4.
The Professional Development Program's vitality should be preserved and nurtured
through the continuing commitment of the Faculty and through the continuing
-
?
involvement of Faculty Associates in program design and implementation.
5.
The conceptual framework and the coherence of the Professional Development Program
•
?
warrants more attention..
6.
The Professional Development Program should be subject to systematic program review
and student evaluation. ?
-
7.
Faculty workload associated with the graduate programs should be examined closely,
including a more purposeful organization of course offerings and more equity in graduate
teaching and advising loads across the Faculty. ?
-
8.
• The Director of
Graduate
Programs should study ways and means of offering assurances
of financial support to graduate students for longer periods.
? -
9
?
Space should be provided for interaction among students, faculty and staff.
10.
Graduate student advisory arrangements should be reviewed and material describing them
updated and circulated to all new graduate students along with information on faculty
publications and research interests. ?
•
11.
The Faculty should review the entire range of its current offerings, assess its particular
areas of strength, select those academic responsibilities which it can perform most
productively, and devote its available resources to those selected areas. Steps should also
-
?
:,
?
5,Augus4
1994
3
be taken to enlarge the direct role of faculty members in teaching. Strategic planning for
programs and course offerings at the graduate level is also required.
12.
New faculty members should be supported with collegial mentoring. Reasonable norms
and expectations for junior faculty regarding publication for purposes of tenure and
promotion should be outlined.
13.
The Dean should work with the support staff to develop a mechanism for regular
consultation and the provision of more efficient and satisfactory work arrangements.
14.
Operating hours should be revised to meet the needs of the more non-traditional student
population.
15.
Further transformation of the Faculty environment to a more interactive instructional
laboratory for teaching and learning would be desirable.
16.
The Faculty of Education should draw up a constitution including a council, or councils
involving faculty, other instructional staff, support staff, and students, advisory to the
Dean.
17.
The Executive of the Faculty should consider ways to improve the perception of a lack of
real communication and to improve the actual communication or coordination, if
required.
The Committee also made two suggestions:
A review of program structure might result in the refocussing of existing specific
programs of study, into some broader general programs. Such reconfigurations might
allow more integration of faculty talents and might attract a more diversified graduate
cohort.
The creation of new delivery systems for graduate programs might give SFU a
competitive edge in this market.
Summary prepared by Alison Watt, Director, Academic Planning Services and edited by John M.
Munro, Vice-President, Academic.
5
August, 1994
SCAP 94 - 33
Report of
the Committee to Study and Recommend on the State of the Faculty of Education in Simon
?
Fraser University, British Columbia, commonly known as
the
Education Review Committee
.
?
Ellen Gee, SFU
Geoff Milburn, UWO
Ian Winchester, OISE (Chair)
Nancy Zimpher, Ohio State
July, 1993
0
Introduction
A Committee of four persons, including Ellen Gee as internal resource person, with
Nancy Zimpher, Geoff Milburn and Ian Winchester as external members, was struck by
the Vice-President (Academic) of the university as part of the regular seven-year review of
the Faculty of Education. The Committee was chaired by Ian Winchester. The Committee
was provided with a number of materials in advance (Appendix I). It then visited Simon
Fraser University for three days and interviewed a wide range of individuals and groups
(Appendix II). It also encouraged other submissions during and after the site visit in order
to know the views of those individuals who were unable to meet with the committee to their
convenience during the site visit, or who had something to say which they may have felt
could not be said in a public forum.
The overall view of the Faculty of Education which emerges is clear. This is a very
successful Faculty which has been performing three main tasks well for a quarter of a
century. It has produced numerous school teachers for British Columbia. It has produced
a number of people who graduated from the undergraduate program with a B.Ed. degree
and who subsequently went on to a variety of careers. And it has had a successful though
small graduate program. All of these things are to be commended. The future for all three
parts of the program looks bright in the short run, and with some adjustments should
continue successfully well into the next century. On top of this, the research and
publication record of the faculty is outstanding in comparison with other Canadian faculties
of education.
On the other hand, there are a few factors which tend to suggest that the future
cannot be exactly like the past and that preparation for this future will require some
adjustments. One of these is connected with the changing university arrangements in
• British Columbia. Another has to do with the general tone of restraint and the general
desire for "more for the money" which has hit B.C. as well as the rest of Canada. And the
third has to do with the increasing feminization of both the complement of graduate
students and the university teaching force, an important factor in the present and future of
the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser. A final factor is related to the rapidly changing
demographics of British Columbia, particularly greater Vancouver, namely the
transformation of the area from a traditional Anglo-Celtic bastion to that of a large
cosmopolitan centre. The future of the faculty largely depends upon how it copes with
these factors.
A few disturbing notes jarred the otherwise pleasing litany of accomplishments,
optimism and good-will in the Faculty which greeted us. In particular, we received reports
of inappropriate behaviour directed at junior female faculty members at the hands of both
senior male and female faculty. This reported unacceptable behaviour ranged from the
sexual to the political. These reports amount to serious allegations which affect the entire
tone and climate of the faculty and which cannot be swept under the carpet.
There were also a few personally disgruntled faculty who felt that their specialty
was not adequately represented in the faculty vision or programs or who felt they were by-
passed for high administrative office. And the support staff, as a block, did not feel that
they were being optimally used, adequately appreciated or systematically consulted. Not all
of the dissatisfaction here can be adequately addressed. Personal disgruntlement may have
a deep cause, or it may simply be an individual response to a particular circumstance. We
were not in a position to determine truth in such cases. The general dissatisfaction among
the support staff, however, suggests that lines of communication between them and
faculty, especially faculty with defined administrative responsibilities, must be
systematically opened up.
What emerged, in spite of some difficulties, was a picture of a Faculty of Education
2
that on all measurable criteria ranks with the best in Canada and is as happily constituted as
any known to us. It is a Faculty with a past of considerable accomplishment facing a
number of new challenges and a few internal problems, some structural, some individual
and personal. There is no reason to think that the Faculty cannot face its new challenges
and be as successful in the future. Its structural problems are soluble. Its individual ones
may disappear with solutions to the structural problems, though some appear to be personal
and intractable.
In what follows we shall turn to the terms of reference, of which we were given
ten.
Our task was to examine the Faculty, report on ten existing conditions, which were listed
for us and which we list 1.-10. below, and comment on opportunities for improvement.
What follows immediately is our report in these terms.
I.
The strengths
and weaknesses
of the Bachelor of Education program in
terms of structure, breadth, orientation and other factors.
The current Bachelor of Education degree is designed to prepare students
academically and professionally for a teaching career at both elementary- and secondary-
school levels. This five-year program (with a minimum of
150
semester hours) is
composed of academic majors and minors (selected from outside the faculty of Education),
the Professional Development Program (PDP:) and Education 404. Both of the latter are
administered by the Faculty of Education. The degree (as described in the Faculty Report
for the External Review) is a minimum of five years in length with the Professional
Development Program to be taken after at least 76 hours in to the elementary program and
106 hours into the secondary program.
A newly designated B.Ed. has been approved in principle by the Faculty of
Education. It, too, is composed of 150 semester hours with 80 credits to be taken outside
the Faculty and 70 credits to be taken in the Faculty (including introductory education
courses as well as field-based components in the SFU Professional Development Program
and upper division coursework in education). It would appear that one strength of the
newly proposed B.Ed. program is its foundational sequence. In this students are given a
through preparatory sequence to the PDP through "case studies in education" and "issues in
education". The culminating upper-level sequence would include two to three courses in
"designs for learning". Together these pre- and post-PDP experiences have the potential of
making the new B.Ed. a more cohesive totality with better integration of the PDP with the
students whole degree program than the present arrangements.
During the External Review process the faculty described three "routes" to entry
into the teaching profession via programs at Simon Fraser. These were (I) the 4+1
academic degree plus PDP, (2) the non-degree PDP year following a minimum of 76
semester hours, (3) the five-year B.Ed. At present, only a few students enroll in the
traditional B.Ed. program. Most choose to enter the PDP through the minimum-hours route
or through a Bachelor of General Studies, which is administered by the Faculty of Arts.
None of these routes offers a completely coherent route to certification, including the less
popular B.Ed. route.
