self-study report of the graduate school of education...

Self-Study Report of the Graduate School of Education

University of California, Berkeley

in preparation for Academic Program Review

Fall Semester 2006

page ii GSE Academic Review Front Matter

Table of Contents

page § I. Overview for the Self-Study 1 Mission of the Graduate School of Education (GSE) 1 National Stature of the School 2 Strategic Planning in the Graduate School of Education 3 The 1994 Review 4 Strategic Planning: Selecting Areas for In-Depth Analysis 12 Faculty Recruitment Plan 19 § II. Programs of the GSE The Organizational Setting for Our Program 21 Graduate Programs 27 The Undergraduate Program 39 § III. The Faculty 45 Demographic Characterizations of the Faculty 45 Gauging the Success of the Faculty 48 Faculty Teaching Responsibilities 52 Faculty Life in the GSE 56 Faculty Research 62 § IV. Staffing, Physical Facilities, and Budget 67 Staffing 67 Facilities 70 Resources 72 § V. Administration and Governance 75 § VI. Summary and Strategic Plan 79 Summary of Findings 79 Strategic Plans and Action Steps 81 Schedules and Procedures for Strategic Planning 82

Front Matter GSE Academic Review page iii

Appendices *I. California Institute for Educational Science and Innovation *II.A. Credential Program Descriptions

II.B. Student Recognition II.B.1. National Academic of Education/Spencer Postdoc Fellows – With a Degree from

Berkeley II.B.2. Spencer Foundation Dissertation Year Fellowships Received by Berkeley

Education Students II.B.3. Participation by UC Berkeley Faculty and Students at April 2006 Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco II.C. Undergraduate Researchers III.A. Curriculum Vitae: Academic Senate Faculty III.B. Curriculum Vitae: Non-Senate Faculty *III.C. GSE Faculty Participation on Academic Senate Committees

V.A. By-Laws, Department of Education V.B. By Laws of the Faculty, School of Education V.C. GSE/UCB Committee Memberships, 2005-06 *In this, the shorter version, of the report, only the * items appear as appendices NB: Appendix numbers are linked to the sections of the report: there are no appendices for sections IV

or VI.

page iv GSE Academic Review Front Matter

List of Tables

page § I. Overview for the Self-Study Table I.1: US News and World Report Rankings for Schools of Education 3 § II. Programs of the GSE Table 2.1: A Bird’s-Eye View of the GSE 22 Table 2.2: Areas of Specialization Within the Graduate School of Education 26 Table 2.3: Average Undergraduate GPA and GRE Scores of Admitted Applicants 29 Table 2.4: Admission Rates, 2000-2005 30 Table 2.5: Doctoral Admissions as a Function of Financial Aid 31 Table 2.6: MA/Credential Admissions as a Function of Financial Aid 32 Table 2.7: Enrollment Trends in the GSE 34 Table 2.8: Ranking (1-5) of Most Competitive Graduate Schools by Specialty Area 35 Table 2.9: Placement of PhD Graduates, 2001-2005 37 Table 2.10: Placement of Professional Program Graduates: Teacher Education, 2001-2005 38 Table 2.11: Placement of Professional Program Graduates: PLI, 2001-2005 38 Table 2.12: Undergraduate Minor – UC Schools and Departments of Education 40 § III. The Faculty Table 3.1: Distribution of Faculty by Rank (Fall 2005) 46 Table 3.2: 2004-2005 Faculty Age Data for GSE Versus Campus Data 47 Table 3.3: Berkeley and Peer Group Education Faculty Salaries by Rank 47 Table 3.4: Actual Faculty Workloads, 2004-2005 53 Table 3.5: Education Courses Taught by Instructor Type and Course Level, 2004-2005 53 Table 3.6: Graduate School of Education: Workload Indicators 54 Table 3.7: Graduate School of Education Faculty Recruitments, 2000-2005 57 Table 3.8: Participation in Academic Senate Work 62 Table 3.9: Total Prorated Sponsored Project Awards (in $000) Adjusted for Inflation 64 Table 3.10: Total Prorated Sponsored Project Awards per Faculty FTE (in $000) Adjusted for Inflation 65 § IV. Staffing, Physical Facilities, and Budget Table 4.1: FTE Staff and Headcount by Personnel Program 67 Table 4.2: FTE Staff and Headcount by Function 67 Table 4.3: Staff Duties as Allocated to Functions and GSE Units 68 Table 4.4: Space Utilization 70 Table 4.5: Resources and Expenditures by Source ($000) 73 § V. Administration and Governance Table 5.1: Committees of Department/School of Education 76 §VI. Summary and Strategic Plan

Table 6.1: Schedule for Strategic

Planning in the Graduate School of Education 83

Front Matter GSE Academic Review page v

Acknowledgements

Documents of this magnitude and complexity do not write themselves. They represent the individual and collective efforts of many colleagues in the Graduate School of Education, along with the collaboration and hard work of many colleagues across campus. A few individuals deserve to be singled out for their special efforts.

First, the oversight committee that we put together to help with the planning, data collection, and review of key sections. They are listed in the table below.

Second, our colleagues across campus from the Office of Planning and Analysis were

most helpful in providing us with important data from Cal Profiles and other campus resources and in keeping us connected with the campus side of the planning effort. Of particular assistance early in the process, during the planning and data collection phase, were Trish Hare and Elizabeth Wilcox. Later in the process, Jay Stowsky and Alex Brudy were our primary liaisons.

Third, some individuals did more than their fair share of the writing and editing. Members of the GSE Vision Committee were heavily involved in the initial drafts of §1, particularly the Areas for In-Depth Analysis: Andy diSessa, Alan Schoenfeld, Mark Wilson, Rick Mintrop, Sarah Freedman, and Glynda Hull played key writing roles at key points—either in drafting or polishing. The area speakers—Geoff Saxe, Sarah Freedman, and Judith Warren Little— took the lead in representing their area programs in the document. Deborah Freedman, Lisa Kala, and Frankie Temple were responsible for much of the data and prose that gives life to sections II, IV, and V. Elliot Turiel and Diane Mayer took major responsibilities for crafting and overseeing sections III and II, respectively. And in the final throes of getting to press, Elliot Turiel, Diane Mayer, and Judith Warren Little read, responded to, edited, and polished as we came down to the wire.

Members of the GSE Internal Academic Review Oversight Committee Name Role P. David Pearson Dean Elliot Turiel Associate Dean, Academic Affairs Diane Mayer Associate Dean, Professional Programs Frankie Temple Assistant Dean Andrea A. diSessa Faculty Chair Sarah Washauer Freedman Area Chair: Language & Literacy, Society & Culture Judith Warren Little Area Chair: Policy, Organization, Methodology, and Geoffrey Saxe Area Chair: Cognition and Development Herbert Simons Graduate Adviser Deborah Friedman Director, GSE Student Academic Services Office Lisa Kala Co-Chair, Undergraduate Minor Committee Joyce Burks Secretary

page vi GSE Academic Review Front Matter

Finally, Joyce Burks played a host of roles in this endeavor. She compiled the appendices and added the table of contents and list of tables. She was final arbiter of the prose for this complex undertaking; this went well beyond editing to include a range of significant revisions. And, she deserves our collective gratitude for ensuring the integrity of our prose and our ideas, and making the product look good.

P. David Pearson, Dean August 10, 2006

§ I. Overview for the Self-Study

Introduction

With the publication of this self-study, conducted as a part of the Academic Program Review process at the University of California, Berkeley, the Graduate School of Education begins a process of continuous program evaluation and strategic planning for the long-term future.

We begin with the assertion, grounded in strong evidence included in the report, that the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley is one of our nation’s premier graduate schools of education. It is highly successful in meeting its goals of producing high quality research, preparing the next generation of educational scholars, and implementing cutting-edge programs in professional preparation for a small but significant cadre of teachers and leaders for schools in the Bay Area and beyond.

We hasten to add that leading graduate schools of education, including the GSE at Berkeley, will have to achieve much more if we, either individually or collectively, are to contribute research and professional practices that help to solve the important and vexing problems of preK-16 education in America. Thus our commitment to a process of continuous examination and renewal focused on that broad goal.

This document is one of three key products developed for that review process. The others are an analysis, largely statistical in nature, of the GSE’s academic programs and research productivity conducted by the Campus’s Office of Planning and Analysis, and a report to be constructed by an external review team after their site visit in September 2006. Those three documents will play a key role in a subsequent review by campus administrators and committees of the UC Berkeley Academic Senate; the ultimate result of that process will be a set of recommendations to the Graduate School of Education to guide its short- and long-range planning over the next decade.

The self-study is organized into six sections. Section I provides an overview of the Mission of the GSE, the history of planning and program change over the past several decades, and a strategic plan to guide us in our academic program development in the future. Section II reviews our academic programs of study, both graduate and undergraduate. Section III presents an analysis of the nature, quality, and productivity of the faculty. These three long sections are followed by two shorter sections (IV on Staffing, Space, and Budget, and V on Administration and Governance), and a final section (VI) that provides a summary of key findings along with the highlights of the strategic plan and a set of action steps. A number of appendices follow.

