COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FACULTY AND STAFF RETREAT March 18, 2011

1. COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONFACULTY AND STAFF RETREATMarch 18, 2011 Friday Institute 9-12

2. AGENDA • Welcome & Plan for the Day • Friday Institute • 5-year Review – Fleener • Summary of Accomplishments – Kleiman • State of the College • Strategic Planning • Lunch • Faculty Business Meeting – Task Forces • Faculty Mentoring • Communications Strategies • College Climate

3. FI – Five-Year Review: February 2-3, 2011 Review Team • Michael Golden, Principal, The Golden Company, LLC. Former PA Deputy Secretary of Education; VP, Pearson Publishing; and VP, Microsoft. • Tom Houlihan, Principal, Institute for Breakthrough Performance. Former Executive Director of the CCSSO and Education Advisor to North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt. • Alan M. Lesgold, Dean of the College of Education, University of Pittsburgh. • Tom K. Miller, Vice Provost for Distance Education and Learning Technology, NC State University.

4. FI Review Agenda February 2 Morning: Meeting with FI Faculty, Staff and Project Personnel (22) Afternoon: Interviews with External Constituents (NC State, Business & Gov’t Leaders, Partner Organization, School Leaders, Consultants) (23) February 3 Morning: College Administrators Faculty (23) Afternoon: Draft Report Presented Orally

5. Stakeholder Representatives • Pat Ashley, Director of District and School Transformation for the North Carolina, DPI • Myra Best, Special advisor to Governor Perdue and previous director of the NC Elearning Commission. • Valerie Brown-Schild, Director of the Kenan Fellows Program. • J.B. Buxton, founding principal of the Education Innovations Group. Previously served as the Deputy State Superintendent of the NCDPI. • Michael Cerreto, Consultantto the FI during the early planning process and then again to facilitate the strategic planning process. • Scarlet Davis, Associate Superintendent of Watauga Public Schools. • Chris Dede, Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, and consultant for the Friday Institute. • Joe Freddoso, President and CEO of MCNC.

6. Stakeholder Representatives - continued • Senator Howard Lee. Exe. Director of the NC Education Cabinet. • Bill McNeal, Exe. director of the NC Association of School Administrators (NCASA), previously Superintendent of the Wake County Public School System. • Diane Frost, Superintendent of Asheboro Public Schools. • Ann Goodnight, Director of Community Relations at SAS, Board of Governors UNC system, FI National Advisory Board. • Tony Habit, Executive Director, NC New Schools Project • William Harrison, Chair of the NC State Board of Education and Governor Perdue’s senior advisor for education transformation • Gary T. Henry, Professor of Public Policy Analysis, director of the Carolina Institute for Public Policy, and Senior Fellow at the Frank Porter Graham Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill. • Neill Kimrey, Director of Instructional Technology at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

7. Stakeholder Representatives - continued • Elwood Peters, Outreach Coordinator for Centennial Campus Middle School. • Jill Reinhart, Technology Director for Surry County Schools. • Dr. Sharon Schulze, Director of The Science House at NC State. • Wynn Smith, Technology Director for Wilson County Schools. • Mark Sorrells, Senior Vice President for the Golden LEAF Foundation. • Tricia Willoughby. Executive Director of the North Carolina Business Committee for Education and member of the NC State Board of Education. • Jim Zuiches, Vice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development at North Carolina State University.

8. FI Review: Overall Findings Overall, the Review Team was extremely impressed by many facets of the Friday Institute, most notably the tremendous progress made toward achieving the original vision of the Institute. The leadership of the Institute, directed by Glenn Kleiman, has done an outstanding job in many areas.

9. FI Review: Overall Findings (con’d) The Review Team was also impressed and “deeply appreciative” that the Institute created at a major land grant/Research 1 University is providing a shining example for other Universities of how practice and research can combine to make a significant difference in the lives of students and teachers through education transformation.

10. FI Review: Overall Findings (con’d) • The Institute faces challenges; however, these challenges are minor when compared to the successes of the Friday Institute to date. • The Institute is a jewel of the College of Education and of the University. • FridayInstitute [a] powerful tool for educational transformation.

11. Question #1 – Mission & Goals Is the FI successfully addressing its mission – to advance education through innovation in teaching, learning, and leadership – and its goal – to help schools become future-oriented organizations that build upon their traditional strengths while incorporating new learning content, teaching approaches, assessment practices, management strategies, and technology tools to best serve the students of today and tomorrow?

12. Recommendation – Question #1 Mission & Goals • It was an expectation among at least some of the faculty that research should play a more central role. The Review Team recommends that an effort be made to seek and expand research opportunities that are aligned with the Institute’s current mission and efforts, while avoiding an expansion of the research portfolio in a way that would dilute the current work in any way.