Further, there appears to be an anomaly in program options in that students can
enrollin a more general course of study, the Bachelor of General Studies, which is not a
designated route to teacher certification. This path results in cases wherein students
actually accumulate more courses in education than in other degree options while achieving
entry into the PDP. This irony of non-education students receiving more education courses
3
than designated B-Ed. students seems odd or even inappropriate. Thus the currently
proposed revision of the B.Ed. offers an attractive option at matriculation for students,
integrating academic and educational course-work in a useful and convenient sequence in
conjunction with the PDP experience.
Recommendation. The development work achieved through the revision of the B.Ed.
degree is to be applauded. More specifically the Review Team recognizes the considerable
support at all levels, including the Provost's and Dean's offices and within the faculty
planning group. We would encourage immediate acceptance and implementation of the
new B.Ed.option, for a number of reasons. First, the present programs uncouple the PDP
experience from the academic experience in educational study as such. Second, the
unpopularity of the present B.Ed. as a route to teaching qualification in Simon Fraser is
very likely due to the format of thepresent B.Ed. Third, the fact that the B.G.S. is so
popular as a route to teaching qualification suggests that a need is being met that the present
B.Ed. does not meet.
While we think that this option should be implemented without delay, this is not the
end of the process. Many who were involved in its planning were enthusiastic. But there
were some who were left out of the process and they should be included into the continuing
dialogue. Also, there will have to be major collaboration between those who work on the
undergraduate programs and those who work primarily with PDP experience for this
degree course to become a coherent one, as well as one which will replace the B.G.S. plus
PDP as the preferred route to teaching qualification.
Other issues exposed during the External Review include the students' concern over
delays in admission decisions relative to PDP. This is a problem relevant primarily to
students interested in pursuing the B.Ed. degree. Although not totally clear to the review
team, it appears that students could potentially experience some form of program
entrapment at the point at which entrance to PDP is decided. Students must declare a major
and complete most of the course-work required for the major before assurances are made
relative to access to PDP. Thus it could be the case that students select and complete a
teaching major, i.e., a discipline of study appropriate for the teaching profession, without
any guarantees that the pedagogical components necessary for certification will be available
to them.
Recommendation. The situation relative to student selection of an academic major and
degree route should be consonant with access to the PDP. Admission to PDP should not
sne or ne mignt be aamissible to PDP. Perhaps this is only a problem of student
perception, but it is a real threat to their program planning. It also may be a factor limiting
the Faculty's capacity to attract highly competent and committed students to the B.Ed.
program.
A cluster of more general observations could be made about the undergraduate
program that points to the contemporary nature of the offerings and the sessional and
independent study opportunities. One issue discussed by faculty members is the degree of
attention given to current issues in education such as the implementation of British
Columbia's Year 2000. Differences of opinion exist about the degree of direct attention
this initiative warrants within programmatic opportunities, and whether the role of the
Faculty should be one of "facilitator" or "friendly critic". The fact that such debates exist is
likely a positive tension within the Faculty. Furthermore, the contemporary opportunities
provided through the Summer Semester and the SITE program, though staffed largely by
part-time faculty, offers a rich opportunity for students to become acquainted with talented
lecturers from elsewhere in the province, as well as national and international education
figures.
4
Recommendation. It is critically important to guard the ratio of regular faculty to faculty
associates at some roughly constant level, rather than increase the number of part-time
faculty in the execution of the total program. It is a strength of the SFU program that
talented practitioners and visiting faculty members can participate in the program and that
undergraduate students can be exposed to such intellectual and professional stimulation
throughout their educational experience.
2.
The strengths and weaknesses of the Professional Development
Program, including the remote programs.
The Professional Development Program (PDP) is a twelve month (three semester)
teacher education program which blends practical experience and university course work
into a single programmatic sequence. Students who successfully complete the PDP are
recommended to the College of Teachers for a British Columbia Teaching Certificate. The
PDP year includes an integrated semester of coursework (Education 401/402) , a teaching
semester (Education 405), and a coursework semester (Education 404). As noted in the
Faculty Report for the External Review, the program goals noted on page
53
of the report
constitute the conceptual framework for the program objectives. Further, various faculty
members explained that the program goals are currently under review.
Much discussion in the Review Team interviews was devoted to the PDP. In
formulating recommendations for the continued growth and improvement of the PDP, the
Review Team wishes to note that no other topic received so much discussion at our
meetings. We also want to note that no other topic seemed so fraught with tensions.
I. Clearly the PDP is a centrepiece of the SFU program. Both the reputation of the
Faculty and its vitality are dependent on it. The distinction of the Faculty is largely
dependent upon its commitment to the PDP as well as on its success at research.
2.
The PDP offers an opportunity to make vital linkages between classroom practice
and academic course-work. This dichotomy between practice and scholarship is one of the
central sources of unresolved tension in the Faculty. Some faculty members feel that the
PDP as it stands is too much under the sway of practitioners and current classroom
wisdom, particularly "progressive" educational assumptions and practices. Thus the
practical sessions are seen by a significant number of faculty to be conducted in the virtual
absence of current research on teaching and learning and of contemporary criticism of
classroom practice. Thus some view the PDP as dominated by conceptions of
progressivism and faddism, temporal and experiential, to the detriment of scholarly
knowledge or even as exhibiting a bias against such knowledge; perhaps even close-
minded in its conceptual perspective. Still others expressed concern over the amount of
focus on general educational concepts and practices, to the detriment of a more content-
oriented focus on pedagogy. It must be observed that although these observations were
forceful in nature, intended to expose the very essence of the programmatic tensions that
exist, they also reflected to the Review Team a strong degree of vitality over what counts in
the education of future teachers, which must be gauged in the final analysis as a strength of
the PDP experience.
3.
Faculty applauded the collegiality exhibited among those who work in the
Professional Development Program, including positive interactions that occur around the
construction of faculty modular teams and the cohesion achieved by organizing students
. into instructional cohorts. The faculty clustering enables constant interaction between
practitioners and academics which adds reality to the notion of integrating theory and
practice. Students acknowledge the sense of cooperation and team-work vital to their
socialization into teaching as a career as provoked by the PDP experience. Tensions exist
5
in this dimension of the PDP as well, again particularly with regard to the faculty. Some
feel the assignment of certain faculty to the PDP excludes others from any real decision-
making authority in the PDP. Others noted that the module organization works best when
all members participate, but that it is possible and does happen that certain faculty
contribute only minimally to the module, leaving decision making and implementation of
the curriculum to faculty associates and module coordinators. Some faculty spoke
specifically to exclusion and hoped that the influences of some faculty and module
coordinators might be diminished so as to provide more opportunity for the involvement of
a broader base of the faculty.
4.
There was general support for the contribution of the faculty associates (FA) to
the Professional Development Program. Although issues of FA utilization are raised
elsewhere in the report, here it seems appropriate to note how critical the role of these
practitioners is to the authenticity and credibility of the PDP experience. Of those we met,
these faculty associates appear to be genuinely committed to the PDP experience, to have
accumulated sound educational experience themselves, and to exhibit considerable
enthusiasm toward the responsibility of preparing future teachers. Herein some tensions
exist as well, particularly relative to the conceptual focus of PDP. Some viewed the focus
as essentially situated almost exclusively on practice and on "what works" as opposed to a
more critical posture on teaching and learning, both of which some assumed was a function
of the "influence" of Faculty Associates on curriculum design. Others, in contrast,
believed this interaction and tension to be the essence of integrating aspects of PDP's
conceptual design. It is likely that such "clashes of perspective" have to be channelled
toward the ultimate creation of consistent program coherence.
5.
The vitality of the PDP was observed to be a strength. Such vitality, faculty
observed, is achieved because the PDP experience is essentially redesigned annually, with
the establishment of the modular teams as scheduled for two semesters at a time. As such,
some said, the program is always "moving and changing," and the strength of the modular
team lies in the robust planning Opportunities made necessary by the annual modular
assignments. Again, this is likely a strength and a weakness of the program, in that annual
shifts make continuity in conceptual design a problem not only for consistency in the
program but also for program evaluation.
6.
