While Dana pigs out at the trough, other programs faced with accreditation issues are losing position left and right. Shelby has no shame when it comes to taking care of his little girl.

Here's the plan:

1. NCATE disaster, followed by reorganization of all ed programs on campus.

2. Secondary ed students now in subject-specific departments (history, English, math, biology, etc.) will be made "ed" students and report to CISE, the only department remaining with enough faculty in place to handle all the students. Just read those job descriptions. There's nothing about ELEMENTARY EDUCATION in them. The plan is for CISE to take ALL of the ed students, in every area. People who've been around a while will see that the "new" plan is where we were in 1993, and it's the SAME plan that led to our last NCATE probation.

3. New plan will be proclaimed as way to recover from disaster.

4. Dana Thames becomes dean after current dean fired for inability to hang on to accreditation. Dana appoints lackey to run her old department.

Okay, so are there other departments of similar size that have been given the okay to fund this many positions? Are there other depts. that asked for a proportionate number of lines and received them, or were they turned down? Dana doesn't fool anyone with a brain so why would SFT so blatantly - once again - act in such a nepotistic manner? Why does this JERK feel so entitled to act in this manner? IHL Board, take note again. Pending lawsuits - take note and copious notes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Emma
"Okay, so are there other departments of similar size that have been given the okay to fund this many positions? Are there other depts. that asked for a proportionate number of lines and received them, or were they turned down? Dana doesn't fool anyone with a brain so why would SFT so blatantly - once again - act in such a nepotistic manner? Why does this JERK feel so entitled to act in this manner? IHL Board, take note again. Pending lawsuits - take note and copious notes."

---

Actually, those positions are needed, and more. They are needed because the chair, in my humble opinion, seems to have dropped the ball on recruitment and retention in recent years (along with a couple of deaths in the department which, as far as I can tell, are not of her doing). Other departments in that college do have a serious number of searches that are also gearing up (no major turn downs and a good deal of support from Drs. Grimes and SFT). I agree, however. that DT will have a much less difficult time convincing the powers that be that her searches are needed compared to genetically challenged chairs (geez, is that a surprise?).  

due to program growth and expansion,
announces the following opening of new positions:

When did this program grow? She's run out the best faculty, at least one significant lawsuit has been filed claiming that she behaved in an arbitrary and capricious manner, sadly several faculty members have passed away, many have retired because they were sick of dealing with her, she continues to hire USM grads as full faculty (overload for sure, but wait SHE is a USM grad too) and the questions continue. But this program, that is in serious trouble with NCATE, continues to expand. She now has the former, extremely competent, CoEP Dean's sec. working for her - being paid through the pork barrel she acquired from Thad Cochran several years ago - it's called the Literacy and Assessment grant, but it is no grant.  She's getting funding for positions that will be meaningless if USM does not pass NCATE. She's so mangled the tenure and promotion process for those going through the ordeal in CISE that a departmental decision on one person was only concluded this week and now goes to the CAC (Damn the Faculty Handbook).  Others are still undecided by the department. And these actions continue to be rewarded by her father?  Unbelievable.

Elementary Education/Social Studies

Earned doctorate in social studies or closely related field by starting date; demonstrated ability to lead professional development for schools and school districts; strong background and experience in theory and pedagogy of special education; evidence of research and scholarly productivity; at least two years' recent teaching and/or supervisory experience in P-12 schools; expertise in social studies curriculum and instructional strategies; and firm grounding in methodology theory, practice, and research.

AA/EOE/ADAI

This ad went into the Chronicle. I don't understand the special education aspect of it, but when you have unlimited resources. . . .

From everything that I have heard, and I have heard a lot, NCATE is a Very True Disaster of Huge Proportions and people are being asked to throw documentation in a flurry to help satisfy the oncoming judgement. Dccumentation with little time to back up anything with facts.