Mission of the Graduate School of Education

The mission of the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley is to be the world’s academic leader in producing and promoting scholarship that improves the quality and equity of educational practices in all settings in which teaching and learning occur. This mission entails three central goals, each related to one of our primary functions as a professional graduate school in a world-class research university:

GSE Academic Review §I. Overview for the Self-Study

• Producing high quality scholarship • Preparing the next generation of educational scholars • Improving professional practice

Because we are a public school of education, we bear an additional responsibility—what we do to fulfill this mission and achieve these goals must also improve the learning, achievement, and quality of life for students in America’s schools. Everything we do—research, professional programs, doctoral programs, and outreach to school and community organizations—must stand the ultimate test of improving practice, extending opportunity, and enhancing performance in our society’s educational institutions.

To ensure that our work serves the broad public agenda for education, the Graduate School of Education, for the past twenty years, has been at the forefront of theoretical and paradigmatic advances in studying and improving learning and development within complex learning settings such as schools, classrooms and communities. We have organized the Graduate School of Education to maximize our effectiveness in fulfilling our mission, making sure we have the flexibility to act and speak with a single voice on some issues and as highly targeted research units on others. Most important, the publication of this self-study, augmented by the academic review that will surround it, marks the beginning of a long-range process of in-depth analysis and future efforts to become even more effective in fulfilling our mission, achieving our goals, and meeting our responsibilities to the campus, the University and the citizens of California, and our nation’s schools.

National Stature of the School

The GSE has been ranked in the top tier of education schools since the inception of the US News and World Report ratings in the mid 1990s. For the first few years, when we housed two national research centers (writing and vocational education), we were ranked at the top. Since that time, our median rank has been number 6 (with a decided dip in 2002 and 2003), consistently behind Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, and Teachers College, Columbia, and alternating ranks with Vanderbilt. We have consistently ranked 2-4 in the peer assessment of institutional quality and impact.

§I. Overview for the Self-Study GSE Academic Review page 3

Table 1.1: US News and World Report Rankings for Schools of Education

University 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 UC Berkeley 6 7 6 11 11 6 4 Harvard University 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 UCLA 2 2 3 3 2 4 5 Stanford University 4 3 1 2 1 2 2 Teachers College 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 Vanderbilt 5 5 4 4 7 5 6 Northwestern 10 6 11 9 10 10 20 U of Pennsylvania 7 7 9 6 5 8 11 Michigan, Ann Arbor 9 9 10 8 7 7 7 UW- Madison 7 9 6 9 6 9 9 New York University 11 11 13 14 18 20 12 U of Minnesota 11 12 19 12 12 20 14

Strategic Planning in the Graduate School of Education

The study of education at Berkeley began in the College of Letters with the creation of the Department of Pedagogy in 1889. In 1900, the department was renamed the Department of Education, and in 1913 the School of Education was established. Since at least the 1960s, strategic planning has occurred in response to a variety of internal and external review efforts, including the 1994 Academic Review.

Throughout the years, several productive tensions have guided these planning efforts: • Contributions to theoretical knowledge versus contributions to practical knowledge • Emphasizing undergraduate versus graduate education • Preparing researchers versus preparing practitioners

In response to internal goals and external recommendations, the School, as early as the late 1960s, began to shift its emphasis and resource allocation from professional education at the post baccalaureate level (MAT or credential only) to research preparation for doctoral students. By the mid 1990s, this shift had been progressed to the point where the distribution of programs in the School could be characterized as a balanced portfolio. The primary emphasis was advanced graduate education for research, with more students in the PhD track than in the credential tracks. Moreover the credential programs that emerged from this era were very different from their predecessors. First, they were much smaller and experimental—in the sense that they were conceptualized as experimental “models” from which we could learn more about the most effective features of professional programs. Second, and equally as important, they were grounded in the same set of “big ideas” about theory and research underlying the advanced MA and PhD tracks. All involved (indeed still involve) the awarding of a Graduate Division MA degree (not an MAT or an MEd degree, as is popular elsewhere in the country), and all of the


credential students meet the same requirements as other (i.e., non-credential) master’s degree students. In short, the credential programs were precisely the sort that “fit” the academic culture of a school devoted primarily to the production of knowledge. As will be documented in §II in our analysis of graduate programs, recent trends in graduate program development have moved us back into a greater relative emphasis on professional programs, with increased enrollments in teacher education and new programs for school and district leaders. However, what has not changed as we have developed new professional programs is the strong grounding in the big ideas of educational theory and research. In short, the researcher-practitioner tension is alive, well, and productive in the GSE—a source of deliberation when it comes to both short- and long-range planning.

Another move toward greater balance turns on the graduate-undergraduate tension. By moving, in the late 1980s, from an ad hoc collection of undergraduate courses to an approved education minor, available to students from a wide range of majors in College of Letters and Science and other colleges on campus, the GSE became a much more significant force in undergraduate affairs on campus. When several of its courses were approved for the American Cultures requirement, it assumed an even greater role in helping the campus as whole meet its obligations to undergraduates. As documented in §II of this self-study, the Undergraduate Minor in Education program is an important part of the GSE’s teaching portfolio, and the instructional workload statistics reveal a close, nearly 50/50 balance, between graduate and undergraduate credit-hour production. This balance, indeed our overall participation in working with the broader campus community to meet the needs of undergraduates, serves us well, both as a way of connecting to campus priorities and in providing opportunities for us to mentor the future professors in our PhD program in the science and art of college teaching.

The 1994 Review

Perhaps the most significant effort in shaping the current programs and organizational structures within the GSE emerged from 1994 Academic Program Review. It had a major impact on both the administrative infrastructure of the GSE and its two program tracks—research and professional degree programs. In a very real sense, we owe the synergies operating within and across the program areas of the GSE to the direction provided by that review and the actions of the faculty in responding to those recommendations. The 1994 review, conducted by Academic Senate and administration of the campus, made twelve recommendations to the GSE:

1. In order to enrich its intellectual life, the School should (a) find ways to eliminate its divisional boundaries and develop a school-wide culture instead; (b) develop ties to other campus units and related disciplines, especially that of public policy; and (c) achieve focus appropriate to both its size and its Berkeley campus location.

2. Individual programs require a critical mass of committed faculty and a level of academic excellence. In particular, Educational Psychology, which has only a single faculty member in the field, should be restored to a size at which it can function with distinction.

3. The EdD should be structured like other professional degrees on the campus.


4. Credential programs should (a) require concurrent completion of an MA or PhD degree, and (b) include significant faculty involvement in teaching and advising.

5. Graduate student support should be increased.

6. Advising responsibilities should be distributed more evenly among the faculty.

7. Faculty-student collaboration on research projects should be increased.

8. Divisional course requirements should be reduced.

9. Required courses should be offered regularly.

10. Data should be systematically collected on placement following graduation.

11. Efforts to recruit minority students and faculty should continue.

12. Additional space is needed for research laboratories and for graduate students to study and meet. The campus should address this need.

Response to the Recommendations. The Graduate School of Education began to address these recommendations immediately, although some of the remedies, because of their ongoing nature, are still in process.

1a. Reorganizing the GSE and promoting School-wide culture. During the tenure of Dean Eugene García, all but one piece of the reorganization plan was put into effect. By the end of the 2000-01 academic year, there were four “areas”—Policy, Organization, Measurement and Evaluation (POME), Cognition and Development (CD), Language Literacy, and Culture (LLC) and Social and Cultural Studies (SCS). During the 2001-02 year, a plan was developed to complete the reorganization by merging LLC and SCS into a single unit: Language and Literacy, Society and Culture (LLSC). The merger was achieved in the 2002-03 academic year. Currently there are no formal divisions, only three “areas” of common intellectual and programmatic interest, each with a “speaker” to convene area activities and oversee teaching, curricular assignments, and the admissions process.

To promote a more vibrant School-wide culture, several successful initiatives have been undertaken in the past decade, and they are documented in specific sections of the report. Most notable among them has been the creation of several school-wide “centers” of research and development activity stemming from the decade-old Research Training Grant from the Spencer Foundation. These centers bring together faculty and students from across the three areas of the School to meet regularly on these common themes in an environment in which students “apprentice” themselves to faculty, communities, and projects. In addition, several other recurring activity structures encourage the development of a School-wide culture:

• GSE Research Day (faculty and students present current research in a day-long event of paper presentations, poster sessions, and symposia)


• GSE Educational Research Series (visiting scholars are invited to give guest lectures and interact with students and faculty on significant issues of research methods and policy issues)

• GSE Department1 meetings are open to all members of the School community—students, staff, and faculty. Elected student representatives from each area are specifically charged with the responsibility of attending these meetings to represent the interests of and to communicate with their constituencies.

• The GSE policy committee brings together School-wide administrators and senior staff, the chairs of School-wide committees, area speakers, and elected student and non-Senate faculty representatives.