Faculty commented as well on the relationship between the totality of PDP and
the research and inquiry interest of the faculty. Some observed that more linkages in this
direction are highly desirable. The newly formed Institute for Studies in Teacher Education
aims to promote and carry out research in the area of teacher education. Ultimately the
research agenda of the Institute could link nicely with programmatic interests fostered by
the PDP. Again, some faculty observed an "inside/outside" effect of involvement in the
Institute, as with the PDP. There seems a continuing feeling on the part of some that they
are excluded from or not in the mainstream of programmatic and research initiatives relative
to PDP. Said more positively, some faculty expressed the view that all faculty are teacher
educators; thus a centre on the study of teacher education is redundant to the already extant
faculty organization.
7.
On the conceptual basis for the PDP, numerous observations were put forward.
The clearest rendering of the conceptual base is in the program goals noted above. Beyond
these statements, faculty observed that the essence of the concept of PDP is in the very
fabric of the Faculty itself, what the individuals who compose the faculty believe and
study, and how those notions manifest themselves in the curriculum. And, of course, as
acknowledged above, the practitioner orientation of the FAs is clearly a conduit for
programmatic development. Another source for programmatic conception is the
exploration of student views about what distinguishes their participation in PDP, in
response to the question of what characterizes a teacher prepared at SFU. Students
responded that they were prepared as "constructivists", given tools to apply knowledge
6
acquired in PDP to the classroom, with the aim of becoming life-long learners themselves,
who see teaching as a puzzlement and as experimental, and who exhibit creativity and
energy relative to innovative classroom practice. This view was consonant with faculty
observations about the degree of confidence instilled in the SFU graduate relative to
classroom management and the reflective capacity needed to effectively participate and lead
within the "cauldron" of the classroom. These reflect personal testimony toward a sense of
the conceptual basis for PDP.
These observations represent the essence of what was told to the Review Team
about the Professional Development Program. While they are not inclusive of all that was
shared, they are presented as above to reflect not only perceived strengths in the program,
but also the tensions that underlie the totality of programming necessary to sustain PDP.
The following recommendations flow from this commentary:
Recommendation. The Professional Development program continues to be the most
nr
distinctive
p Q p
i-'(,
p -
1
programmatic
,nA r,iirt,,,-1 ?
attribute
*l,
of
?
the Faculty
_
of
-----------------Education
at SFU.
?
-' ?
Its vitalit
. ?
y
. ?
should be
-
implementation.
Recommendation. The conceptual framework for the Professional Development Program
warrants more attention. While the program goals statement as put forward in the Faculty
Report constitutes essentially a set of programmatic objectives. What is missing is an
elaborate discussion of Faculty consensus on conceptions of teaching and learning,
schooling and the process of learning to teach. In the absence of such a conceptual
statement, the program recreates itself annually at the hands of those who compose the
various modular teams, but may not consistently reflect the ethos of the program as
fostered over the years by the Faculty. As such, disputes arise as to the essence of PDP
that warrant resolution, explication and, once espoused, continuing review and refinement.
Recommendation. Beyond the explication of a clear conceptual framework for the
Professional Development Program, program coherence is also an issue. Serious
consideration should be given to making the program more coherent. Once derived, a
strong, consensual philosophy, rationale and guiding principles can foster cohesion, such
that a) consistent themes are dealt with throughout the program, b) clearer articulation can
exist between on-campus didactic experiences and field-related assignments, c) students
can more carefully articulate central themes that undergird the program, and d) greater
integration can exist between prior PDP experience and those that follow the 401/401,405
experiences.
Recommendation. There was little evidence of systematic program and student evaluation
relative to the PDP, and particularly the linkage of PDP to other program options, including
the B.Ed. and other prerequisite course experiences. There should be systematic program
and student evaluation for the PDP Program. While there may exist data relative to follow-
up of graduates from the PDP experience, a more comprehensive program- evaluation
design and formative and summative assessment of student progress and career success
would provide relevant information for on-going program review and redesign. Further,
engaging students and faculty more actively in assessing programmatic effectiveness and
consequences of the PDP experience would provide vital opportunities for both parties to
more directly participate in the process of programmatic renewal.
I
7
3. The strengths and weaknesses of the graduate program and plans for
graduate program expansion.
The graduate program at SFU has experienced steady growth and revision since its
inception 26 years ago. Currently, based on revision in 1979, the graduate program
focuses on the integration of knowledge with professional practice, and includes both
masters (M.Ed./M.A.) and doctoral programs (Ph.D.), and individual programs and off-
campus programs for B.C.-interior communities. Most recently, the scope of the masters
program includes programs in administrative leadership, curriculum and instruction,
psychology of education and counselling psychology. The doctoral program includes
programs in instructional psychology and in curriculum. Further, a "designated program"
is offered to instructors in the University College of Cariboo (0CC). These programs are
reflected in the Faculty Report for the External Review on page 73.
During the Review Team visitation, a number of issues surfaced relative to graduate
programs as follows:
1.
One major point of discussion was on the future directions of the graduate
programs. Two concerns are encouraging faculty to focus on the future. First is the
offering of graduate degree programs in B.C. by external institutions. It would appear that
existing graduate institutions in B.C. simply haven't the resources to respond to all the
needs and interests of practising school professionals for growth and development
opportunities. This is particularly the case in the area of educational administration,
wherein practitioners are seeking degrees through part-time correspondence courses. A
second development that is likely to affect the undergraduate, PDP and graduate offerings
at SFU in the decade to follow is the likely expansion of professional education programs
into newly created four-year and advanced program institutions likely to be approved in the
province during this time-frame. Thus questions arise about the competitive posture of
SFU relative to these other initiatives, particularly in the preparation of educational
professionals.
2.
Concern over issues of expansion of competitive educational institutions raises
the programmatic question of focus for future SFU graduate programs. Specifically
individual faculty members expressed interest in expanding SFUs program to include a
broader definition of education; e.g., the helping professions, the allied health professions,
and educating individuals who serve educational needs in non-school related settings.
There appears to be at present an absence of unanimity on these future directions and
leadership here is sorely needed.
3.
Issues about current operations of graduate programs include a) the ability of a
stable or declining number of faculty to serve the demands of an expanding student
population and still retain the scholarly excellence already achieved by the faculty; b) a
reduction in support services through the Faculty due to budget restraints that limits the
quality and opportunity for advertisement and other services typically extended to graduate
students; c) concern over limited numbers of full-time students, and implications of a part-
time student cohort inadequately served relative to faculty/student access and socialization
needs; d) lack of funds to support graduate assistantships; e) the absence of coursework in
research methodology for graduate programs which are used for credentialling upgrades;
and f) general tensions over the focus of current programs on academic versus practical
perspectives, the need for more conscious treatment of gender equity issues in the
curriculum, a focus on the needs of more non-traditional students interests in the
curriculum, the absence of program evaluation and student assessment in the programs,
and the intentional, planned nature of the programs versus more random course offerings.
These concerns warrant a series of programmatic recommendations and suggestions
8
relative to the graduate programs:
Recommendation. There should be strategic planning for programs and course offerings
at the
g
raduate level. The graduate programs could benefit greatly from the strategic
planning of programmatic structures and course offerings. Such strategic planning at the
graduate level could resolve directions relative to expansion or reduction of the preservice
initiative, the extension of programs into non-traditional educational areas such as the
helping professions more generally, and philosophical issues relative to the content of
graduate programs.
Suggestion. The specification of graduate programs by specific disciplines of study (e.g.
curriculum and instruction, educational psychology, educational administration) could well
be refocussed into a more general collective of programs wherein education curriculum,
and supervision and educational administration, for example, could be merged into a more
general program focusing on "educational leadership". This is only provided as an
example of what might evolve from a review of programmatic restructuring. Such
reconfigurations would allow more integration of faculty talents and attract a more
diversified graduate cohort. And the reinstatement of graduate programs that do not now
operate due to low faculty availability in certain areas might then be possible.
Suggestion. The creating of new delivery systems for the graduate program, and
particularly considering some aspects of full-recovery extension programs may allow a
competitive edge relative to other available graduate degree programs in the province. This
option would be particularly viable perhaps in meeting the needs of senior administrators in
regional school districts.
Recommendation. While concerns about budget reductions and increased loads are
pervasive across programs, and in higher education generally, a closer look at faculty
workload relative to the
g
raduate programs is desirable, including a more purposeful
organization of course offerings and more equity relative to graduate teaching and advising
loads across the Faculty.
