NNER Governing Council Meeting Agenda Minutes Internal page links: Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C In Attendance: John Anderson, Greg Bernhardt, Nick Michelli, Deb Shanley, Jeannie Gerlach, Josie Tinajero, Eric Flack, Steven Baugh, Leroy Kemp, Mary Ellen Finch, Sally Lloyd, Jennifer Robinson, Ginger Montgomery, Dick Clark, Kay Persichitte, Marilyn Hadley, Molly Munson-Dryer, Van Dempsey, Bruce Field, Brian Yontz, Ann Foster 1. Budget Update: Following up on the October meeting requesting the executive board to examine the executive director’s salary, the executive board proposed a 7 percent salary increase retroactive to the beginning of this fiscal year. The proposed 7 percent raise was approved. Follow-up discussion focused on the IEI portion of the salary and whether that portion would include the same compensation. Greg Bernhardt explained that the IEI felt it was not in a financial position to match that increase and that salary increases could only be made in the fiscal year cycle. The governing council agreed to discuss this with the IEI leaders for future consideration to address the possible difference in the salary that comes from two sources. The group recognized that the salary comes from two separate budgets each of which has unique needs and constraints. The budget update was reviewed and it was suggested that the partner school budget update be included in the next meeting to let people know what is available and what is being used and how the project is progressing. 2. Strategic Planning: Background and Discussion The executive board had extensive discussions at the December meeting regarding the future of the NNER; how to ensure a strong structure, clear guidelines for operation, and clarity of mission and activities that support the mission and the settings. The group noted that the NNER needs a thoughtful process to address the following long-view questions:
The NNER has never had a strategic planning process; however the initial planning that resulted in the current iteration of the NNER was an in-depth and thorough process that included the current governance structure and mission. The governing council agreed that it is time to examine our organization. It was also noted that the tripartite council’s role is to recommend goals and activities of the NNER and that that structure is working; the Network has specific goals. However, the tripartite council does not address the structures and strategies to ensure the organization is vibrant and can address the focus areas effectively. That work needs to be initiated through the strategic planning process. Areas for Consideration
Settings will nominate members and the executive board will select participants to ensure tripartite representation and diversity including new settings and long term participants using the break down of representation included in the motion language. 3. Tripartite Meeting: Discussion Governing council members indicated that they did not always have detailed information on the tripartite council meeting and purpose for the activities. It was suggested that tripartite council information go to all governing council members to be sure they know what the meeting is for and how things will be used. Feedback from participants, including governing council members who are also tripartite council members, noted that the meeting went well and that people learned from one another. Annual reports have been developed and used differently for two years now. For the past two tripartite council meetings, the report drafts served as a vehicle for reflection on progress and areas for focus. Tripartite council members then worked with setting contacts to finalize the reports and send them to the IEI where the NNER Annual Report is compiled and then distributed at the AACTE meeting. This process—put in place in 2004—is a change from the practice of completing the setting reports and submitting them to the IEI prior to the annual conference where the reports were distributed. The change was initiated for two reasons: to encourage tripartite involvement in the development of the report, ensuring that the report was written from school, A&S, and COE perspectives; and, to ensure that the tripartite council had access to the reports to be used as a foundation for their meeting. An additional change in the reports was the development of a template that asked all settings to respond to the goals specifically identified by the tripartite council and governing council. The template is refined each year to address current areas of emphasis while also asking settings to reflect on progress toward advancing the AED. The tripartite council chairs recommended a longer session for the 2006 meeting at the recommendation of the tripartite council members. Planning is underway to expand the time of the tripartite council to at least five hours in the fall of 2006. 4. Equity task force motion was proffered by the executive board and was amended by the governing council. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion There is a general concern from the tripartite council that we have lost momentum and this task force is needed to ensure that we stay committed to advancing equity in practice and policy. The original group (see Appendix A) that convened at the 2003 NNER Conference included one representative from each setting. The group developed the equity report that was adopted by the NNER governing council and the action plan (see Appendix A). The annual reports include a section on progress toward and challenges in advancing equity within the settings. It was noted that in many cases content was general. Reporting is difficult, the work is incremental, it’s a journey and all connected to so many things, we need to chip away at things we can address and recognize that we will not include all dimensions of this work in our annual reports. There is a need to address the action plan developed by the original committee. The committee was asked what are the standards for equity for the settings and noted that new settings include a response to how they will support equity and bring diversity to the NNER as part of the application process. One filter that was suggested for how we would gauge progress toward and commitment to equity was Amy Guttmann’s language of non discrimination non oppression in practices and policies. The governing council agreed that equity should be in the discussion on each governing council agenda. The strategic planning group is encouraged to study the long-term use of the proposed task force, and to look at the annual report each year to keep the Network advancing this work. It was noted that it is important to make ourselves uncomfortable—that’s how the Network models democracy. It was suggested that we might seek outside or expert help to focus us on what’s feasible and to bring clarity to the work and direction for the task force. We may therefore want to include members in the task force who have expertise and people who can move us forward.