1b. Develop ties to other campus units. These efforts, documented in greater detail later in this report (in §III. The Faculty, beginning on page 47) have been most successful. Currently, GSE faculty work regularly on a range of research and development activities with faculty in many other departments and research units on issues of educational equity; research, curriculum, and professional development in mathematics, science, and technology; and the impact of linguistic, cultural, and physical environments on education and learning. The most ambitious collaboration—Cal Prep, the recently opened charter school in Oakland’s west side—involves GSE faculty with faculty from across campus, including many L&S and professional school departments.

1c. Achieve a focus appropriate to its size and location on the Berkeley campus. In a sense, this is the question that this entire academic review document attempts to answer: Has the GSE, over the past decade, established and enacted a mission appropriate to its place on this campus? This is, in fact, the overarching question to which this current self-study and review is directed.

2. Critical mass. In 1994, issues were raised about small units and programs, some with a single faculty member. With mergers and realignments in programs, the critical mass problem no longer exists, save, of course, in areas where we are busily trying to recruit faculty for programs that have experienced a sudden rush of retirements or separations.

3. Restructure the EdD in line with other professional doctorates. Two developments are important here: (a) we have come to rely less and less on the EdD for our mainstream doctoral admissions, as evidenced by the fact that we have awarded, on average, one EdD degree per year for the last four years, and (b) we have developed a Joint EdD program in Leadership for Educational Equity that is decidedly a professional degree, with the expectation that those who earn it will secure positions as urban superintendents or central office staff in Bay Area schools.

4. Restructure credential programs to require (a) a graduate degree (MA or PhD) and significant ladder faculty involvement. Both of these recommendations have been accomplished. Credential-only programs no longer exist in the GSE. All of our current two-year MA programs are headed by a faculty program director and administered by a full-time program coordinator.

1Education is a one-department school. Although there are differences between “School” and “Department,” most community members use the terms interchangeably.


5. Increase graduate student support. Thanks to increased campus support (both block grants and fellowships) and a successful campaign of private support, we dramatically improved our support for graduate study in the GSE over the ten-year period of this review. That said, and as we document in more detail later in the report, the prospects for the future are grim: (a) increased fees strain both the fellowship monies and the Graduate Student Researcher prospects (because grants have allocate almost twice as much to student fees as they did four years ago), (b) two of our most reliable fellowship donors will no longer be able to provide us with as much support for fellowships as they have. We estimate the shortfall here at about $750,000 per year.

6. Achieve greater equity in advising responsibilities. The equitable distribution of advisees remains a problem for the GSE. Despite our best efforts to limit admissions on the basis of current workload, faculty tend to replicate this inequity through their willingness (or lack of willingness) to accept new students. PhD advising loads among ladder faculty vary between 2 and 15 students. This is an area in which we need to undertake a study of how we assign “credit” to faculty and make some revisions in our current policy; in particular we need to find ways to give credit for membership on committees in a non-adviser role.

7. Increase faculty-student collaboration on research projects. We have taken several steps to promote this sort of collaboration: (a) involving more undergraduates, (b) research groups, (c) encouraging faculty to include GSR positions in external grant applications, especially in light of recent losses in donor gifts for fellowships. The dilemma with regard to grants is the trade-off between faculty buy-out and GSR support. The key question is, without some faculty relief from teaching or service responsibilities, will they have the time to provide the mentoring that GSRs need and deserve?

8. Reduce divisional (now area) course requirements for graduate degrees. This change was accomplished soon after the recommendation in the 1994 review; in fact, elaborate divisional (now area) requirements were replaced with a more overall, more flexible approach to doctoral coursework and the creation of School-wide core requirements that students enroll in courses offered in areas of the GSE not their home area. Additionally, our PhD requires coursework from outside the GSE. All of these forces have worked together to create a more flexible degree with broader coursework experiences than was typical of the early 1990s.

9. Offer required courses on a regular basis. There are various sorts of “requirements”; namely, those needed to complete a specific program of study (program requirements), and those intended to guarantee breadth of experience (GSE core courses). The planning for and delivery of specific program requirements is the responsibility of each area within the GSE. Each area is responsible for contributing three GSE core courses each academic year. This small set of core courses is intended to address broad subject matter that complement the specialized offerings from other areas of the School. Every PhD student takes at least one core course outside his/her area and usually one within.

10. Collect data on placements following graduation. For the past five years, we have worked to establish better systems of keeping track of our graduates, and we have been increasingly successful in maintaining contact with them. While we do this for all of our programs, it is doubly important for our credential programs because the California Commission


on Teacher Credentialing requires us to report data on the success of graduates who go into teaching, administration, or specialized services.

11. Continue efforts to recruit minority faculty and students. Perhaps the most visible actions on this front were (a) to create a continuing committee to address issues of diversity and affirmative action, and (b) to allocate 1.0 FTE GSR funding devoted to recruiting a diverse student pool. On the student recruitment front, we use all of the tools available to us in a post-2092 environment to increase the pool of applicants from underrepresented groups, with the expectation that the increased pool will result in an increased yield of enrolled students from these groups. There is no question that the availability of the campus-wide diversity fellowships has served our interests well, as it has served the interests of all departments on the campus. Our approach is effective in the sense that we are quite consistent in leading the campus in the proportion of minority enrollees; we believe, however, that we fall short of our potential (see later sections). We have in place an elaborate strategy for contacting minority students who are on the verge of completing their undergraduate degrees, and we are considering hiring a full time diversity coordinator. On the minority faculty front, our impact has been modest, at best. Of the eighteen hires made in the GSE since 1994, four are members of underrepresented groups. Unfortunately, three minority faculty have separated from the GSE and one has retired, leaving us with four (out of 35) faculty from underrepresented groups. We expect our engagement with the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative, coupled with a strategy of earmarking new position requests for areas of scholarship that have a larger than average pool of minority scholars, to improve our minority recruiting success in the future.

12. Add space for research laboratories and for students to work together. This was the one recommendation from the last review for which accountability fell to the campus rather than the GSE. Not surprisingly, given the campus-wide competition for space, the campus has not followed through on this recommendation. To ensure laboratory research space for every faculty member and his/her cadre of doctoral advisees at the same time as we expanded our portfolio of extramurally funded research projects, we moved several of our research projects off campus—mainly to offices along the Shattuck corridor. This is less than ideal in terms of building cross-area community, but few other options currently present themselves.

Current approaches to strategic planning. The GSE currently has two approaches to strategic planning, the first with a longer and more well established history than the second. The annual request for new faculty positions engages the faculty in an ongoing process of reviewing program priorities. That process shapes the future configuration and scholarly focus of our faculty, which is, of course, our most important resource in determining future academic directions. In addition, in 2002 the GSE initiated a process for creating a vision of the GSE to guide our efforts in the next two decades. Central to that process was the formation of a Vision Committee to consider possibilities and draft proposals for departmental consideration. Progress since 2002 has been uneven for reasons laid out below, and the current review serves as one means for moving that process forward

2Proposition 209, an initiative passed by the voters of California in 1996, prevents public institutions from engaging in affirmative action practices, i.e., race or ethnicity cannot be considered in admissions or hiring processes.


Annual position request deliberations. Consistent with our faculty-centric governance traditions in the GSE and on the campus, the annual position request deliberations balance group priorities (mostly represented as our three program areas3) with individual interests (represented in our ballot process for voting on overall priorities). The impetus for new position requests comes largely from our three program areas, but individuals or specific programs—such as the Principal Leadership Institute, the Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity, or the Undergraduate Minor in Education program—could (and do) develop proposals for new faculty lines. Once the position descriptions have been developed, we distribute them to Senate faculty in anticipation of a meeting to discuss the relative merits of the requests. After these public deliberations, the Senate faculty votes on priorities via secret ballot. The dean has some degrees of freedom to alter the priorities after the ballot but seldom alters the final rankings more than a few positions. In short, there is strong thread of decentralized, democratic (albeit limited to Senate faculty) decision-making in this process.

This process exhibits both virtues and shortcomings. The most transparent virtue is ensuring that each faculty member has a voice in the process; and, as in any democratic process, individuals can build coalitions with others to lobby for mutually beneficial support. It is also a process that serves to preserve and strengthen good programs. All things considered, the system tends to be a conservative influence (in the sense of conserving the status quo) because, other things being equal, various groups within the GSE lobby to preserve the current configuration of positions. One shortcoming is that the approach tends to favor the interests of the largest subgroups because they control the largest bloc of votes. A second shortcoming is that this annual process tends to be more reactive than proactive and to favor short-term over long-term priorities. New initiatives, especially those championed by an individual or small group, are not likely to emerge from such a decidedly democratic approach. They would fare better in a process in which authority for deciding on new positions was vested in either a representative (e.g., a committee or task force) or autocratic (e.g., a single leader) process.