Related to graduate work is the Faculty's increasing interest in field service. In this
regard, a new directorship has been created for the coordination of in-service and field
relations. Such initiatives have traditionally focused on both the credit and non-credit in-
service needs of practising teachers. More recent planning has focused on broadening the
range of participants in these programs, creating collaborative programs with other
agencies, maximizing the relationship between existing programs and outreach initiatives,
being more proactive rather than strictly responsive to immediate training and credentialling
needs, monitoring offerings and attending to cost efficiencies.
The creating of a fourth directorship for in-service and field relations is to be
applauded. The potential for adding a more regional planning base and collaborating with
existing programs towards more effective outreach appears a highly desirable direction for
the Faculty. The relationship among and between the directorships, and particularly
relative to graduate programming, is recommended in order to be more efficient about the
totality of programmatic offerings and more incorporative of faculty capacity.
4. The adequacy of support for graduate students and the rate of progress
through the graduate program.
• We assume that the notion of "support" refers primarily (although by no means
exclusively) to financial aid to graduate students during their course of study. This budget
line within the Faculty has been so reduced in recent years that, as the Report suggests, the
program is "generally short of money... for graduate student support." Nevertheless, the
Faculty continues to make what allocations it can for this purpose, either in direct awards,
or by means of sessional teaching appointments or various forms of assistantships. On the
other hand, because a large proportion of graduate students are following part-time
programs while they continue in full-time employment (particularly at the masters level),
the need for such funds may not be as significant as the sheer number of students may
suggest. We noted the Director of Graduate Programs' personal interest in this matter, and
we are, in general, satisfied that the Faculty's commitment to the allocation of funds for this
purpose remains firm despite its diminishing resources.
Recommendation. On the question of the administration of such funds, a few graduate
students reported to us some difficulties arising Out of the relatively short period (usually a
single session rather than an academic year) for which such support was normally provided
(or at least guaranteed). Although it may be difficult for the Faculty to make significant
administrative changes in this regard, given the inevitable uncertainties attached to such
sources as sessional teaching, nevertheless we think that the students' concern is
understandable, and we recommend that the Director of Graduate Programs study ways
and means of offering assurances of financial support for more extended periods.
Recommendation. It was also drawn to our attention that the Faculty may be able to offer
forms of support for graduate students other than grants of money. Although graduate
students to whom we spoke emphasized that the Dean and Director of Graduate Programs
"worked tirelessly and sensitively on [their] behalf," they drew our attention both to the
lack of office space for EGSA and also to the need for a lounge or meeting area for
graduate students in general. The lack of such facilities, they argued, contributes to what
they perceived as "minimal contact with faculty and other gradate students in general" and
"barriers which inhibit informal and formal exchange of ideas and information." Given the
importance of discussions among graduate students and faculty members (and the sheer
number of graduate students), we consider these representations persuasive, and we
recommend that the students' requests be given further study both by the faculty and the
Universit y
administration.
Recommendation, On a relatively small but related matter, we noted that graduate students
expressed great interest in the formal list of faculty members (together with detailed
comments on their publications and research interests) provided to us as part of the review
process. The students suggested that the information provided therein would be of great
help in planning courses and discussing research possibilities. We recommend that this
booklet, or one that includes similar information,be provided annually to all in-coming
graduate students.
We examined in detail the statistics on students' progress through the graduate
program. On the question of withdrawals before completion, the Faculty's record at the
master's level is about average for the University as a whole, and at the doctoral level
slightly higher than average. Similar conclusions may be drawn from the statistics on the
number of years taken to complete both degrees. Thus we have no special concerns for
Education as opposed to other faculties within the university. On the other hand, rates of
completion remain a general concern, if only because graduate students within Education
are older than those in other faculties.
On Ph.D completion-rates, we noted one statistic that caused us some concern.
According to the Report (p.86) the number of Ph.D. male graduates from 1988 to 1992
slightly exceeds the number of female Ph.D. graduates during the same period--although
the number of female admissions to that program is almost double the number of male
admissions. We draw this matter to the attention of the Faculty.
Recommendation. On the question of withdrawal and completion rates, it is difficult to
make specific recommendation that will be effective. We note, however, the Faculty's
10
intention to provide additional opportunities to complete the masters degree by courses.
S
We had some representations on the one hand that the methods for allocating academic
advisors to graduate students were not always working effectively, and on the other hand
that the roles of program and research advisors were not always explained as clearly as
some students expected. We recommend that these advisory arrangements be reviewed,
and appropriate changes be made to the written materials provided to students entering the
graduate program.
5. The size and background of the faculty complement in relation to the
Faculty's responsibilities and workload.
The faculty prides itself on its model for differentiated staffing. Of the entire
complement, between
35
and
45
persons fall into each of the following categories: (a)
tenure-track or limited-term academics, (b) faculty associates on two- or three-year
appointments, (c) sessional instructors and (d) teaching assistants. In addition, there is a
significant (but varying) number of school associates attached to the PDP program. Such a
model has proved to be extraordinarily flexible (and effective) in meeting the Faculty's
major responsibilities: research and scholarship, undergraduate and graduate teaching, on-
site and off-site courses, and professional induction and in-service programs. In our
judgment, the success of the model is measured by the high reputation of the Faculty in
Canada and elsewhere, the outstanding research record of faculty members, the innovative
nature of many components of the Faculty's work, and the esteem felt for the institution by
many students with whom we spoke.
Nevertheless, from the comments within the Faculty's Report and also from
observations made directly to us, there appears to be some evidence of "wear and tear" in
the current operation of the model. For this development there appear to be many causes,
some of-which are external (and outside control of the Faculty), and others internal. The
budget Cuts of recent years (while student enrolments continue to increase) are causing.
stress. All three Directors of programs report some difficulty in meeting their obligations
(through cuts in the number of FAs, unfilled academic posts, lost opportunities for
graduate development, and so forth). In addition, the provincial context within which the
Faculty operates seems to be changing more rapidly than the institution can accommodate..
Competing institutions are emerging, new clienteles (especially in the college systems and
in related health or caring fields) are knocking at the door, and opportunities for new
graduate programs are presenting themselves. At the same time, Ministry policies and
requirements (which often have important financial--and staffing--implications) can not
always be planned for or accommodated.
On the other hand, the fact that there is only a small number of academics (relative
to other appointments) within the institution raises important questions of academic
accountability within and among the various Faculty offerings. We note here, for example,
that only about a quarter of undergraduate courses are taught by tenured faculty members.
The remainder are outside their direct purview. In addition, we noted that some groups
within the differentiated model reported varying degrees of what they labelled "exclusion."
Some faculty members, for example, suggested that their direct influence on the .PDP
program was not as great as they wished. Sessional lecturers in distant points or on one-
time assignments are perceived as somewhat detached from University influence, while a
particular FA highlighted his own feeling by remarking that he felt at times more like a
"faculty disassociate."
There is clear evidence that the Faculty recognize these--and related--problems in
the differentiated model, and has already begun to come to terms with them. Some of these
initiatives are limited in scope but important nonetheless--such as the Dean's interest in
evaluating instruction within the Faculty. We note the studies under way to assess the
contributions made by each component within the differentiated model, and we applaud the
11
general statement within the Report that "we deem it more desirable to provide quality
services than to spread ourselves thinly in many directions." In general, the Faculty
recognizes that it faces important questions and it has begun to examine alternative
solutions.
To assist the review procedure we offer the following suggestions:
Recommendation. First, that the Faculty continue to base its mission on its strength. Rather
than submit to a decline in a whole range of offerings, caused largely by budget reductions,
the Faculty, in our judgment, should review the entire range of its current offerings, assess
its particular areas of strength, select those academic responsibilities which it can perform
most productivel
y
, and devote its available resources to those selected areas. In that
process, the academic expertise of faculty members (and the particular inter-disciplinary
configurations in which that expertise is enshrined) will be a major consideration. The
number of options to be considered is very large (and it is not within our warrant to be
overly directive in this matter), but during our on-site discussions our attention was drawn
to the need to extend doctoral offerings, especially those in programs designed to provide
support for emerging colleges in British Columbia, and also those for leaders within the
teaching profession. But whatever areas are selected for emphasis, it should be recognized
that the selection process inevitably requires that some current offerings will be reduced in
emphasis. The task for the University and Faculty administration, and for the committee
structures within the institution, is to provide a climate in which such priorities may be
established with a minimum of rancor and divisiveness within the community.