13. Question #2 - Expectations Is the Friday Institute successfully balancing the expectations of our multiple stakeholders, clients, and funders?

14. Findings – Question #2 Expectations • The Review Team found the expectations of external stakeholders (which included business leaders, state officials, other education policy makers, and LEA clients) to be generally consistent, and this group collectively felt that their expectations are met and often exceeded by the work of the Institute.

15. Question #3 - Funding • Does the Friday Institute have current funding and future funding opportunities that will enable it to be sustained and continue to develop? • Is the Friday Institute successfully diversifying its funding? • Is it well positioned for ongoing funding?

16. Findings – Question #3 Funding • The Friday Institute has a strong funding base and its leaders and participants are well positioned to continue to secure competitive grants. • The success of the Friday Institute in leading the North Carolina Race to the Top proposal is the strongest indication of its ability to make the case for major programmatic funding.

17. Question #4 - Opportunities • Is the Friday Institute providing appropriate opportunities and support to further the work and careers of faculty, professional staff, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows?

18. Findings – Question #4 Opportunities • The Friday Institute affords some experiences today for students and young doctorates that are truly exceptional. The Review Team felt that these opportunities and experiences were important components of the FI’s value. • Even if one considered only a single venture, the Race to the Top involvement, the Friday Institute would be among the most unique and valuable innovation centers among university institutes around the nation. • The opportunity to be enmeshed in one of the largest and most coherent efforts to transform American education has placed the Friday Institute squarely in the middle of leading efforts to reform education at all levels.

19. Findings – Question #4 Opportunities • The Institute has developed a focused and coherent research portfolio. • Individual researchers expressed concern that the Friday Institute should be supporting their specific research interests. • The FI is doing exactly what was intended by the original funders and supporters of the Institute: namely, building a large and timely effort to bring the best available science to bear quickly on urgent educational needs. • (Note: See forms for Friday Institute Rotating Research Fellows application process)

20. Question #5 – Quality of Scholarship • Is the quality of scholarly activity by faculty, professional staff, and graduate students reflected in the collective output and visibility of the Friday Institute (publications, funded projects, outreach programs, advisory boards, etc.)?

21. Findings – Question #5 Quality • The Friday Institute enjoys an increasingly positive reputation for the quality of its work. • The Institute is viewed as a proactive, nimble, and productive organization with high-quality work that plays the role of connector, partner, and convener extremely well. • The Institute has built visibility and credibility across the state. In some areas, like STEM education, digital literacy, and technology integration into the classroom, its faculty research excels, supported by a strong record of publication.

22. Recommendations – Question #5 Quality • We heard repeatedly in our interviews that the output the Institute produces successfully connects the scholarly world to the world of educational practice. • The prospect exists to articulate further the linkage between scholarly research and outreach to practitioners, rather than focusing on tradeoffs between the two roles. • Perhaps the Friday Institute should be viewed as an agent of innovation in education practice that creates a foundation upon which new research can be built, while also exploring potential outreach to other research institutions to support its work.

23. Question #6 Management • Is the Friday Institute well managed for strategic planning, finances, human resources, space and building operations, technology infrastructure and supports, and event management?

24. Findings – Question #6 Management • The Friday Institute has made positive strides in its internal management and has become a unique and seemingly positive place to work. • A Strategic Plan was developed and completed during the 2009-2010 academic year. The Strategic Plan has since been updated to provide timely guidance to the Institute’s mission and areas of focus over the next few years.

25. Findings – Question #6 Management • Users praise the physical space, the quality of the event management staff, and the building location. • The technology infrastructure aids greatly in establishing this welcoming, modern, and effective space, as does its co-location with the Centennial Campus Middle School.

26. Recommendations – Question #6 Management • The Friday Institute should pursue continued diversification of funding so that it is not dependent on any one source of funds, either public or private. • It should also propose ways to rethink allocations across the College and University to enable it to take greater advantage of the funds it secures for NC State.

27. Friday Institute Report of Activities – Glenn Kleiman

28. BREAK!!!

29. State of the College • Context • University Strategic Plan • Academic Courses and Programs Task Force • Budget • Strategic Realignments within the University

30. Framework for State of College Report: Perspectives on University Strategic Goals • Goal 1: Enhance the success of our students through educational innovation • Goal 2: Enhance scholarship and research by investing in faculty and infrastructure • Goal 3: Enhance interdisciplinary scholarship to address the grand challenges of society • Goal 4: Enhance organizational excellence by creating a culture of constant improvement • Goal 5: Enhance local and global engagement through focused strategic partnerships

31. UG1: Student Success & Educational Innovation – CED Successes • Redesigned all teacher education and leadership programs • Redesigned student support services • Strategically integrated undergraduate (TDE) and masters programs (NLGL) • Created college Ph.D. research core • Created common doctoral core (LPAHE)