The work of the vision committee. By contrast, the Vision Committee of the GSE, first convened in the winter of 2002, was formally charged with the responsibility of thinking beyond existing programs and practices—to determine the goals and initiatives that a graduate school of education in a world-class research university should champion in the year 2020. What value would such an education school add to campus, to K-12 schools, and to various constituencies in the broader academic and social contexts in California, the nation, and the world? The committee was asked to consider new internal and external structures that would help us achieve whatever set of goals and initiatives we might settle on. Finally the committee was asked to consider who would work in such a place: Would it be academics as we know them? A broader mixture of traditional academics and practitioners? Or perhaps a new kind of academic with strong roots in communities of practice? Maybe even something like professors of clinical practice. The admittedly immodest goal of the vision process is to create a school that does for education in the first two decades of the 21st century what the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine did for the medical profession in the wake of the Flexner report early in the 20th century.

3These areas are described in the introduction to §II. They are Cognition and Development (CD), Policy, Organization, Measurement, and Evaluation (POME), and Language and Literacy, Society and Culture (LLSC).


The committee got off to a fast start, created a first draft of a long-term plan and hosted a day-long retreat for faculty and administrative staff in which we considered the draft plan for establishing a pair of linked structures that would allow us to coordinate our research and development efforts within the GSE. One such structure was what we called a “learning place,” a term chosen carefully to distinguish it from any existing institutions of teaching and learning, such as schools. The idea was to collaborate with a school district, a community organization, a charter school, or some yet to be identified institution to create a place in which systematic research and development on key issues of pedagogy and learning could take place. Another key structure was what we dubbed a “learning institute.” The logic of the institute was that it would be attached to the GSE but sit “outside” of its direct administration, perhaps as something like an Organized Research Unit.4 The hope was that the learning institute would become a campus-wide interdisciplinary organization that would allow us to collaborate with disciplinary and professional colleagues across campus on matters of mutual interest related to education. The ultimate goal for the vision effort, once our plans for a Learning Place and a Learning Institute were set, was to locate a champion, a wealthy donor who would view endowing such an effort as a worthwhile legacy for his or her name and for the future of educational scholarship and practice.

Response to the plan was mixed, with many concerns raised about the direction and feasibility of the two structures proposed. Even so, the response was generally encouraging. In the months that followed, committee work was suspended as faculty turned to two immediately pressing developments: developing the Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity, and planning for the campus-wide Early College High School (Cal Prep) initiative. Each of these developments was consistent in important ways with the emerging vision, but each was also driven by external pressures with regard to both substance and pace.

The development of the Joint Doctoral Program (JDP) in Leadership for Educational Equity was prompted by an agreement between the Chancellor of the California State University system and the President of the University of California system to pair UC campuses with CSU campuses to offer EdD programs to meet the need for district-level administrators throughout the state of California, especially in high poverty areas. In spite of the external motivation for this effort, it has proved to be an important linkage between GSE faculty and district personnel struggling to meet the challenges of accountability, ethnic and linguistic diversity, and poverty in the state of California. Ultimately, we would expect relationships of this sort to be a part of our portfolio of collaborations in a Learning Institute.

Similarly, the Cal Prep initiative offers one possible instantiation of our concept of “a learning place,” a context in which we could test new pedagogical and curricular theories/practice and in which the GSE could forge closer relations with faculty from other departments. Again, however, program development outpaced the articulation of an overall vision for the GSE, creating a possible “tail that wags the dog” problem, or at the very least the perception of such a problem.

4Organized Research Units are free-standing, cross-disciplinary research units, usually thematic and problem-focused, on the UC Berkeley campus.


These developments, together with the ongoing demands of research, instructional, and advising activity, took their toll on our efforts to devote time and resources to a long-term vision setting. The vision process is alive but in need of a transfusion of energy, commitment, and external funding resources. Whether the vision committee continues as a named entity, the need remains for serious, forward-looking, “blue sky” strategic planning that it was trying to meet. And, in fact, a more modest version of the learning place/learning institute proposal has become part of the campus-wide portfolio of “interdisciplinary” units for which the campus is seeking philanthropic support in the upcoming capital campaign.5

The 2006 academic review. That brings us to our current mode of strategic planning, which has been prompted by the review for which we have prepared this self-study. Most significant in this current effort has been the creation of a small oversight committee to guide the preparation of the self-study, the active involvement of many faculty and staff in collecting data and drafting sections, and two public events, namely a town hall meeting of the whole GSE in November and a full-day faculty and staff retreat in January of 2006.

Town hall meeting. At the November town meeting, all members of the GSE community (staff, faculty, and students) were invited to offer their views on current programs and practices and plans for future initiatives. A number of issues and topics were raised in the free-flowing conversation, including these:

• Infusing issues of diversity and equity into all aspects of life and work in the GSE: coursework, scholarship, hiring of faculty and staff, student recruitment. Students noted that often they go outside the GSE to find courses that emphasize issues of race, equity, and social justice.

• Education for participation in democratic decision-making. • Altering the marginalized position of ed schools in the larger academic conversation. • Improving our connections to educators in the local Bay Area and California, including

our own alumni, through conferences, seminars, and special events. • Encompassing international issues, such as globalization, immigration, asynchronous

communication, and distance education. • Maintaining and expanding our capacity to bring theory and research to matters of

practice. In this way, we focus on the distinctive contribution that we, as an ed school in a research university, can make.

• Analyzing the consequences of ill-fated educational policies and championing alternative approaches to school reform.

• Enhancing student engagement in the GSE planning process.

Retreat. At the January retreat, the teaching faculty (Senate faculty, academic coordinators, adjunct faculty, lecturers) and key staff of the GSE met to consider the first draft of this self-study and propose elements of a strategic plan. Partial drafts of various documents, most notably a framing section in which members of the vision committee had drafted a mission statement and three areas for in-depth analysis, were available for examination and discussion. Most of the discussion centered on the viability of those areas for in-depth analysis. The three

5This document appears as Appendix 1: California Institute for Educational Science and Innovation.


areas proposed for in-depth analysis were diversity, learning in complex environments, and examining professional practice. While those concepts survived the retreat and ultimately made their way into this document, they were drastically modified during the discussion and in subsequent drafts of this self-study. Feedback from the retreat has been the basis of the modification of ideas in the version of this current version of the self-study.

A work in progress. This document is not likely to be the last word in our planning process. We have adopted the stance that strategic planning will be an ongoing process not a plan set in stone at a point in time. We doubt that we “got it right” in the plan that follows in this document. Further, we expect that our strategic plan and areas for in-depth analysis will change as a result of the external review team visit; in fact, what would be difficult is to imagine that the careful analysis of scholars such as those invited to campus would not materially alter our plans in substantive and positive ways. In anticipation of this likelihood, we will, throughout the document, flag areas for which we are seeking the explicit advice of reviewers. Finally, our strategic plan will, in all likelihood, be revised as a result the campus review process that occurs after the site visit (review by campus administration and several committees of the Academic Senate). In anticipation of embracing this effort as a process not an outcome, we have made scheduled day-long retreats and open town meetings in each semester for at least the next two academic years.

Strategic Planning: Selecting Areas for In-Depth Analysis

In the process of reflecting on our successes and facing our challenges, we have identified three areas for in-depth analysis. These areas define our intellectual and professional commitments to the future. Each of these areas would be worthy of the entire attention of a campus unit such as the GSE, but we see a unique strength in confronting all three of these challenges within a single unit—our endeavors in each benefit from the attention of the others. As mentioned above, these challenges (and opportunities) are diversity and equity, learning in complex environments, and professional program improvement. In putting forward these three broad themes, we commit ourselves to a future in which we attempt to infuse them into all aspects of our work within the GSE—our teaching and mentoring, our research, and our service to the public and our profession. Our success in building the sort of education school needed by future generations—one that contributes to our collective capacity to manage the dilemmas and problems of education—will be in part measured by the degree to which, by that time, these themes have been woven into the fabric of our everyday academic life in the Graduate School of Education. In a very real sense, nothing could be more strategic than creating a graduate school of education that took seriously the need for progress in these areas:

• Diversity and Equity • Learning in Complex Environments • Improving Professional Practice

In the sections that follow, we detail both our accomplishments related to these themes and our goals and plans for the future.

Area 1: Diversity and equity. California, with one of the most diverse populations in the world, has yet to realize its potential to lead the US and the world in celebrating and harnessing that diversity in service of individual development and the collective good. There are major new


efforts afoot right now on campus—the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative being primary—to take up this challenge in a wide range of disciplines, departments, and collective efforts. For a school of education, the longstanding challenge concerning diversity is educational equity and access—that is, insuring that all children have the opportunity to receive a high quality education. Given the disparities in educational achievement and opportunity that persist in California, following all too familiar ethnic/racial, socio-economic, and linguistic patterns, it is hard to overestimate the importance of transforming California’s schools and teaching force and expanding the representation of diversity in the faculty, staff, and student body of our School and campus.

We must work with educators around the state and on campus to transform California’s schools into places that capitalize on diversity as a resource rather than tolerate it as an instructional inconvenience. Just as surely, we need to sponsor initiatives to recruit a more diverse teaching force, one that more closely mirrors California’s demographic profile; and we need to develop teacher education and professional development programs that equip all teachers with the knowledge of language, culture, and learning required to respond effectively to the diversity of their students. These issues we see as at the core of our research, teaching, and service.