Recommendation. We are also persuaded the notion of differentiated staffing should
continue to be accompanied by a very carefully coordinated policy and program of
academic accountability. Given the varying demands for professional programs within the
Faculty, the question of academic control is a major concern (indeed, such control, in our
judgment, is a defining characteristic of professional preparation within a university
setting). In all such programmes, especially the PDP, the faculty should continue to
monitor its academic supervision of the curricula.
Recommendations. On the question of academic supervision of the Faculty's overall
offerings, we recommend that the administrative steps be taken to enlarge the faculty's
direct role in teaching. Some benefits may be gained on the one hand by pruning the total
number of courses offered within the Calendar and on the other hand by carefully
designating compulsory courses within specific programmes. In addition, some academic
and pedagogic benefits may be obtained by longer range scheduling of faculty
commitments to teaching.
Within the model of differentiated staffing, the needs and professional growth of
various groups will continue to require careful study. New faculty members will require
collegial mentoring to ensure that they are not overwhelmed by the pressures of
contemporary University life, nor discouraged by the daunting prospect of competing with
senior professors. We are persuaded also of the need to direct attention to the unique
difficulties faced by the FAs. The anomaly of their nine-month (rather than ten-month)
salary should be examined. Additional attention should be paid at senior Faculty and
University. levels to examining ways in which the experience gained by FAs during their
terms at SF0 can be put to better use in their subsequent professional careers.
In summary, then, although the current system of differentiated staffing has worked
well, and ought to be retained, we recognize that in several areas it requires careful study
and reform.
12
6.
The research and teaching contribution of faculty members, including the
level of external research support.
On one point in our discussions with various constituents, faculty, student and
administration, there is unanimity: the research record of the faculty members in Education
is outstanding in comparison with other Faculties of Education in Canada. As one of our
respondents remarked (in our judgment, accurately) "the Faculty is seen as unusually
productive (for a professional school) in a scholarly way." By all measures of scholarly
output in Education faculties in Canada, SFU stands at, or very near, the top. In many
fields of educational scholarship, including curricular, social and philosophic issues, and
psychological/counselling questions (and in offering these examples we are by no means
exhausting the list), scholars at SFU are very highly regarded indeed. In our discussions
with faculty members we were very impressed by this universal commitment to scholarly
investigation, research and publication.
We noted the interest in extending research into more pedagogic functions of the
faculty. The current interest in including research questions in the PDP curriculum and
teacher development, for example, attracts (and deserves) full support. On the other hand,
one faculty member with a strong dissenting voice told us orally that there was no evidence
that the research of the faculty members (or indeed recent research in Education in general)
had any impact whatsoever on the curricular offerings of the PDP. We take it that there is a
distinction to be made, here, between the results of research efforts undertaken by the
faculty and the questions of a research nature which might equally inform the PDP
curriculum.
Recommendation. We are pleased to note that the Faculty acknowledges that the pressure to
publication may have some human costs. It is important to recognize the particular
pressure that the very high level of achievement of senior faculty may exercise on younger
or novice academics, and on the need to provide appropriate counselling and monitoring.
Indeed—We believe that there is need on the part of the Faculty to characterize reasonable
The scholarly interests of the Faculty may also be measured in success in competing
for research funds. The listings of such support in the Report are very impressive indeed--
and certainly better than most (perhaps even all) Faculties within the country. We note also
the editorial work for scholarly journals undertaken by faculty members, and the
impressive list of honours conferred on particular individuals. We are persuaded that
current members of the administration and their predecessors should take considerable
pride in the procedures and policies that have made possible this outstanding record.
On the question of the teaching contribution of faculty members, we note that the
standard means of accountability for instruction appears to be in place and to be working
satisfactorily. We comment elsewhere on the circumstances of the teaching responsibilities
of the faculty (and other instructors) within the differentiated model, and the difficulties that
require some redress.
7.
The size of the administrative, secretarial and support staff complement.
This is one of the difficult matters for us to judge, for a number of reasons. Were
we conducting this review in the 1930's for a faculty of comparable size, there would have
• been virtually no support staff to speak of except, perhaps, the Dean's secretary. Were
there to be Directors, they would have had to do all the administrative work themselves,
dependent upon writing largely in long-hand and with the aid of the Royal Mail's frequent
deliveries. There were no computers to complicate things, nor were there even electric or
13
electronic typewriters. Duplicating technology was either the Gestetner or more likely,
multiple carbon copies of any important document.
Although these are increasingly difficult times, a considerable administrative,
secretarial and support staff cadre is in place at Simon Fraser. As we mentioned earlier, we
think that the three present Directors and the fourth one proposed makes good sense given
the program divisions. Each Director, the Dean and the Associate Dean, appear to be
adequately supplied with assistance. No administrator suggested to us that there was an
understaffmg problem in her or his realm.
However, at an open meeting with support staff (including the secretarial staff), the
view was widespread that at peak-load periods (such as at registration time, or the
beginning of a new term), a number of staff are overworked--while, often, at the same time
others have nothing to do. This affects the PDP program and the undergraduate program
disproportionately.
One of the views strongly expressed and strongly assented to was that the support
staff, had they some appropriate structural mechanism, could probably organize things
among themselves much better than they are presently so that such peak periods be better
covered. But the mechanism is lacking. There is also a strong sense that because of the
various divisions and hierarchies within the support staff complement, reflecting the
organization of the positions of power and influence on the teaching faculty side, there is a
less than rational usage of support staff. It is very hard for us to judge these claims. But
often support staff, if given a chance, are able to see things relating to their tasks which
cannot be seen by those whose responsibilities are more general.
One incident which seemed to cause much general distaste were the structural
changes in the media centre involving some loss of staff, some reduction in hours and
some physical rearrangements. The support staff generally felt that this was badly handled
to the detriment of the students needing the media centre facilities. And this had resulted,
according to the support staff, from a near total lack of consultation on the part of the
Senior Administration. The Senior Administration, perhaps naturally, saw things
differently and felt that there had been detailed consultation but that no changes would have
been judged satisfactory by the support staff, though some were necessary nonetheless.
We detail this reported incident because it seems to us to illustrate the difficulty of our
making appropriate judgments about the size of the administrative, secretarial and technical
support staff complement.
Recommendation. Our general impression, the difficulties not withstanding, is that
compared to other Canadian universities, the Faculty of Education at SFU is well served in
this regard. If there is a problem, it may lie in the less than optimal usage of the
complement which exists. Therefore we recommend that the Dean should work with the
eincient anci satisractory worK arrangements than those which presently exist. We are
aware that the Associate-Dean and Dean already have some informal mechanisms in place,
but believe that it is important to make the support staff involvement in their own working
arrangements a formal, open and widely supported matter.
8. The adequacy of resources provided to support teaching and research,
including computing, media, library resources, office space and laboratory
facilities.
A facilities tour during the review visits provided the external team an opportunity
?
to view the Centre for Educational Technology (CET), the Exemplary Centre for Interactive
?
Technologies in Education and the Provincial Resources Centre. As well, the team visited
?
many offices and support staff facilities and met with faculty, students and staff in a variety
?
14
of classroom settings. Clearly, a general observation about the beautiful natural setting of
Simon Fraser is in order. Repeatedly, for instance, students referred to "coming up" to
SFU as like entering a retreat-like setting, where concentration on academic life was
encouraged not only by the programming but also by the aesthetics of the environment.
More practical observations were heard as well. Faculty, staff and students alike
seek more spaces where informal interaction can occur, not only within groups, but across
groups as well. Not only are informal lounges sought, but in the case of the graduate
students specifically, office space is requested. Relatedly, a more part-time transient student
body suggests the need for more space to simply "be" during the time spent on campus;
locales distributed throughout the Faculty building where students can study or talk with
each other. Some students and several of the staff commented about restricted hours for
facilities in demand by students. That is, facilities are often closed at just the early evening
hours that many students are arriving on campus. On a more positive note, a number of the
classrooms appear designed for small group interaction. The tables and chairs are flexible,
and the review team saw different rooms used in different ways.