5. Research Committee: Van Dempsey reviewed the document that was posted on the google group page and the chair asked that the governing council endorse the paper and Van’s continued work to promote the research agenda (see Appendix B). The motion passed unanimously. 6. Conferences: 2005 — Bruce Field reviewed the conference, generally positive feedback, and he is in the process of budget analysis and will transfer the funds earned to the NNER. Greg asked that settings consider hosting the 2008 conference, and he mentioned that geography will be an important consideration since the 2005, 2006, and 2007 conferences have been, or will be, all in the eastern region of the U.S. 7. Updates:
Note on Governing Council Attendance Greg Bernhardt noted that eight settings were not represented and that most of the arts and science and school representatives were not present. He asked if the time and location of this meeting should be reviewed. Members who are not education deans do not as a rule attend AACTE and therefore do not have access to this meeting and many of the governing council members who are education deans have conflicting sessions at the times allowed for board and organization meetings. The governing council is the policy making group, therefore it is crucial to our long term health and clarity of direction to have all governing council voices engaged in the discussions and decisions at the two yearly meetings. This issue should probably be addressed during the strategic planning session in June. PREFACE to the NNER STATEMENT on EQUITY NNER STATEMENT ON EQUITY The NNER embraces a vision of educational excellence for all. This vision, described in The Agenda for Education in a Democracy, brings to light the symbiotic relationship between educational excellence and equity. The NNER believes that educational excellence involves knowledge, practices and structures that support the full participation of all individuals in teaching and learning opportunities, and in educational decision-making and policy setting. The NNER believes democracy requires equity in educational and other social settings. To achieve equity the NNER must work toward the elimination of discrimination against groups oppressed on the basis of traits including but not limited to age, disability, gender, language, locality, personal appearance, political ideology, race, religion, sexual orientation and socio-economic status. The NNER recognizes that inequities surface continually as democratic institutions adapt to changing circumstances, and that consequently, constant vigilance is needed to identify obstacles and barriers to educational access, opportunity and attainment. The NNER sponsors and encourages proactive, critical inquiry at all educational levels-from classroom to national policy arenas-into policies, conditions and practices that limit or promote educational access, opportunity and attainment. The NNER believes that democracy is strengthened by diversity. Diversity is an indispensable feature of the NNER’s commitment to using democratic processes to facilitate democratic ends. At a minimum, this commitment to diversity requires the inclusion of all oppressed groups on a basis of equal respect. More broadly, it includes educating ourselves about others and demonstrating a willingness to fairly consider multiple views. Such inclusion sometimes generates discomfort that is necessary for helping others change and for being open to change ourselves. Thus, the NNER supports broad representation and active engagement in forging educational and other social and political decisions. The NNER recognizes, however, that the full diversity of human values includes racist, sexist, and other kinds of anti-democratic values incompatible with the NNER’s moral commitments. The NNER’s moral commitments obligate members of the Network to work against anti-democratic values, particularly in educational forums, as far as is consistent with the rights of the proponents of such values. The NNER recognizes that there are many ways to ameliorate problems of inequity and lack of diversity consistent with this Statement on Equity and therefore expects that local responses will differ. Further, the NNER does not assume any of its member settings have fully realized the ideals of equity and diversity described in this Statement, but expects, rather, that each member setting is committed to these ideals and works toward their realization. NNER EQUITY ACTION PLAN The NNER recognizes and applauds the work of NNER administrators, councilors and advisors who have contributed to the understanding and the realization of educational and social equity. In order to advance this work the NNER commits to take the following actions:
SECONDARY CHARGE #2 How can we encourage NNER members to regularly examine their own policies and practices so that they advance the principles of the Agenda? EQUITY STUDY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION In order to operationalize the commitments articulated in the Statement on Equity, the NNER Equity Study Committee recommends that NNER member settings commit to Equity Action Plans such as the one presented here. NNER MEMBER SETTINGS EQUITY ACTION PLAN The NNER recognizes and applauds the work of NNER member settings—including colleges of education, colleges of arts and sciences and public schools—that have contributed to the understanding and the realization of educational and social equity. In order to advance this work NNER member settings commit to take the following actions:
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES The NNER Equity Study Committee raises the following issues that were not directly addressed at its meeting of October 9, 2003, that will need to be decided if its recommendations are to be implemented: Procedural Questions
Accountability Questions
Implementation Questions
EQUITY STUDY COMMITTEE Julie Andrzejewski, St. Cloud State University Cori Mantle-Bromley, Institute for Educational Inquiry Equity Study Committee Writing Team Deb Carr, University of Missouri—Columbia Equity Study Committee Liaison with NNER Governing Council Maughn Rollins Gregory, Montclair State University NNER RESEARCH PLANNING DOCUMENT Overview of NNER with transition into research initiative The National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) is a membership network (see the governance page for membership information) dedicated to the simultaneous renewal of schools and the institutions that prepare our teachers. Our work is based on the four-part mission of providing equal access to quality learning for all students, promoting responsible stewardship of our schools and universities, improving teaching and learning through pedagogy that nurtures and challenges all learners, and providing students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become fully engaged participants in our democratic society. John Goodlad’s research resulted in Twenty Postulates (see attachment) that define the conditions necessary for quality teacher preparation. Goodlad and colleagues’ extensive research on schools and the institutions that prepare teachers formed the work of the NNER. Goodlad refers to the NNER as the proofing sites for the ongoing research and inquiry conducted by the Institute for Educational Inquiry (IEI). The Institute for Educational Inquiry (IEI) was founded by Goodlad in 1992. The IEI is an independent, nonprofit corporation with conceptual and administrative links to the Center for Educational Renewal (CER) at the College of Education, University of Washington. The Institute works together with the CER to advance the Agenda for Education in a Democracy. Much of the work of the Institute involves conducting extensive professional development programs on a wide range of educational issues that bring together P-12, college of education, and arts and sciences faculty from the settings of the National Network for Educational Renewal. The professional development programs of the IEI are diverse, including long-term programs to expand diversity in teaching and teacher education programs; to integrate the arts into the preparation of all elementary classroom teachers; to develop leadership skills of faculty within schools, colleges of education, and the arts and sciences; and to establish greater understanding between journalists and educators, among others. All of our activities are made possible through the generosity of many philanthropic foundations. Visit our Programs page for more information about these exciting initiatives. A primary strategy for educational renewal in the NNER is school/university partnerships where currently enrolled P-12 students and future teachers receive quality educational experiences. Collaborative policies and practices between school districts and institutions of higher education are necessary to advance this work that we view as ongoing and never complete. Unlike reforms or projects that have a beginning and an end, the renewal work of the NNER assumes that we must question assumptions and continue to make changes as we see where improvements can be made and gaps in quality education exist.