Over the years, faculty from the GSE have, in fact, carried out many research and development efforts that have taken equity or diversity as a central theme. In the recent past, two national research centers, one on literacy and writing and the other on vocational education, took as their missions improving critical aspects of schooling for diverse student populations. Two other important projects from the past, the Diversity Project and the Responsive Learning Communities, also signal our long-term commitment to diversity. The Diversity Project was a collaborative research and reform effort between representatives from UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Education and Berkeley High School, while the Responsive Learning Communities project focused on enhancing the educational opportunities of children from immigrant families. Currently, the GSE houses the Diversity in Mathematics Education Center (DiME), a National Science Foundation-funded national center designed to build the infrastructure related to the study of racial performance gaps in mathematics education. DiME works at a variety of levels: increasing the numbers of ethnically diverse youth who receive a challenging mathematics education, and increasing the numbers of ethnically diverse mathematics teachers. The GSE is also home now to CREDE, the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Equity, a federally funded research-and-development program to improve the education of students whose potential is stymied by a range of challenges associated with language, race, geography, and socio-economic status. A series of research projects by faculty from within and outside the GSE will accompany the development of Cal Prep, where 85% are students of color and about 65% receive free and reduced lunch entitlement.

In addition, many other current GSE projects and programs, organized by individual faculty members, take as their goal fostering inclusive and high quality educations for diverse student bodies. Such projects, for example, focus on

• curriculum (How might we design rich reading experiences for students in low-income schools that are caught in the grip of high stakes testing?)

• assessment (What technologies can reliably assist in the assessing language performance of bilingual students?)


• school reform (How do diverse students experience the “small school” movement, and what impact does it seem to have on academic performance?)

• teaching and pedagogy (How do excellent teachers cope with heterogeneous classrooms, and how can their insights be incorporated into teacher education programs?)

• individual development (How does identity formation, especially notions of self as gendered and raced, intersect with academic achievement?)

• community collaborations (What do successful university and community collaborations look like, and how might they best be sustained?)

Such efforts, although wide-ranging, have in common a commitment to turn innovative social science theories and methodologies toward the solutions of difficult educational problems; the linkage of such research with the development of programs, curricula, and tools; and long-term and sustained involvements in local communities and schools.

Our instructional programs have likewise had at their center a commitment to producing teachers, principals, and superintendents, as well as researchers, who understand how classrooms, schools, and school systems can best be configured to draw on the strengths of children who reflect California’s linguistic, ethnic/racial, and socio-economic diversity. Diversity-related efforts are explicit foci of the Principal Leadership Institute, the Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity, and all our teacher preparation programs. Each year our undergraduate minor introduces hundreds of Cal students, representing every major on campus, not only to theory and research related to the transformation of schools and education, but to opportunities to volunteer in the diverse classrooms of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, and the greater Bay Area, and to consider careers in teaching through firsthand experience with children and youth from diverse urban communities.

There is, then, a history of and a base for concerted effort and a long-term commitment to issues of equity in the GSE, one in which we take some pride and to which we remain staunchly committed. At the same time, we recognize that there are many ways in which the School’s efforts in this realm could have a more palpable and significant impact. As is apparent from our discussion above, our work on diversity and equity has been carried out by a variety of individuals and groups within the GSE. Too often, colleagues have not joined forces with each other to tackle different elements of always complex problems and contexts; nor have we often targeted particular schools for sustained interventions over time; and almost never have we collaborated with colleagues from other departments in a more comprehensive effort to research and ameliorate problems that impact schools and children’s futures but that exist beyond the schoolhouse door. Issues of equity in any domain, but particularly in education, are extremely challenging intellectually, and genuine and lasting solutions will no doubt call for greater coherence, focus, and reach. Thus, although we consider our work in this area one of our areas of excellence, we also consider it one to which we should devote increased energy and resources in the next ten years.

Certainly faculty recruitment and retention will be key. The GSE has lost several faculty members who worked actively in this area (e.g., Pedro Noguera, Lily Wong Fillmore, Anne Dyson, and Eugene García), and it is time that we replaced them with a new cadre of scholars who are equally as committed to this research agenda. A wide range of GSE faculty will play a significant role in the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative, both focusing our own efforts in a


more concerted manner and reaching out to colleagues across campus with similar interests. In doing so, we expect to build a more solid research base regarding issues of diversity and equity over the coming decade. At the same time, links to practice around issues of diversity are not as strong as they might be: much of what is known does not make its way successfully into practice even in local schools. The GSE needs to be more strategic about making connections with policy-makers and practitioners around these issues, thereby making our work more powerful. To provide orchestration, coordination, and leadership in these many realms, we have created a position in the GSE for a Director of Diversity Research.

Area 2: Complex learning environments. Over the last twenty years the GSE has developed a reputation for theoretical and paradigmatic advances in the study of individuals within complex learning environments such as schools, classrooms and communities. Much of this interdisciplinary work has self-consciously taken place in “Pasteur’s Quadrant” (Stokes, 1997), via the choice of problems whose solutions advance theory while addressing issues of public need. The result is the beginning of an enhanced capacity to make sense of learning “where it counts,” but in deeply theoretical ways. Although great strides have been made in this arena, much work—including a theoretical unification of the “cognitive” and “sociocultural” perspectives—lies ahead of us. For that reason we have chosen the study of complex learning environments as an arena for in-depth analysis and as a focal point for the GSE’s efforts over the next decades. Our efforts may be summarized within three broad domains of advancement, each representing a substantive and methodological lens that can be focused on learning.

Individual/developmental lens. In the 1980s learning was typically studied in the psychological laboratory, modeled by artificial intelligence programs, or documented in sociological/anthropological terms; there was no unified view of thinking and learning in content areas such as mathematics and science. In 1985, the GSE created the world’s first interdisciplinary PhD program in cognitive science and science and mathematics education. The program had the dual aims of (a) developing robust understandings of learning processes that could be used in practical ways to improve schooling, and (b) to deepen and enrich basic theory by exploring cognitive phenomena not in the laboratory but in complex learning environments such as schools. By the early 1990s, programs similar to Berkeley’s were developed at a number other research universities, often with our graduates helping to shape the ways in which their new departments conducted educational research and development. Programs of the type we initiated are now the norm nationwide, and increasingly worldwide.

As a component of our practical-and-theoretical thrust, the GSE was a pioneer in the development of design experiments, an approach to the study of learning that both draws from and contributes to advances in cognitive science by engineering and studying change in real classrooms. The design experiment is an adaptation of the process of product-related design and development as carried out in engineering departments, but with a focus on social and psychological issues, especially as they are pertinent to the study of learning. In focusing on the interactions that produce learning, design experiments begin to bridge cognitive and sociocultural theories—an arena at the cutting edge for efforts over the coming decades.

Sociocultural lens. All of the programs of study in the GSE examine teaching, learning, and schooling through a social lens. But the signature perspective of the GSE was its ground-breaking work as one of the first schools of education to foreground an explicitly sociocultural


perspective when it adopted in the early 1980s a unified, highly contextualized approach to the study of reading, writing, and oral language. The School also pioneered the linkage of cognitive with socio-cultural understandings of language use and literacy practices as situated within institutions, cultures, and societies. This line of scholarship has as its center the transformation of schools and other educational spaces; in this transformation process, the work also supports teachers as learners across their careers, promotes promising social futures for underserved youth, enhances equity, and honors social, cultural, and linguistic diversity. To accomplish these social and cultural aims, we focus on the most fundamental of human tools and resources, language and symbolic systems, making sure to explore both more traditional (speech and print) and more current (digital and media representations) of language and thought. Through these lenses we investigate such issues as social inequality; race, ethnicity, gender, and social class; migration and immigration; globalization; and community revitalization. These issues and the sociocultural lenses used to study them have the potential to impact virtually all our program efforts in the GSE.

Policy/organizational lens. Central to our work in the GSE is a concern for good schools and a commitment to help them become reality. Good schools, in our view, strive towards deep understanding, high levels of performance and achievement, and educational justice. Good schools develop within broader economic, political, institutional and socio-cultural contexts that foster lifelong learning opportunities, equity, and democratic participation for the widely diverse populations of students in this country. Schools with these characteristics come about when they are conceptualized as learning communities—places in which everyone’s learning and development, including that of students, teachers, administrators, and community members, is taken seriously and explicitly supported. Learning communities can prosper when policies are deliberately designed to counteract the pernicious effects of structural inequality and bureaucratic barriers. Effective educational reform centrally entails a process of adult and student learning and unlearning that takes place in classes nested in schools, schools nested in districts and communities, and districts nested in wider state and federal political environments. Such reform advances systemic conditions conducive to cognitive, affective, and social-political learning goals that spring from rigorous scientific endeavors as well as democratic discourse. Our theory development, methodological approaches, and advancement of practical solutions aim at capturing this multi-layered complexity.