Recommendations. As possible, space should be created to accommodate the interactive
needs of students, faculty and staff. Further, there should be some redistribution of
operating hours to meet the needs of the more non-traditional student population on which
Simon Fraser's Faculty of Education importantly depends. While it appears that budget
restrictions have caused adjustments in availability of materials and equipment, there has
been no diminution of assignments that require the use of these (increasingly unavailable)
facilities.
The facilities identified above present a very impressive array of materials and
equipment in use. Clearly the users of these laboratory facilities benefit greatly from the
capability created by the staff working directly in the labs. As with these types of facilities
generally, outreach an drawing in more users from the ranks of both faculty and student are
desirable. Further, to the degree that the focus is on K-12 settings, more attention could be
given to-enabling faculty to integrate these facilities and what they represent into their own
on-campus instruction. While the review team did not observe faculty teaching, it appeared.
evident that improvement of university teaching was not necessarily an overt goal of these
centres.
Finally, and particularly with regard to the centres named above, they hold the
potential of recreating the setting at SFU to a more laboratory-focussed professional
program. That is, professional practice is often grounded in two dimensions--didactic, on-
campus work and school or field based work. A linkage of theory to practice is likely a
dimension of clinical activity that would engage students and faculty in more interactive
diagnosis of practice. This view of professional growth could be enabled through the use
of mediated cases, interactive video, teaching clinics that allowed for regular video taping
of teaching and the creation of classroom simulations, peer teaching and the use of
observation facilities for analysis of teaching, for instance.
Recommendation. While the facilities that serve the Faculty are impressive,
transformation of the Faculty environment to a more interactive instructional laboratory for
teaching and learning would be desirable. Creating instructional spaces, laboratories and
clinics that emphasize the interactive and diagnostic nature of learning to teach could greatly
enhance the instructional potency of the educative process. This is an expensive and labour
intensive refocussing of programmatic interests, but also one that might underscore for
others in the university the clinical capacity needed to prepare professional educators. The
• ?
accomplishments of the Faculty in introducing technology in staff and faculty offices is a
step in this more clinically oriented direction.
15
9. The effectiveness of the administration of the Faculty
The effectiveness of the administration of the Faculty of Education at SFU is a
complicated topic since the question of just where the "administration" of a university
Faculty begins and ends has no clear answer given the generally
"flat"
organizational
structure of universities. The Faculty of Education is such a "flat", complicated,
differentiated and overlapping arrangement for training teachers, undergraduates, graduates
and on- and off-campus others. So just "who is administering what and when" is an
interesting question in itself.
In one sense, the administration of the Faculty is the responsibility mainly (though
certainly not exclusively) of the academic faculty members and this part of each faculty
member's work is continuous with their teaching, their supervising and their research
roles. In this sense the Faculty of Education and the university appear to be well-served.
On the evidence available to us, the academic teaching staff are highly effective in pursuing
their administrative duties. This seems to be as true for the ordinary faculty members as for
those who have assumed administrative duties of a specialized organizational kind, such as
the Directors of programs and the Decanal team.
The overwhelming number of students, non-academic teaching staff, support staff
and the faculty members themselves, are happy with the general administrative
performance, of faculty, of directors, of others in administrative responsibilities and of the
Decanal team. A few feel excluded from some part of the decision making (for example,
some faculty members feel excluded from the PDP program organization). But this is
certainly not the main perception, which is---as reported to us--- strongly positive.
Two submissions from individuals, both faculty members, expressed the view that
the present administration is effective. Indeed, they thought that this has been true for
previous administrations as well. One accused the administration (and here the whole
academic faculty were implicated, not just the decanal team and the directors of programs)
of failing to consider the "real issues" and suggested that there were things which the
Faculty as a whole could not fail to know ("to noLnot know"), such as: (1) failure to
employ research results in Education in reforming the curriculum and the organization of
the faculty; (2) failing to recognize that the "real world of Vancouver" is not a white anglo-
celtic preserve of happily married couples with two children and that the student body and
faculty do not reflect this. These are important and striking claims, if true, and raise issues
which should be seriously debated by the entire faculty in a sober and careful manner and
about which leadership from the Dean (and others with administrative leadership
responsibility) would be in order.
We also received submissions which drew attention to inappropriate and
unacceptable behaviour on the part of senior faculty, both male and female, towards junior
female faculty. These submissions relate to the broad context of "administration" here at
issue. In particular, the submissions alleged that junior female faculty were sometimes
exposed to unwanted sexual attentions and sometimes to unwanted political pressures at the
hands of senior faculty members. Thus the climate of the faculty, according to the
suggestion of these submissions, is not welcoming to junior faculty, especially junior
female faculty. These claims may relate to matters of fact or to matters of perception or
both. Whatever the truth here, and we are in no position to determine that, there is no doubt
that a central issue of "climate" is involved. In the whole broad sense in which the
administration of the faculty is in the hands of the academic staff as a whole, there is clearly
a wide-ranging responsibility, especially falling on the senior faculty members, to look to
the appropriate welcoming of the junior members. When it is possible in a faculty for an
outside team to read or hear reports of behaviour of an intimidating or even harassing
nature , then clearly something is wrong.
16
. Were there to be open and general faculty discussions on the various political views
which relate to the Faculty's optimal functioning, perhaps such intimidation and harassment
would cease. But this cannot be possible unless the Faculty finds a way to relate its
administrative and academic decisions to some form of open discussion rather than back-
room caucusing or hallway decision making. If there is intimidation verging on harassment
occurring in the Faculty, for political ends, it should be widely known and condemned for
what it is, namely, brutal tactics for political ends not universally shared either by the
women or the men of the Faculty.
Another faculty member made vague suggestions that the present senior
administration did not keep promises made with respect to recent hirings and staffing. We
do not know what to make of vague suggestions of promises not kept.
Recommendation. The above suggests that the present arrangements for faculty
discussion, for political activity and for decision making are not satisfactory. We are aware
that the present Dean has attempted to open up the channels of discussion by having open
Faculty meetings. But reports to us suggest that the lack of procedures, and the present
socialization of the faculty members, make these meetings less than effective and perhaps
completely useless. The difficulties seem to be partly ones of size, partly ones of faction,
and partly ones of procedures. The only ones about which action can be easily and directly
taken are those relating to procedures and we therefore recommend that a Faculty
Constitution. including a council or councils (involving faculty. support staff and students)
advisory to the Dean. be drawn up in full, including procedural requirements (e.g..
B p
urinot's rules of order). It is not our point that the Dean's traditional freedom of action
should be limited. But without adequate systematic means for discussion and advice, all
Decanal decisions are potentially suspect.
One final matter which involves the relationship between the Dean and the Directors
recurred with some frequency, namely, the view that the Directors operated their own
independent fiefdoms without serious interaction with one another or with the Dean. On the
evidence of the success of the various programs, this seems to us to be a surprising
comment by some faculty. Nor was it raised by any of the Directors or the Dean.
However, since there is an unfortunate common perception to be combatted here, we
recommend that the Dean meet with the Directors and their closest associates to see if ways
communication or coordination should the recurring sugestions here have substance.
In summary, we find that the administration of the Faculty is generally effective at
all levels. However, there is need for better communication between the academic staff and
the non-academic staff in terms of the organization of tasks related to the work of the
Faculty as a whole. (See 7. above). There is need for the Faculty, under the leadership of
the Dean, to produce genuine forums for academic staff, non-academic staff, graduate
students, undergraduate students and professional students so that grievances can be
addressed and positive suggestions that have promise revealed and discussed fully in an
open atmosphere.
.
17
JO. The relationship between the Faculty, the teaching profession, school
districts and the Ministry of Education.
From the evidence available to us from the variety of submissions, the relationship
between the Faculty and the teaching profession, the school districts and the Ministry of
Education is generally effective and supportive in both directions. We did not receive a
single complaint that school districts were hard to work with or that the Ministry of
Education was difficult or silly or lacking in knowledge or understanding---the standard
fare in some jurisdictions. Nor was there any undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the
Faculty's relationship with the teaching profession either as organized or
in general.
For our investigation to have been complete we would have had also to interview
members of the teaching profession at large, the teaching profession as organized, school
district officials and members of the Ministry of Education. Thus our view of the state of
affairs is restricted to the informants available to us, all of whom were connected with SFU
to some degree.
