NCATER wrote:

---

Word is that SFT signed paperwork for posting of NCATE Director position.  It will be posted soon. Everything and everyone will move forward.  The email onslaught from Carole will come to an end!  Team building will occur.  This is all a good thing. Watch and see!

---

If the Carole e-mail deluge and lack of touchy feely "team building" is your biggest complaint, you don't know NCATE. deCasal came to USM when NCATE was in the tank (look at some old posts on this board), and was charged to salvage the mess that was in place after SFT fired Carl and Dana put Perrin (bless his heart) in place. There were no data systems available for the task (IR was not much interested in helping with the process), no program assessment data collected by the departments (which should have been done by then), no NCATE infrastructure, NCATE itself was in its final stage of transition, Joan didn't even know what NCATE stood for, and Dana had PEC under siege. It would have nice if deCasal had a year to learn the programs, the culture, the people, and engage "team building," while collecting, compiling and analyzing clean IR and program assessment data with a nice little IE team already in place and chairs and bosses that were up to speed on NCATE and supportive. This was not the hand she was dealt.

Despite all the crap people like you gave her (wah, why do I keep getting all these e-mails?), she kept going and did the task that she was charged to do. You should be extremely grateful to deCasal that we had an IR in place by deadline and a relatively successful site visit by the spring of her second year at USM. 

Move forward? Heck, she moved your butts forward enough in a little over a year to have a shot of not going on probation. People like you gave Joan the cover to can deCasal, and to fulfill Dana's marching orders. If you survive the first round of review (pending the BOE meeting a few months down the road), Carol's work will merely be recycled in the next round in 16 months. And Joan will take credit. Slimy.      

You clearly have not watched Thames and Exline go at it in meetings.  She is not his puppet.  On the other hand, Grimes favorite word is, "ok"

Let me lead wrote:

---

Exline has a lot of power--she got Malone canned.

---

Riding the tide is not the same as channeling it.

Curious wrote:

---

 How did Exline get Malone canned?

---

She didn't.  That's the point.  Someone is trying to create a fairy tale in the hopes that it will make room for her on the post-Thames liferaft. 

Revisionist History wrote:

---

Curious wrote:  How did Exline get Malone canned? She didn't.  That's the point.  Someone is trying to create a fairy tale in the hopes that it will make room for her on the post-Thames liferaft. 

---

Nope, sorry. The purpose of the post was not to make Joan look better or worse. It was just an accounting of one of the many power struggles that occurred within the dome in the past few years (do you really think Ken just decided to go back to his first love for the heck of it?). Joan won that one. Another one was between Hudson and A. Dvorak. Although that one is more difficult to call, I think at the time Dvorak scored more points in that mud wrestling match. 

Dana remains the obvious joke of this administration.

Have to disagree wrote:

---

 I was close to the situation and heard from both parties repeatedly, so I am not sure why you think you have better information than me (unless you are SFT). Joan "jumped in the fray" quite awhile before Ken was exiled, and he was SFT's golden boy up to that point. You have been denigrating my posts ("revisionist history"; "inaccurate accounting"), which leads me to assume that you have a dog in this fight (I don't and could care less) and are a Joan fan and Ken foe. So be it. No need for me to respond further...

---

Someone is promoting Joan and you added to her PR with your posts.  Just see the other threads.  You say it is not you and yet you have given her credit for things she simply was not responsible for.  I corrected you and you continue to stand by your position.  Lest this turns into a childish "I know more than you do" exchange, I will also back out agreeing to disagree with you. 

Colleagues,

I have been following this discussion for a while now.  As someone who has been involved with the NCATE process here, I'd like to share a few thoughts, for what they are worth. 

1. Students who wish to earn licensure in the secondary areas do NOT major in education.  There is no undergraduate secondary education program. The students major in a content area.

This is required by the state. It is also strongly recommended by the organizations that accredit the secondary programs. Sending the programs back to the secondary areas, would, in the case of my SPA, probably cause our program to lose accreditation.

2.  When Carl Martray rescued our programs and got us off probation, USM was highly praised for the involvement of colleges such as Liberal Arts, Science and Technology, etc. in the teacher preparation process.  They were VERY opposed to the false dichotomy of "content v. pedagogy."  The BOE was quite impressed by the amount of genuine collaboration and communication, not to mention cordial relations, that existed between the education establishment here and the faculty, chairs, and deans in the other colleges. 

Three caucuses existed for those involved in Elementary, Secondary, and K-12 education; in these meetings, faculty could discuss concerns and send suggestions to the PEC, which is supposed to be the governing body for the various programs.

The Secondary Caucus has not met in TWO years.  (We were put on probation the first time largely because the chain of command was so incoherent; the  creation of the PEC and the caucuses convinced NCATE that we had a coherent system of governance that allowed input by ALL of the departments and colleges with teacher preparation programs.) 

3.  Before the departments in colleges outside of Ed-Psych were involved, USM graduated quite a few folks who could write lesson plans but had very shallow knowledge of their content matter.  There had been knock-down, drag-out fights between administrators concerning this problem; co-ep eventually threw up its hands and challenged the other colleges to do better.

They did.

4.  Now, there is very little meaningful communication between Co-Ep and the departments that house the secondary programs; it is very difficult for departments outside Co-Ep to feel that they are truly included in any kind of decision-making.

5.  Horace Fleming, it has been forgotten, tried to put all of the secondary programs back under Co-Ep and was opposed unanimously by even the dean of education at that time. He quickly relented.  Had he not, we would have lost the involvement of the departments in the NCATE process and would probably not have gotten off probation...