32. UG2: Investing in Faculty Infrastructure • Five active searches • Tremendous pools of candidates • Four nearing completion; other identifying final pool • Create centralized pre and post grants support • Challenges • No raises • Potentially larger classes • Potentially fewer graduate assistantships

33. UG3: Interdisciplinary Scholarship to Address the Grand Challenges of Society • Pockets of success • Early College High • Need to focus on what this means for our college • Need to consider “reorganizing graduate training into more flexible graduate fields of study” and lowering “barriers between disciplines and departments”

34. Academic Productivity Report to the Provost: Implications for CED • Low productivity programs identified • Some were old programs still on the books • Some were new programs still developing • Others need to consider strategies for combining with other programs • Specific recommendations made • Combined STEM education (masters and doctoral) • http://www.provost.ncsu.edu/

35. Basis for Analyses: Graduate Program Overall Analysis Variables • Enrollment overall • Enrollment/number of faculty • Applications overall • Applications/number of faculty • Degrees awarded overall • Degrees awarded/number of faculty • GRE verbal scores • GRE quantitative scores • GRE writing scores • Selectivity in admissions (admitted/applications)

36. Dimensions of Program Effectiveness and Efficiency • Productivity—overall enrollment and overall degrees awarded • Efficiency—enrollment/faculty and degrees awarded/faculty • Demand—applications and applications/faculty • Student Quality—GRE scores and selectivity

37. Analysis of Specific Attributes of Programs • Least Productive (defined as having both the lowest enrollments and degrees awarded) • Least Efficient (defined as having both the lowest enrollments per faculty and degrees awarded per faculty) • Least Demand (defined as having both the lowest number of applications overall and the lowest applications per graduate faculty) • Quality of students is jeopardized by low selection and selectivity (defined as having both the lowest number of applications and lowest selectivity) • Students are least academically prepared (defined as having both the lowest verbal and quantitative scores or all the lowest verbal, quantitative, and writing scores)

38. CED Graduate Programs of Concern *These are programs that appeared in the bottom quartiles of 5 or more of the rankings by variable in the overall analysis and/or were identified as programs of concern in the analysis of specific attributes of programs.

39. Specific Recommendation - STEM • Department of STEM Education - combine the three separate programs as one graduate program in STEM Education. • This could be a groundbreaking program … encouraging courses and scholarship in STEM education as well as in mathematics, science, and technical education. • This new configuration may give the program a marketing advantage that would attract more applicants, thus providing the opportunity for increasing productivity, efficiency, and student quality.

40. UG4: Culture of Constant Improvement • COACHE, COMID and Disability Surveys of College Climate and Culture • Need to critically look at programs of strength and programs in need of improvement/focus • Academic Productivity Report • Strategic Plan Draft Report • Student data base • Diversifying funding

41. System of Assessments Guiding Education

42. UG 4: Diversifying FundingJuly 1, 2010 – March 15, 2011 • Dollars Requested: $32 million • Number of Proposals Submitted: 54 • Dollars Funded: $12 million • Number of Proposals Awarded: 13 Of those funded, 3 are Race to the Top grants: • Fusarelli/Militello: $3.57 million • Emer: $3.3 million • Kleiman/Corn/Stallings: $2.68 TOTAL: $9.55 million

43. UG4: Diversifying Funding Sources New sponsors/grant programs this year: • US Dept. of Commerce/National Institute of Standards and Technology, Storberg-Walker/Chapman; $605,000 • NSF RAPID grant (program for quick-response research) Sztajn; $200,000 • BellJAR Foundation, Williams/Blanchard; $75,000

44. Diversifying Funding: Development Please note that only $34,045 of the gift and non-governmental grant activity to date is unrestricted.The vast majority of gifts and non-governmental grants are restricted to a specific purpose. Overall giving is up 174%

45. Budget Context

46. Budget Trends

47. Allocations, reductions, and expenditures FYs 02-12

48. CURRENT CHALLENGE – 9% CUT • Strategies • Preserve academic core and research faculty (including continuing searches for new faculty) • Reduce or streamline non-sustaining outreach programs • Consolidate support services as staff attrition occurs • Reduce departmental support through lapsed salary • Eliminate service courses and sections while protecting college core programs by • combining sections of courses, where possible • eliminating service courses, where possible

49. F&A FY 11 Allocations from Funds Generated in FY 10

50. UG5: Enhance Local and Global Engagement • Passport to Success – Engagement Activities • Teaching Fellows Junior-Year Enrichment Experience in Costa Rica • SAY Village Living and Learning Center outreach • AASEA Most Engaged Student Organization Award • Teaching Fellows Blood Drive • Tuere, Heather, Tim – Outstanding Extension Service Awards