Nonetheless, we have no grounds for thinking that there were any difficulties here
that need to be systematically addressed.
Final Remarks
In the above pages we comment in detail on the mission of the Faculty of
Education, the various activities it engages in, the quality of the program as a whole and of
the various specializations within it, and its resource allocation. The mission of the Faculty,
namely to train teachers, to give undergraduate and graduate degrees and to engage in
research related to education is an important one and one which is carried Out well.
On the other hand, there are factors presently at play which will have a long-term
impact on the relative emphases the faculty can devote to each of these activities. Unless
long-term strategic planning is engaged in, the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser could
find itself left behind by the onrush of events in British Columbia. In particular, the
development of a new university where there has been a traditional outreach, and the advent
of a number of degree-granting colleges, each of which will want to engage in some teacher
training and undergraduate degree granting in education, are bound to have long term
impact on Simon Fraser. So are the advent of a number of universities from the United
States operating in the province granting advanced degrees, perhaps especially to college
teaching staff.
The rapidly changing demographics of British Columbia, particularly the greater
Vancouver area, are also likely to have an impact on the emphases in that mission. These
demographics reflect trends due to immigration and family building. They also reflect the
continuing pressures facing and aspirations of women, pressures and aspirations which
necessarily have an equal and often opposite impact on men. And, again, there is need for
strategic planning on the part of the Faculty to cope with such changes.
Now is a good time for the Faculty to have a realistic look at its predictable future
client base and to begin preparing for that eventuality.
A matter which the terms of reference do not naturally lead us to discuss is that of
the relationship between the results of research in education and related fields and the
practice of teacher training. The question has been raised in this inquiry as to whether there
18
is any present impact on the teacher training programs at Simon Fraser from either the
. research results derived from the faculty members there or from research results in the field
of education as a whole. We are not in a position to comment on this. But this does seem
to us one of the matters to which the Faculty should devote serious consideration.
Finally, the allegations of mistreatment, intimidation or even harassment of some
faculty members, especially junior female faculty, at the hands of both male and female
senior faculty, which were brought to our attention are matters of grave concern and must
be dealt with. No one in a contemporary Faculty of Education should have to feel
politically or sexually harassed. Senior faculty members of either sex should not prey on,
or attempt to exert power over junior faculty members of either the opposite or the same sex
for whatever ends---even good or desirable ones. The only ultimate barrier to such things
is the general knowledge that they may or do go on and that they are generally considered
wrong and condemnable. But greater openness of faculty discussion and a cultivated sense
of gentle conduct at all times should certainly be aimed at, especially at Faculty retreats and
general Faculty meetings.
This is a good Faculty. But it could be even better.
fl
0
Appendix I - List of Materials Officially Provided to Committee
Graduate Studies Handbook
Graduate Studies Factbook, January 1993
Faculty of Education, Faculty Research, may 1993
Simon Fraser University calendar, 1992-93
Faculty of Education, Faculty Report, External Review, May 1993
Simon Fraser University Fact Book, 13th Edition, May 1993
From Retreat to Review (memo from Dean to Faculty)
Pacopab submission (Dean's summary of Faculty Budget)
Dean's memo to faculty re budget cuts
Correspondence with Vice president, Academic re: budget
Bachelor of Education Proposal
Irregular admissions paper
Peter Norman to faculty re In-Service
B.C. College of Teachers report
Faculty reply to BCCT report
Appendix to faculty reply
Graduate Programs Master's Degrees
U.S. Graduate Programs in B.C.
Indonesian Project (Master's Degree)
Vietnam Project
Centre for Education, Law and Society
Appendix II- List of Meetings with Groups and Individuals During Site Visit
and Facilities toured
Groups Interviewed
Graduate Students
Support Staff and Dean's Assistant
Faculty
Program Coordinators and Faculty Associates
Field Services Personnel
Students
Individuals Interviewed
Dr. John Munro
Mrs. Alison Watt
Dr. Robin Barrow
Dr. Bruce Clayman
Dr. Comel Ham
Dr. Phil Winne (telephone)
Dr. Mike Manley Casimir
Dr. Sharon Bailin
Dr. Mar
y
Wideen
Dr. A. J. (Sandy) Dawson
Dr. Milt McClaren (telephone)
Mr. Peter Norman
There were also private meetings arranged on an individual basis with the External Review
team at the request of individual faculty and staff, as well as individual written
submissions. To protect the privacy of some we have chosen not to identify any of these.
The facilities of the Faculty were toured, including EXCITE, CET, French Resources
Centre and Teacher Education.
20
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
DEAN OF EDUCATION
.
JLJN2g 1994
CEI V[b
• Vice
Pr)dt
?
ACADEMIC
Memorandum
To: Jock Munro
Alison Watt
From: Robin Barrow
Subject: Faculty of Education Review
Date:
1994-06-27
Attached are copies of our response to the External Review. The response has been seen
by all members of faculty, staff, etc. and comments have been solicited. Dr. Jack Martin
will represent me at the meeting of SCAP on July 6th.
.
?
RB:nr
Enclosure
0
The Faculty of Education was reviewed in 1993 by a committee of four persons,
including Dr. Ellen Gee as internal resource person, Dr. Ian Winchester (O.I.S.E.) as
chair, Dr. Nancy Zimpher (Dean of Education, Ohio State University), and Dr. Geoffrey
Milburn (University of Western Ontario) as external members. The faculty is extremely
grateful to the committee both for the helpful, efficient, and human way in which they
conducted the review and for their report which, overall, we find useful and gratifying. As
the report says "This is a very successful Faculty which has been performing three main
tasks [preparing future teachers, educating others through the B.Ed. route, and providing
graduate education] well for a quarter of a century.. .The research and publication record of
the faculty is outstanding ... a Faculty of Education that on all measurable criteria ranks with
the best in Canada and is as happily constituted as any known to us". Bearing this general
encomium in mind, in the remainder of this response we will concentrate on the specific
recommendations and particularly the critical points in the report.
Bachelor of Education Program
We regard the general comments made by the review team on the Bachelor of
Education program as valid and to the point and we wholeheartedly endorse the first
recommendation regarding the acceptance and implementation of the new B.Ed. option. In
fact the new B.Ed. has now been accepted by the faculty. The need for more effective
harmonization of activity between Undergraduate Programs and the Professional
Development Program is also noted. It is in fact a problem of which we have been aware
for some time. The new B.Ed. program should contribute to developing a closer
collaboration and we have recently initiated a degree of formal co-operation between the
two program committees. Over the coming months we will further explore the possibility
of combining or otherwise integrating the two program areas.
The third recommendation in this area, that we should "guard the ratio of regular
faculty to faculty associates at some roughly constant level" is a little unclear, and we are
not sure whether the reference to "faculty associates" at this particular point should not
rather be to "sessional instructors". In any event, we are alert both to the danger of too
many sessional instructors without any overall connection with the faculty and to the
advantage of drawing on the experience of faculty associates.
Professional Development Program
The overall comments of the review team on the PDP seem to us well-founded. We
are pleased to see that the high quality of the program is explicitly noted and concur with
the judgement that the evident variety of viewpoints amongst faculty on certain issues
relating to the program is a sign of the vitality and intellectual commitment of faculty
members. The first recommendation, which refers to the importance of both faculty and
faculty associate involvement, we wholeheartedly endorse.
The second recommendation, that "the conceptual framework for the PDP warrants
more attention", we also accept, and would merely note that we have already begun work
on re-assessing and, if need be, reconceiving such things
as
the goals of the program, its
structure, and the roles of faculty and faculty associates. The report suggests that what is
needed is "an elaborate discussion of Faculty consensus on conceptions of teaching and
learning". While we do not think that consensus is necessarily either possible or even
•
?
desirable, we intend to keep alive the debate that strives towards a common understanding.
The preceding comments also speak to the third recommendation.
We view the fourth recommendation, that "there should be systematic program and
student evaluation" for the program, with mixed feelin
g
s. On the one hand, our students
generally feel that they spend too much time evaluating the program and their faculty
associates. On the other hand, it is true that we have relatively little information from past
students looking back on their PDP experience. It is worth noting, in this connection, that
the B.C. College of Teachers did a survey in 1991 of recent graduates when reviewing all
teacher education programs in the province. By and large PDP students were supportive of
the program, much more so than the graduates of the other faculties of education in B.C.