The deans and chairs of these programs need to wake up and defend the secondary programs. They produce top-notch teachers who in many cases return to get their masters and doctoral degrees in their content areas. 

If I was  a student in one of these programs, I would be appalled by the apathy and passiveness being exhibited by administrators in the colleges who house these programs. As a faculty member, I know I am. The students in the secondary programs do MORE than their fellow students earning the same major; they earn a B.A. or B.S. in a real discipline; they take a full complement of education courses, a practicum of 25 hours, AND a full semester of student teaching on top of that.  To go back to a watered down, content-weak education major  would be a shame and a disservice to the kids they will teach. 

Remember, once you lose these programs, you won't get them back.

 

pee wee wrote:

---

Colleagues, I have been following this discussion for a while now.  As someone who has been involved with the NCATE process here, I'd like to share a few thoughts, for what they are worth.  1. Students who wish to earn licensure in the secondary areas do NOT major in education.  There is no undergraduate secondary education program. The students major in a content area. This is required by the state. It is also strongly recommended by the organizations that accredit the secondary programs. Sending the programs back to the secondary areas, would, in the case of my SPA, probably cause our program to lose accreditation. 2.  When Carl Martray rescued our programs and got us off probation, USM was highly praised for the involvement of colleges such as Liberal Arts, Science and Technology, etc. in the teacher preparation process.  They were VERY opposed to the false dichotomy of "content v. pedagogy."  The BOE was quite impressed by the amount of genuine collaboration and communication, not to mention cordial relations, that existed between the education establishment here and the faculty, chairs, and deans in the other colleges.  Three caucuses existed for those involved in Elementary, Secondary, and K-12 education; in these meetings, faculty could discuss concerns and send suggestions to the PEC, which is supposed to be the governing body for the various programs. The Secondary Caucus has not met in TWO years.  (We were put on probation the first time largely because the chain of command was so incoherent; the  creation of the PEC and the caucuses convinced NCATE that we had a coherent system of governance that allowed input by ALL of the departments and colleges with teacher preparation programs.)  3.  Before the departments in colleges outside of Ed-Psych were involved, USM graduated quite a few folks who could write lesson plans but had very shallow knowledge of their content matter.  There had been knock-down, drag-out fights between administrators concerning this problem; co-ep eventually threw up its hands and challenged the other colleges to do better. They did. 4.  Now, there is very little meaningful communication between Co-Ep and the departments that house the secondary programs; it is very difficult for departments outside Co-Ep to feel that they are truly included in any kind of decision-making. 5.  Horace Fleming, it has been forgotten, tried to put all of the secondary programs back under Co-Ep and was opposed unanimously by even the dean of education at that time. He quickly relented.  Had he not, we would have lost the involvement of the departments in the NCATE process and would probably not have gotten off probation... The deans and chairs of these programs need to wake up and defend the secondary programs. They produce top-notch teachers who in many cases return to get their masters and doctoral degrees in their content areas.  If I was  a student in one of these programs, I would be appalled by the apathy and passiveness being exhibited by administrators in the colleges who house these programs. As a faculty member, I know I am. The students in the secondary programs do MORE than their fellow students earning the same major; they earn a B.A. or B.S. in a real discipline; they take a full complement of education courses, a practicum of 25 hours, AND a full semester of student teaching on top of that.  To go back to a watered down, content-weak education major  would be a shame and a disservice to the kids they will teach.  Remember, once you lose these programs, you won't get them back.  

---

It has been very difficult for most stakeholders inside or outside Co-Ep "to feel that they are truly included in any kind of decision-making in Professional Education."

Shared governance has not been what the Thames administration has been about.

The only passing SPA was history's. (No other program on the K-12, elementary, or secondary level passed. History was commended for having a model program, as in previous reviews.)

However, the other secondary areas were cited not because they didn't provide quality programs, but because they needed to provide additional data from their assessments over the past few semesters.  These secondary programs will pass IF they submitted their additional paperwork in a timely manner.

 

Not true.  1/2 of them passed.  The others had to file reports and they will pass, e.g. English.  CDC washed her hands of SPAs.  It doesn't matter, she is gone now.  New person will be hired next month after search committee does its work.  If you want to know how on the ball CDC was, ask Jeff Evans

Brilliant Move wrote:

---

The new Director of NCATE is Casey Turnage - a nice woman - Assistant Registrar - who knows absolutely less than nothing about education and/or NCATE. Hold on to your hats folks its gonna be a bumpy year! I suppose we should be assured that we will be in good hands now - no more emails - no more anything but questions as we muddle through.

---

Casey is nice, a company woman staffer, but it is very odd that you don't have a faculty member with K-12 training experience and NCATE chops running the show (I am not sure how NCATE will view this in terms of institutional commitment). My understanding is that Wanda and Joan are taking over, and Casey is there to oversee some paper pushing. DeCasal and colleagues left the shop in pretty good shape (the IR was fine). If the spotty SPAs are cleaned up and the November feedback is okay, Joan and Wanda should be able to direct a visit in 18 months. However, it would have made more sense just to keep DeCasal. But that's family politics at USM.

By the way, deCasal is enjoing her new job--from her description there is none of the extreme craziness that colors work at USM and the COEP.

I agree that Casey is a good person and a good USM employee. I am sure that she saw some firebombs coming as she took this position. She has a learning curve to get over but I think she is capable of doing a great job. I hope people will give her a chance to do well. An intelligent, capable person like Casey should be able to handle things confidently.