Documentation such as What Is The Overall Plan for NCATE-related Programs is being determined Now. It should have been determined, and made available to faculty and students many years ago. What is happening is that the admin is trying Now to determine what guides the programs as an overall methodology and strategic plan, where there is NO strategic plan or methodology! When the NCATE people ask recent graduates about what USM's overall plan was, or their goals, they will stare back at the interviewer without an answer.

NCATE is going down in big, orange, hot, burning flames. Ask anybody involved. Huge Flames.

Efforts are underway to salvage it, and the people involved are doing their best, but you cannot make up years of neglect in only a few months.

Burning down the house.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Bad, but not quite that bad
" Yes, the neglect goes way back--to immediately after the 1998 report. The whole unit (which includes four colleges and over 40 licensure/prof ed programs), just seemed to tread water for years, and did not keep up with the sea change that has been going on in educational outcomes assessment and programs. There is plenty of blame to go around (this goes WAY beyond just CISE, and even before SFT's time). Where does the institution stand with the NCATE process? It will be a chore to get caught up, and the past few months have seen progress in setting the groundwork for having a workable NCATE structure in place for ongoing unit and program assessment and program improvement. But it doesn't have to be "finished" product in a few months (that's not how the process works). The documentation being asked for seems to be to get everyone on the same timeline and page (SPAs and related documentation need to be submitted in a couple of months to NCATE, which isn't really a biggie if the programs get going)--The "overall plan" you refer to, I think, is really called the conceptual framework, and that has been developed. A global plan (what you call methodology) for unit assessment is there. But there is a ton of work left to do (even if you have a plan, aligning curriculum to standards and the conceptual framework is still being hashed out). There is over a year til the visit, and that is enough time to enculturate students, if all faculty/chairs involved in these programs do their jobs. And time enough to collect sufficient data to demonstrate to NCATE the the program improvement plan is working (though 3 years of data would have been preferable). Am I worried? Of course. Do I think we are finally on the right track? Very much so. There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't be presentable by spring '06. However, there is almost no wiggle room with respect to time for task completion--all NCATE players need to contribute (chairs, faculty, program directors). I don't believe that NCATE will go down in "big, hot, orange, burning flames." But it is not going to be a mere walk in the park either. And it is not the just the admin that is trying (or needs to) figure this one out. It is the entire professional education units' responsibility. "

---

You seem to have a firm handle on this NCATE thing, so I have a serious question: does NCATE give a flip about the type of academic values which are encompassed in the SACS review, including but not limited to academic freedom and due process? If they do care about these sorts of things, then USM's NCATE review might be in a heap of trouble even if all of the things you mention above are in hunky-dorey apple-pie order.

Don't forget those who chose to leave and go to another position because they saw the writing on the wall (Graffiti?) and got the heck out of Dodge when the going was good. Most of these people miss their colleagues and the Hburg community, no one misses the current dictatorship

quote:

---

Originally posted by: SAC 'em
"You seem to have a firm handle on this NCATE thing, so I have a serious question: does NCATE give a flip about the type of academic values which are encompassed in the SACS review, including but not limited to academic freedom and due process? If they do care about these sorts of things, then USM's NCATE review might be in a heap of trouble even if all of the things you mention above are in hunky-dorey apple-pie order. "

---

Good question. From my understanding, the answer is Yes and No (sorry). The focus of NCATE is on the training of teacher candidates and school personnel. However, the "dispositions" we expect to develop in our teacher candidates should be reflected and modeled by faculty and admin. One whole standard is devoted to unit governace. Diversity (broadly defined) is very important. As is professional development. I think that the broad notion of "academic freedom" is somewhat less salient to the process. At USM, my beefs have been less about "academic freedom" (I have colleagues at great Tier Is who have been given grief about research similar to mine, and I have never been told to tone it down in the classroom). I do have concerns  about governance issues here (see the other thread re Dr. Pood-I really hope that is not true; or sloppy/incompetent leadership/management in some departments). Is it so bad here that NCATE will be doomed? I doubt it (unless something else happens of the magnitude of the "troubles" last year). But it sure makes the job harder. As with any accreditation process, we will get a report. The goal is to minimize (and hopefully eliminate) significant deficiencies beforehand, so as not to have to formulate tons of responses to the accrediting body.         