Members of the Network assert that quality schooling for a democracy and quality preparation of educators can best be accomplished by sharing responsibility for the following actions:
History of Research Planning and the Committee Several years ago, the Governing Council determined that one essential component of keeping the network healthy would be the development of a robust research agenda. Until that time, there had been no systematic, network-wide investigations of the impact of the Agenda for Education in a Democracy on the work of the settings. In the face of decreasing resources and national attacks on the bedrock commitments of the NNER to democratic dispositions and practices, it appeared that the time was right for some sort of cross-site study of the ways in which our programs for the education of educators, pupil achievement, and local partnerships have been affected by the AED. To that end, the GC charged a Research Committee to develop and plan a research agenda. It is not surprising, however, that given that the Research Committee could only manage to meet twice a year (at the NNER Annual Meeting and AACTE) and that there was an ever-shifting representation at these meetings from the settings; the work didn’t move along very far or fast. After several years of attempts to move the work ahead in this way, it was determined that several new steps needed to be taken. Thus, two subcommittees were established with the tasks of: (1) polling the settings about what research questions they believe are worthy of study and what research they had already conducted that addressed the impact of the AED; and (2) reviewing the research cited in Sirotnik’s book and reports or summaries from the settings on IEI-sponsored initiatives. The work of the two subcommittees was summarized and emergent directions for research were identified. In addition, the co-chairs made a recommendation to the Governing Council that it charge a small group of researchers to meet for a full-day to craft a working research agenda. Out of that full-day meeting, the purposes and audiences for the research were defined, and several overarching questions emerged as well. This working group also outlined strategies for ensuring the participation of all the settings in the studies. Guiding Research Questions
[*The design of specific research questions should be driven by the constructs embedded in the language of the documents/texts listed.] Levels of Implementation of the Research Initiatives All NNER settings will have an opportunity to participate in research on the elements of the above structure for which they have the capacity or where the NNER can support capacity-building. Sites may choose not to participate or may participate with assistance if they do not feel that they have the research resources to do so within their own partners. The research is intended to be mixed-method, including, but not limited to: case studies of settings, surveys of setting constituents and stakeholders, and rich descriptions of practices and how they are implemented. These components of the broader research structure will be based in small networks of settings (3 to 4???) focusing on one or two research elements where there is a particularly rich context for research on those elements. There would be approximately 6 to 8 of these smaller networks focused on particular elements to allow for participation of all settings at this level. Ongoing Structure The research planning committee feels that a person(s) needs to be identified to, based on the revisions and additions to the research committee’s work, orchestrate the following:
2006 National Network for Educational Renewal Annual Conference Theme: Leadership for Simultaneous Renewal: Changing Roles in Changing Times The 2006 NNER annual conference invites a focused dialogue around sustaining partnerships among within the tripartite members and their three distinct cultures. How can democratic ethical leaders make a difference in our settings with the constant change of policy, roles and expectations? Leaders in the pK-12 classroom, at the pK-12 district level, and at the university level are invited to share the challenges and opportunities that they face. Strands: #2 Blending Roles in Changing Times #3 Engaging Arts and Sciences Disciplines in Teacher Preparation #4 Creating democratic, ethical leaders and leadership in P-16 settings. #5 Integrating democracy in P-16 education. Confirmed Conference Keynote Speakers October 19 p.m.—Dr. Nancy Zimpher—President, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH October 20 a.m.—Dr. Cile Chavez--former Superintendent Littleton Public Schools, Littleton CO October 20 lunch—Dr. Bob Moses—The Algebra Project, Cambridge, MA October 20 p.m.—Dr. Spencer Crew—Director, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, October 21 a.m.—Dr. Michael Dantley—President Elect, University Council for Educational October 21 lunch—Dr. John Goodlad—President, Institute for Educational Inquiry, Seattle, WA Conference Event On the evening of October 20, 2006 the conference will provide the opportunity to visit the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center on the banks of the Ohio River in Cincinnati, Ohio. Included in this visit will be a private tour of the historical museum, a social reception, and the opportunity to hear from Dr. Spencer Crew, Director of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. Conference Meetings
Conference Cost
Conference Logistics
|
Copyright © 2006 National Network for Educational Renewal. All rights reserved.