The synergies. Even more than in the past, our cutting-edge work on learning must advance on three levels, each involving fundamental synergies among the lenses that characterize our work. First, it must be integrative—both increasingly multi-disciplinary and decidedly cross-programmatic. It should integrate tools and knowledge from a wide range of disciplines across campus (and represented among our GSE faculty)— economics, political science, mathematics, physical and biological science, sociology, and anthropology. The cross-programmatic feature will allow our work to benefit from the School’s strengths in the areas of sociocultural perspectives, learning sciences, and policy analysis. Second, it should take a fundamentally pluralistic stance toward research methods—involving sophisticated multi-level statistical procedures, qualitative methods, critical appraisals of context and policy, and new approaches to measuring both outcomes and processes in educational contexts. Third, it must forge increasingly stronger links between theory and practice, thus ensuring that practice is driven by theory and research rather than ideology.


Area 3: Professional programs. We are in a unique situation in the GSE to learn a great deal about the efficacy of professional preparation and the principles of practice that account for quality. But in order to learn something of value about these principles, we must make a fundamental shift in the way in which we engage with our professional programs. For all too many years, professional education at Berkeley (and in other schools as well) has been something we do, not something we study. To move to a more reflective and self-conscious approach, we must make a fundamental shift from a “doer” role to the role of the “reflective practitioner”; only in that way will be able to turn the lens of researchers onto their own enterprise.

Our history. Our approach to creating high-quality professional programs is straightforward: We recruit the best and brightest students we can find, we treat them as intellectually committed scholars while they are with us, and we prepare them to work effectively in the most challenging school contexts our nation has to offer—the urban schools of the Bay Area. Moreover, we expect and prepare them to assume positions of leadership in their schools, districts, and professional communities as they gain experience and maturity. This expectation of leadership applies to our teacher candidates as well as those who aspire to become assume traditional roles of leadership, such as that of principal, district staff, or superintendent.

Given the inequities and other challenges of our K-12 schools, it is clear that the practitioners who work in those schools—classroom teachers, administrators, and various kinds of specialists—must be better prepared to meet the challenges of educating all of today’s students for tomorrow’s world. Moreover, given the chronic nature of these problems, it is also clear that the quality of preparation needed for more effective practice cannot be achieved by the means currently in favor. It is not enough to ensure that all educators are familiar with conventional approaches to best practice—and certainly not the highly regimented versions of best practice touted in many of the current, allegedly research-based reforms; nor is it enough simply to recruit the “brightest and best” teachers for our schools, as the mixed success of alternative route programs, such as Teach for America, document each year. Rather, the vexing problems of today’s educational landscape require intelligent, committed practitioners who are as well informed by the latest research on human cognition, learning, and development as they are skilled in adapting that research to their local contexts through the social, cultural, and linguistic filters that give the research life in particular settings. Only in this way can practitioners approach their work as true professionals who understand both their professional responsibility to keep their knowledge current and their ethical commitment to adapt that knowledge to the needs, interests, and goals of the communities in which they work.

This vision of professional practice is not new to the GSE. In fact, it has guided our professional education programs for at least the past quarter century, and it has resulted in well established, innovative, highly regarded programs that nurture future leaders for our schools and professional organizations. The depth of preparation these programs provide is reflected in the fact that each of them is well supported by research faculty and that each leads not only to professional certification6 but to a master’s or doctoral degree as well. Growing appreciation for

6In the case of our EdD in Leadership for Educational Equity, there is no state credential in the offing; however the same principle of “on the job internship experience” characteristic of our credential programs also guides this practice-oriented degree program.


the wisdom in this vision of professional education can be seen in such recent developments as the founding of a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards as an independent body that has demonstrably enhanced the quality of professional practice through rigorous advanced certification of over 32,000 experienced teachers over roughly the past decade. The high standards established by NBPTS were influenced by the work of our teacher preparation programs at Berkeley and, in turn, they now influence the way we prepare teachers and other practitioners at the pre-service level. Our Principal Leadership Institute is setting a high standard in the state of California as a model of both initial preparation and continuing professional development. So we have held these aspirations—and done a tolerable job of fulfilling them—for over two decades.

Our opportunities. The GSE could take steps to strengthen and capitalize on its programs of professional preparation in three respects: expanding follow-up support for graduates during the induction period; introducing a coherent program of preparation for doctoral students aspiring to be teacher educators or educators of school and district leaders; and promoting a research agenda that takes advantage of the explicitly experimental character of these programs to help advance our understanding and practice of professional preparation.

Our first opportunity to strengthen programs of professional preparation centers on helping graduates make good on the promise of their preparation. As good as our programs are, they consistently fall short on at least one critical dimension—follow-up support once our graduates leave campus. At present, only a small number of graduates enjoy intensive induction support provided by faculty, staff, and doctoral students in the GSE. Faculty and staff of the Principal Leadership Institute invite graduates of the program to participate in the Leadership Support Program, a three-year program that meets monthly, provides coaching support to new leaders, and offers the Professional Administrative Credential; the program emphasizes reflection, site-based inquiry and problem-solving. Of the 146 PLI graduates (cohorts 1-5) who have taken on positions of school leadership, 110 (or 75%) take part in the support network. Graduates of the School’s three teacher education programs may compete for grants from Project Impact, a program that provides stipends and facilitators to school-based teams of novice teachers (years 1-3) who are interested in pursuing teacher inquiry as part of their induction experience. Project Impact has supported twenty-four teams of teachers in seven districts, a total of just over a hundred teachers, over the past three years. By comparison to the overall volume of graduates, these numbers remain small and the programs that support them suffer the usual vulnerability to fluctuations in extramural funding. Yet these programs supply evidence that access to systematic follow-up support from GSE faculty and staff proves an important resource for graduates in that crucial period of induction after they secure their first jobs.

A second opportunity lies in the fact that many of the graduates of our doctoral programs go on to careers in teacher education or administrator education but receive no coherent, systematic preparation for that work. Our programs of professional preparation provide interested doctoral students with experience as field supervisors and with the opportunity to observe or participate in program courses or other activity; however, there is no venue, other than periodic conversations with advisers, for such students to situate their experience in relation to the field of professional education research and practice. A small group of interested faculty has begun conversations about the potential for an EdD specialization in professional education,


and the current GSE review provides one impetus for moving that discussion forward and locating it in relation to other priorities and commitments.

Finally, the School’s programs present important opportunities for research that could both advance our understanding of professional preparation and induction and improve our relationships with the Bay Area schools where our graduates work. Individual faculty and doctoral students have used the programs as sites for various small-scale studies over the years, but a more systematic and sustained discussion of compelling problems of knowledge and practice might yield a research agenda and selected projects in which faculty and students could productively collaborate. The GSE’s professional education committee7 could provide one home for such a conversation, ensuring that any proposal for research be both desirable and feasible.

Working across areas of analysis. This third area of analysis bleeds into the other two, for in improving the practice of professional educators, we must also address issues of diversity and equity and learning in complex environments. Also a major challenge of future development is the forging of a closer connection between research, learning (both professional learning and student learning), and educational practice. Research on equity-oriented policies and their implementation, school improvement, and leadership and teacher preparation need to be more strongly interwoven and tied to the School’s expertise on learning in complex environments and designing practical experiments. Our future obligation will be to situate our work in tough cases, schools that struggle to provide a quality education to students whose interests and welfare have not been well served in our schools and in our society more generally. We need to expand knowledge about conducive learning environments and school improvement, increase the local supply of top-notch leaders and teachers, and provide support for struggling schools. Practical school improvement efforts and design experiments can inform and update our research knowledge while such knowledge must, in turn, inform school improvement and leadership preparation, both in the GSE and around the nation. Given this laudable goal, it is easy to see why the proposals of the vision committee hold so much appeal for faculty in the GSE—having a close and privileged relationship with a school (or schools) within a diverse community setting (this could be our learning place), where we study both the learning of students and future professionals, would provide just the right setting for conducting research that weaves together these three themes.

Faculty Recruitment Plan

It follows that our plans for faculty hiring must reflect our commitment to these three themes, as well as to the work that has brought us to our current status and situation. Our plan for recruiting new faculty is grounded in two assumptions: (a) that we need to build on the existing strengths that have made us productive, helped us create appealing programs, and brought us the national prominence we enjoy, and (b) that we must seize every opportunity to promote the three forward-looking School-wide themes we have laid out in our areas of in-depth analysis—diversity and equity, learning in complex environments, and professional program development. To that end, we propose to hold ourselves accountable to these criteria in evaluating requests for new positions and our overall plan:

7A list of our committees is included as Appendix V.


1. New positions should focus on problems and issues that help the GSE achieve its mission and goals and meet its responsibility to improve public education.

2. New positions should augment the work of existing faculty and increase our ability to work at the cutting edge of research, teaching and service.

3. New positions should be defined with sufficient breadth as to attract a world-class pool of applicants—to ensure that academic talent and intellectual promise outweigh program fit.