In general terms, we will continue to explore ways to assess and evaluate all aspects of the
program and to gather data relating to long term student reaction.
Graduate Program
Once again we were pleased to see how well the review team appreciated the
• ?
background to our activity in this area, noting in particular the extent to which out-of-
province institutions are operating within B.C. to provide graduate programs.
The first recommendation, that "there should be strategic planning for programs and
course offerings at the graduate level", is readily conceded. Such strategic planning is in
fact already underway. Similarly the second recommendation, that there should be "a
closer look at faculty workload relative to graduate programs", strikes a responsive chord
with many. As the University is currently reviewing workload in general, it seems
advisable to refrain from specific action at the faculty level until University policy is
established.
We note with pleasure the committee's recognition of the importance and value of
our recent initiative to create a fourth Directorship in In-Service and Field relations and
believe that we already have a most fruitful dialogue emerging between this office and that
of Graduate Programs.
Turning to the issue of support for graduate students, we should preface our
remarks by stating that we believe that the relative lack of support for graduate students is a
major problem for this institution. In respect of the recommendation that the Director of
Graduate Programs should study ways of providing financial support, we are pleased to
say we have recently endorsed a major fund raising initiative to establish an Endowment
Fund for Graduate Fellowships. Similarly, in respect of the recommendation for more
space for students, we are making further space available in the new space recently
allocated to the faculty. It must be said that this space is not of good quality (being
windowless), but that there is little the faculty can do, so long as it cannot get any more
space from central administration. The recommendation that we make available our booklet
listing faculty research interests is already being acted upon.
With respect to the recommendation that student advisory arrangements be
reviewed, the Graduate Programs Committee is currently looking into this whole complex
matter.
Faculty
The report next offers a sensitive and in our judgement essentially accurate
summary of the nature and attendant difficulties of faculty responsibilities and workload,
and recommends, first, that we should review our "entire range of current offerings". This
is a major task that we are already beginning to undertake by a variety of approaches. The
program areas, as is evident from the report itself and our response, are each in the process
of attempting to re-think their mission and to develop specific initiatives. The Dean's
SOffice is meanwhile collecting data regarding individual faculty practice and wishes
concerning course offerings, which will be used to reshape the overall curriculum offerings
of the faculty in a more coherent and more realistic way.
The recommendation that the faculty should be concerned about academic
accountability for programs is entirely consistent with our own view, and steps are being
taken to ensure that faculty continue to monitor the academic supervision of curricula in all
program areas. The careful mentioning of new faculty members is something that we have
recently tried to implement and will, in future, seek to improve, and, we shall also consider
the particular needs of in-coming faculty associates.
Research and Teaching
The report recognizes the high scholarly reputation of the faculty. It recommends
that we should "characterize reasonable norms and expectation" for purposes of tenure and
promotion. This is indeed something that we know to be of concern in some quarters.
(The issue of looking into the question of promotion and tenure is in fact the only
Soutstanding matter to be addressed, following a faculty retreat that set the agenda for the
last two years.) It is, however, not without its problems. We are bound to some extent by
University regulations and would not necessarily wish it otherwise. On the one hand, we
value our ability to compete with any other faculty, professional or otherwise, on a straight-
forward academic basis. On the other hand, we are a professional school and that does
imply some different criteria from non-professional schools. The question of what should
count as scholarship or research is another of those areas where the faculty is of very
different minds. It is possible that what is really needed is a greater understanding of the
current situation, rather than a radical change. Nonetheless, this issue will be fully and
directly addressed in the coming months.
Staff
The sense that there is some considerable dissatisfaction amongst staff was frankly
surprising to many of us, and, naturally, disturbing. It is also not entirely clear to what
extent there is general dissatisfaction, as opposed to considerable dissatisfaction on the part
. ?
of a few. Nonetheless, we wish to act so as to make all staff as satisfied as possible. In
respect of communication, we have already initiated a regular (c. three monthly) series of
meetings with the Dean, although we need time to develop a set of procedures to make such
meetings profitable. At any rate, we take this concern very seriously and will work to
improve the situation. Currently, we are providing professional development in team-
building and communication through the consultative expertise of a faculty colleague.
Resources
When it comes to the question of resources we more or less endorse everything the
committee says and only wish that we could get hold of more resources, particularly space
where we feel we have been badly treated as compared with other faculties in recent
allocations. The specific recommendation, that we provide space for the interactive needs
of students, faculty, and staff, is being worked on, as is the issue of operating hours.
Likewise, the broader question of creating "a more interactive instructional laboratory for
teaching and learning" is receiving our considered attention.
Administration
Here, we are not sure that we are in agreement with some of the committee's
suggestions. For instance, while everybody wants genuine opportunities to air their
grievances, make their points, etc., it is fairly clear that the faculty as a whole explicitly
rejects the idea of a series of meetings to debate every issue. The idea of drawing up a
Constitution for the faculty does not appeal. The claim that the Directors "operated their
own independent fiefdoms without serious interaction with one another or with the Dean"
struck us as, at best, an overstatement of the point that we are indeed trying to provide
Directors with a degree of autonomy. We note, of course, that the committee reports these
comments as perceptions, which it explicitly suggests are hard to believe on the evidence of
the success of the various programs, but accept that perceptions have to be taken account
of. Dealing with the very vocal dissatisfaction of a few, improving communication, and
raising morale generally will be our first priority in the coming months.
We were extremely concerned to note reference to "inappropriate behaviour being
directed at junior female faculty at the hands of both senior male and female faculty" (a
point subsequently glossed as "allegations of mistreatment, intimidation or even
harassment"). It goes without saying that we condemn, without qualification, any such
behaviour. However, in this instance the somewhat opaque wording of the review has
made our task more than ordinarily difficult. Inquiry into the matter indicates that what is
P
primarily being referred to here is political or ideological harassment, attempts to bully or
otherwise intimidate people into acquiescence or a particular view of "correctness." (It
appears that there is no reference to any current specifically sexual harassment.) This
charge is, of course, very difficult to "answer", since it is necessarily based on allegations
that are unsubstantiated and few in number, and that cannot be examined unless the
individuals concerned feel inclined to bring them forward (whether confidentially to, say,
the Dean, or to the University Harassment Office, or in any other way).
Our response has been: 1) to invite all faculty to attend meetings to discuss the
"climate" of the faculty in general terms, and, in particular to make suggestions for change
and improvement; 2) to remind all faculty forcefully and clearly of the existing policy in the
University concernin
g
harassment, which, amongst other things, invites those who have a
concern to talk with the Harassment Office. (Coincidentally, the Harassment Office had
been invited to address faculty and staff on various occasions at the time the review
appeared) 3) to invite all "junior faculty", if they felt so inclined, to meet together and
consider some kind of group perspective on their experience, worries, suggestions, etc.; 4)
to invite any individual, who wished to do so, to talk privately and confidentially with the
. ?
Dean (or some other administrator).
In these ways, we have sought to "raise consciousness" and to ensure that
everybody is aware of the range of behaviour that may, these days, be deemed to be
harassment or in other ways unacceptable, to ensure that everybody is aware of the existing
procedures and mechanisms for dealing with certain kinds of complaints, and to provide
individuals with as much support as is possible in the circumstances to feel safe in coming
forward with their concerns, either as a group or individually. It seems fair to say that the
view of the vast majority of the faculty is that while there have indeed been certain incidents
that reveal a lack of what the review calls "a cultivated sense of gentle conduct," and that
more open discussion and a greater degree of amicable disagreement could be achieved, on
the whole this is a notably friendly and warm faculty. (This point is, of course,
acknowledged, even complimented, by the review, which is merely adding, correctly, that
insofar as the aggressive kind of behaviour referred to is going on, it is unacceptable).
Having said that, this process certainly leaves no individual with any excuse for not being
aware of the danger in question, and we certainly shall continue to take all the steps we can
to ensure the comfort and security of all faculty, and particularly new faculty.
.
In conclusion, once again we thank the review team for their work on our behalf,
express our satisfaction without complacency that the high quality of our faculty is
acknowledged, and set ourselves to dealing with the outstanding concerns noted above.
.
0