quote:

---

Originally posted by: I KNOW
"Immediately after 1998? Bull!  It was at its zenith between 1998 - 2001. A great dean (CM) was in place, a great assoc. dean (AM) was in place, and a great assist. dean (JS) was in place. The former chair of the History Dept (OC)., the Chemistry Ed. (EH)- Biology Ed (RH)- English Ed (SM) - Math Ed (SR) - FL Ed (JE)- History Ed from the Coast (EF)- Music Ed - HPER Ed faculty members, the CISE reps (many thanks to MW -- and CRK when she was thinking straight), the ELR (JK), Ed Psy (JO) . . there are more . . . were in place and it was working - and it was working well. When Carl Martray was Dean - in 2000 , in preparation for the next visit (2004), he had PEC members going to conferences in D.C. He had many people going at different times to prepare for this visit. Documents were already being collected. The Dispostions were positive and evident. The BIGGEST mistake was SFT punting Martray over to Mercer and putting the current dean in place. No disrespect to Willie, but he has been put into a very bad position. But to say that it started going downhill in 1998 right after the visit is a boldfaced LIE. Can't spin this one to blame the principal players who were either run out since they were so competent and Dana couldn't take the competition, retired because they were sick of the lack of true interest in the education of our ed. students, and/or went into hiding because the current practices sickens them. Jan Scott, April Miller, Carl Martray - no one can change your legacy by stating lies. Previous poster, Your since of history is distressing. No wonder we're going downhill fast."

---

Dear know:

I am a Carl fan (still am), but the unit was not close to prepared for a visit even before SFT came in--years after the previous visit. This is not about spin or lies, but an honest appraisal of how we got to this point. If the Unit was so prepped, a delay instituted by CM would not have been necessary, no matter what the circumstances. No SPA reports/program reviews would have been problemmatic. A revised conceptual framework would have been completed and implemented by 2000-2001. I do realize that people worked hard, were going to conferences, were thinking about (and in some cases) assessing dispositions and so on. But we weren't close. I have seen the papertrail 1998-now across the Unit. The Unit was not adjusting to the realities of changes in the NCATE process, but was working on the 1998 model. This is one of the causes for the problems we are having now. And this seems to be USM history. Before the 1998 visit, the you know what hit the fan, NCATE spanked us, and we re-adjusted to the realities of 1998 NCATE. Carl came in at the tail end of the process to help rescue us, and he did a superb job. A well-deserved breather was taken, but 1998-2002 were coasting years. I suppose compared to pre-1998, 1998-2001 seems like a zenith, but the target keeps moving, and we didn't. Sufficient progress was not made, especially to weather the storm to come. And that is why I have a different take on the matter. It may have been "working," but not well enough if viewed in the context of the NCATE process today. Why that is so is of little import.      

I truly understand the DT mess. Also, firing CM really made a tough situation much worse. And Pierce did inherit more headaches than I would wish on anyone. However, I really wish I could say that the Unit was close to ready for NCATE the day SFT walked in the door, and that he and DT are the sole reason for why we are where we are at, but that just isn't true either. I don't recall blaming any of the people you mentioned in my previous post. I also pat them on the back. I do not think that you are lying (though you believe that I am), and I see no need to flame you. I guess one of the downsides of posting here is suffering personal insults, so flame away.       

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The Plan
"Here's the plan: 1. NCATE disaster, followed by reorganization of all ed programs on campus.

 

Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.

FIRED which made him undoubtedly WIRED

http://www.ncate.org/accred/initial/thirdparty.htm

Look for the call for comments to be in the paper (and should be on USM's website) 6 months before the visit.