4. Given the modest size of the school, new positions must serve the needs of existing programs, invite synergy among programs and areas within the School, and increase our collaborations with other departments and research units on campus.

5. Our overall recruiting plan and each new search should bolster existing program strengths and promote one or more of our GSE themes.

§II. Programs of the GSE GSE Academic Review page 21

§ II. Programs of the GSE

The Organizational Setting for Our Programs

In order to enhance educational scholarship and practice in meaningful ways, UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education must operate in many different intellectual spheres. While no single individual can operate in all the relevant spheres, as a unit the GSE faculty must influence them all. Some of the faculty must understand and shape educational policy at every level—national, state, district, and school. They must be able to provided research-based guidance on issues as different as the impact of standards and testing on schools and students, the efficacy of different programs for English language learners, or the value added of professional development in school improvement programs. Others must focus on the sociological and anthropological factors that shape how children and their parents relate to the schools, how schools relate to communities, and how all those factors play out in classroom practices and student achievement. Still others must understand and support the teaching and learning of specific subject matter (e.g., mathematics, the sciences, social studies, literature), a task that requires a triadic understanding of the discipline being learned, the psychology and sociology of learning, and the role that various cultural contexts play in shaping policy, practice, and pedagogy. Faculty in these different arenas must interact productively with each other in order to explore vexing issues such as racial performance gaps in mathematics and literacy (an issue that is at once sociological, subject matter-related, and policy-driven) or the impact of testing policies both on subject matter learning and on drop-out rates. And the GSE must have instructional programs that serve its many constituencies: (a) undergraduates who want to explore their interests in education as a social and cultural phenomenon and test their commitments to education as a career track; (b) students in master’s and EdD programs that prepare teachers, administrators, and other professionals for careers in education; and (c) students in PhD programs that produce scholars and researchers who will guide the next generation of intellectual activity in education.

We have deliberately organized the School in a way that provides leverage on the policy, sociocultural, and individual learning themes that have served both as our history and our legacy for the future. This structure has served us well because it embeds professional programs deeply in the intellectual fabric of the School as it promotes the study of interactions among these three themes.

At the top level, UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education functions as a single unit. (In fact it is a single-department school). For example, the entire faculty of the GSE is involved in decisions regarding priorities, new directions, faculty welfare, and personnel decisions (advancements, promotions, and new hires). Faculty from all areas contribute to School-wide programs such as the undergraduate minor and credential programs.

At the next level, the GSE is divided into three areas corresponding to focal interests (with many faculty affiliating with more than one area). Broadly speaking, those areas correspond to the policy, sociocultural, and individual/developmental themes highlighted in §I and in earlier parts of this section. Thus Policy, Organization, and Measurement in Education (POME) serves as home for those scholars who examine state and national policy, work on the organization of

GSE Academic Review §II. Programs of the GSE

schools and school districts, and develop and use a wide range of methodological tools for the studying the implementation and effectiveness of educational interventions. Faculty in Language and Literacy, Society and Culture (LLSC) emphasize sociocultural issues and their interaction with schooling, with a major focus on issues of literacy and meaning. Cognition and Development (CD) emphasizes issues of moral, social, and intellectual development, readiness for school, and thinking, teaching, and learning in particular subject matter disciplines.

Programs for the preparation of professionals in education are, with one exception, affiliated with these units. Thus POME faculty oversee the Principal Leadership Institute leading to a master’s and a credential in administrative services (PLI); LLSC is home to an MA/credential program in the teaching of English (MUSE); and CD is home to MA/credential programs in teaching elementary school (DTE) and teaching middle/secondary school mathematics and science (MACSME), as well as the PhD program leading to a school psychology credential.8 The GSE also has joint doctoral programs in educational leadership and special education with the CSU system. This organization is captured in Table 2.1. Note that both our joint doctoral programs as well as our undergraduate minor program are conceptualized as School-wide programs.

Table 2.1: A Bird’s-Eye View of the GSE

Graduate School of Education

Cognition and Development Language and Literacy, Culture and Society

Policy, Organization, Measurement, and

Evaluation Professional Programs: DTE,

MACSME, School Psychology

Professional Program: MUSE

Professional Program: Principal Leadership

Institute Joint programs with CSU (Program in Leadership

for Educational Equity; Special Education) Undergraduate Minor in Education Program

A closer look at our three areas of emphasis. We are a single unit administratively and functionally. We make all our budgetary decisions as a single Department of Education, and we interface with the Chancellor’s Office and the Graduate Division as a single unit. But programs of study are enacted at the area level, and students find their academic identities and receive strong mentoring within those areas. Thus, a capsule description of the each area is needed to get a more fine-grained picture of our work.

Cognition and Development. Faculty and students in the cognition and development area focus their scholarship and empirical studies on issues of human cognitive, personal, and social development. A theme that crosscuts the area is an analysis of the intrinsic relations between developmental processes (including such domains as mathematical/scientific understandings, social judgment, and student identity) with the social contexts in which individuals participate (instructional contexts, out-of-school settings). With this as an overarching frame, two major themes organize the work of CD faculty and students: (1) understanding teaching and learning 8A description of our credential programs is included as Appendix II.A.


in basic areas of mathematics, science, and technology, and (2) children’s development, central to understanding teaching and learning in schools. A number of cognition and development faculty work collaboratively with teachers, either by providing professional support or collaboratively by designing instructional practices and interventions that are well grounded in current scholarship about processes of learning and development and professional practice. Such collaborative work often becomes fertile ground for empirical research for faculty and their students. Other faculty focus principally on personal and social aspects of development, including research and analysis of moral and social judgment, social development, and psychosocial aspects of developmental processes, also linked to in- and out-of-school contexts. Most of the ongoing work in the area is concerned with issues cognition and development in the United States. But faculty research projects have explored diverse international contexts, including international sites, such as Japan, Papua New Guinea, Israel, and Brazil. CD programs support advanced research degrees and professional certification for GSE students. The professional certifications are in areas of school psychology (linked to the PhD degree) as well as single-subject credentials for secondary school teaching (linked to MA degrees) and multi-subject credentials in elementary education. Some of CD’s professional certification programs are integrated with research degree programs (school psychology), while others are more focused on teacher preparation, offering elementary multi-subject credential and secondary single subject credentials. CD faculty also participate in cross-campus programs, including psychology, an interdisciplinary undergraduate program in cognitive science, and an interdisciplinary PhD program in the sciences and mathematics (SESAME—Graduate Group in Studies in Engineering, Science, and Mathematics Education).

Language and Literacy, Society and Culture. Collectively, faculty and students in LLSC are interested in studying, designing, and taking part in transformative approaches to individual and social development, approaches within schools and classrooms, but also across diverse sites and contexts in communities, workplaces, and social movements. LLSC combines sharp-focus examinations of talk and activity, language and literacy, with a wide lens to assess the social, cultural, political, and economic contexts of education and schooling. Of special concern to us are students, groups, families, and communities—noticeably including those of non-native speakers of English—that traditionally have been poorly served by educational institutions and society. Bringing to bear our understandings of larger social structures and cultural and economic processes, and a belief in the transformative as well as the reproducible potential of public schooling, we work collaboratively with educators and others interested in reforming and revitalizing educational practice, often through the use ethnographic and participatory methodologies and the tools of educational linguistics. We engage with schools and other institutions to invent new curricula, programs, and structures that will bolster students’ learning, and to create indices of achievement that will increase our ability to describe learners’ progress. We hope to prepare researchers, teachers, and school and community leaders who want to participate critically in creating a more just and democratic society and more effective culturally and socially inclusive schools and other sites for learning. LLSC offers a range of programs: PhD and MA degrees in language, literacy, and culture, or in Social and cultural studies; EdD degrees in language, literacy, and culture; an MA entitled “Athletes and Academic Achievement”; MUSE (Multicultural Urban Secondary English) MA/credential for teaching secondary English. Within the PhD, EdD, and MA programs in LLC we offer sub-specializations in (a) reading, (b) writing, and (c) bilingualism and second language learning; within the PhD and MA programs in SCS we offer sub-specializations in (a) social theory and


ethnography, (b) education and social change, (c) urban education, and (d) international and global studies.

