On April 16, The Diamondback published an article titled, “Faculty blast education school reform.”
We were dismayed to have years of work on the education school reorganization characterized so negatively. Although there are faculty members who object to the school’s reorganization plan, there are also faculty members who remain committed and optimistic about its future. We would like to offer a somewhat different faculty perspective than the one portrayed in the article. We will specifically comment on the reorganization process and the concern that reorganization will damage the education school.
From our perspective, the process has not been rushed and it has been democratic. Reorganization has been discussed by the deans, associate deans and department chairs for at least two and a half years.
Some of the reasons for reorganization included enabling more efficient use of resources through the consolidation of departments, breaking down “departmental silos” to facilitate greater collaboration and interdisciplinary work and positioning the college to respond better to the university’s Strategic Plan. In the 2009-10 academic year, the Dean Donna Wiseman solicited reorganization ideas from the entire education school community.
She created an advisory committee with representation from every department and held a series of open forums to discuss possible reorganization models. Everyone in the school had the opportunity to advance specific models for reorganization and a dozen or more plans came forward during the year.
In early fall 2009, the College of Education Senate reviewed the proposed models and submitted six model variations to the College Assembly to debate and vote on. After the first round of voting, the models were narrowed down to two and the assembly voted on which of the two they preferred. A large majority of eligible voters participated in both elections — 75 percent and 86 percent in the first and second elections, respectively — and the three-department model was ultimately preferred over the alternative by 59 percent of those voting.
During this spring semester, faculty and staff have met in cross-departmental meetings to name the new departments, and develop mission statements, plans of governance and new policies and procedures for the envisioned departments.
Faculty and staff have been actively engaged in the reorganization of the school, and the dean has continually sought feedback from the education school community about the reorganization process and goals.
All of us have legitimate concerns about how the reorganization will affect the school’s programs and our own positions, but we are reassured by the efforts of faculty and staff who have worked together to identify reorganization challenges and develop strategies to successfully address them.
The reorganization of the education school is a massive undertaking, and it is bound to generate some fear and anxiety about the future. But we have been a strong school for many years, as evidenced by the current rankings of our programs.
We will continue to be a strong school and use this reorganization opportunity to further strengthen our programs, create new learning opportunities for our students, and better serve the university and state.
Bob Lent is a counseling and personnel services professor, and Linda Valli is a curriculum and instruction professor. Valli can be reached at lrv at umd dot edu.