Policy, Organization, Measurement and Evaluation. Faculty and students in the POME area emphasize scholarship targeted to issues of quality, vitality, and equity in schools and schooling. With combined backgrounds in sociology, economics, history, public policy, and research methodology, the faculty pursue those issues, and prepare students to pursue them, in three major ways. First, we conduct policy-relevant empirical studies that seek to uncover how institutional and policy developments at multiple levels affect or are affected by school or classroom practices and relationships. Several faculty are engaged in investigations of the processes and consequences of federal and state accountability initiatives. Others focus specifically on factors affecting the quality of teaching and leadership in schools and districts; on historical and contemporary problems bearing on equity of opportunity, including resource configurations; or on improvements in student assessment and program evaluation. Second, the area focuses on comprehensive methodological training in quantitative and qualitative research methods, driven by an appreciation for the methodological sophistication required to investigate complex organizational practices and relationships. POME offers a structured program of study in quantitative methods that is geared to the main challenges of the present time: assessment, evaluation, and multi-level statistical modeling. At the same time, the program also offers preparation in rigorous qualitative methods that illuminate social processes and organizational practices, and that help to specify how patterns of educational continuity or change are realized. Students are encouraged to develop deep competence and confidence in both quantitative and qualitative methods. Finally, consistent with its interest in strengthening the quality of public schools, POME encompasses the Principal Leadership Institute, a program of professional preparation culminating in a preliminary administrative credential and master’s degree. The PLI recruits experienced teacher leaders, individuals who have already demonstrated the skill and initiative necessary as a foundation for ambitious school and district leadership. The program deepens and broadens their preparation for leadership, and supports them in their transition to full-time leadership positions. POME offers advanced degree specializations in policy and organizations research, educational leadership, and quantitative methods and evaluation.

The relationship between mission and programs. Our tripartite mission (see §I) of producing high quality scholarship, preparing the next generation of educational scholars, and improving professional practice is transparently represented in all our degree programs—undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral. Our undergraduate program is largely devoted to an education minor that introduces students with an interest in the study of education to the possibilities that education might play in their lives. Many students who graduate with a minor in education go on to careers in education, often pursuing post-baccalaureate professional programs at other institutions in California, around the country, or in other countries. Equally as important among our undergraduate offerings is a small set of courses in the American Cultures track; they serve the broader campus student body by providing insight into education trends and issues in American society and the role of schools in both reflecting and challenging educational values and practices. Finally, the GSE, mainly through the dedicated work of Professor John Hurst, has been a campus leader in the development of DeCal (program for Democratic Education at Cal)


courses that offer undergraduates the opportunity to teach courses under the supervision of Berkeley faculty.9

At no level is the dual research-practice mission of the GSE better represented and enacted than in our master’s program. Our master’s program serves the interests of students who have decided to carve out a career in education, either as fledgling educational researchers or as practitioners of education. On the research side, most of the MA graduates decide to continue their studies in a doctoral program, but a few exit to become teacher leaders in schools or research scholars in not-for-profit research and development firms or community agencies. On the practitioner side, nearly 100% of our MA/credential graduates become teachers, teacher leaders, or principals in Bay Area schools.10 As suggested in §I, the three guiding principles behind our professional master’s program are (a) recruit bright and committed individuals, (b) offer coursework with high levels of challenge and engagement, and (c) provide richly scaffolded internships in challenging educational settings.

At the doctoral level, we continue the practice of offering both a research option, our PhD degree, and a professional option, our EdD degree. The vast majority of our PhD graduates assume positions as scholars in higher education or as scientists in research agencies. Our EdD graduates tend to become district-level educational leaders, serving as curriculum coordinators, finance officers, directors of evaluation and assessment, professional development directors, or superintendents in districts throughout the Bay Area and the nation.

Balancing theme and variation to help students achieve professional identity. Both common and specialized experiences characterize our master’s and doctoral programs. Students must take core courses with other graduate students from across the GSE, but they are also provided opportunities to pursue specializations. These specializations, once again, reflect our dual commitment to preparing both practitioners for California’s schools and scholars for the nation’s research institutions. As we have suggested in describing our organizational structure, within each of the three loosely organized areas within the GSE,11 specializations are available to meet the needs of students who desire to pursue career paths as practitioners or as researchers, with one program, the Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity, conceptualized as a School-wide program. These specializations, represented visually in Table 2.2,12 are best viewed as representing variations on the broad themes that typify each of our three areas—CD, LLSC, and POME. Specializations are not to be confused with programs; they are better viewed as variations on those dominant programmatic themes. For future researchers, these specializations are important in helping them establish their academic identities for a highly competitive job market in which searches are often highly specific (e.g., technology education or secondary English education or leadership for school reform). For practitioner degrees, state credentialing requirements are the most important force in shaping highly specific patterns of coursework. The

9The DeCal program prefers to use the word “facilitate” instead of “teach.” Graduate students also may facilitate DeCal courses. 10Technically there still exists an MAT (Master of Arts in Teaching), but it has been inactive for a decade. 11 These three areas resulted from implementing the consolidation recommendation in the 1994 Academic Review. They are (a) Cognition and Development (CD), (b) Language and Literacy, Society and Culture (LLSC), and (c) Policy, Organization, Measurement, and Evaluation (POME). 12 We chose not to represent our undergraduate minor in this chart. Like the Joint Doctoral Program for Leadership in Educational Equity, it is a School-wide program.


most important feature of all of these programs, be they research- or practitioner-oriented, is that multiple members of the Senate faculty contribute teaching and advising time and energy to each of them.

Table 2.2: Areas of Specialization Within the Graduate School of Education Degree Objective

Area

Research Emphasis PhD or Advanced MA

Practitioner Emphasis Professional Degree

Cognition and Development (CD)

Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (EMST)

Human Development (HD) Development in Mathematics and

Science (DME) School Psychology1 Joint Doctoral Program in Special

Education

Master’s and Credential in Science and Mathematics (MACSME)1,3

Developmental Teacher Education (DTE)1,3

Language and Literacy, Society and Culture: (LLSC)2

Language, Literacy, and Culture (LLC)

Social and Cultural Studies (SCS) Athletes and Academic

Achievement3

Multicultural Urban Secondary English (MUSE) 1,3

AARLP1,3,4

Policy, Organization, Measurement and Evaluation (POME)2

Educational Leadership Policy and Organizational

Research Program Evaluation and

Assessment Quantitative Methods and

Evaluation (QME)

Principal Leadership Institute (PLI) 1,3

School-wide Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity (JDP)5

1Leads to a credential or license 3MA program 5EdD only 2Also includes an EdD option 4Currently inactive


Graduate Programs

Degree requirements. Degree requirements vary by program, but in all cases they are consistent with Graduate Division guidelines regarding coursework and examination procedures.

Master’s degree. At the MA level, in accordance with campus regulations, students may complete a program of a minimum of 20 semester units of coursework for the “Plan I” master’s degree (requires a thesis), or complete a minimum of 24 units for the “Plan II” master’s (requires a comprehensive examination). Almost all MA students in the GSE complete the Plan II degree option.

The School’s professional master’s programs have specific course requirements in order that they satisfy state credentialing regulations; other master’s programs, such as the MA earned en route to the PhD, allow students, in consultation with their faculty advisers, to select courses from a range of offerings. Even though there are differences between our credential and non-credential MA programs, students in our MA/credential programs meet the same basic requirements as do students in other MA programs, plus additional coursework to meet all credential requirements.

PhD degree. At the PhD level, students must meet a number of GSE and university degree milestones:

• First-year evaluation. The purpose of this evaluation by program faculty is to give students feedback on their progress during their first year of graduate study and to correct any academic deficiencies. The faculty also must determine, on the basis of the student’s performance, whether he or she is likely to be able to complete the doctoral degree.

• Outline of program. Completed in consultation with the faculty adviser, this outline designates the courses that a student will complete for the doctoral program. Three areas of specialization are selected for concentrated coursework and study. PhD students must take at least two program-relevant courses outside the School of Education to fulfill the academic preparation requirement.

• Pre-qualifying review. Depending upon their individual programs, students submit either two or three pre-qualifying papers for faculty review. Requirements for these papers include the students’ relating what they have learned (through courses, tutorials, and research) regarding issues of concern in their fields of study; they must also defend positions on varying issues. It is expected that the content of these papers will be clearly aligned with the work contemplated for the dissertation.

• Qualifying examination. By the end of their seventh semester, doctoral students are expected to prepare for and take their qualifying examination (“orals”). Topics for this exam principally address research and theoretical concerns covered in the students’ pre-qualifying papers and coursework, and generally correspond to the three areas of specialization identified in their outlines of program. The examining committees, selected by the students and their faculty advisers in accordance with Academic Senate


regulations, evaluate the breadth and depth of the students’ knowledge of an academic discipline applied to a major field of education.

• Proposal review. Once a student has passed the qualifying examination and has advanced to doctoral candidacy, the School requires completion of a dissertation proposal review. The purpose of this requirement is for students to develop coherent and systematic plans to follow in conducting their dissertation research. The review can also serve to identify potential problems with the proposed study (e.g., topic too broad, methodology not appropriate, etc.). The proposal document, typically about 25 pages long, is read by each member of the student’s committee before a review meeting is scheduled. The outcome of the review is important in that an approved proposal serves as an agreement between the student and his or her committee regarding the topic, methodology, and plan for completing the dissertation.

• Dissertation. A PhD dissertation must make an original contribution to the body of knowledge in the field of education. It must be based on a theoretical understanding of problems and issues.

EdD degree. The requirements for the EdD are similar to those for the PhD (first-year evaluation, outline of program, pre-qualifying review, qualifying exam, and dissertation), with differences noted below. A key distinction of the EdD degree is in its applied focus—it is a professional degree intended for practitioners pursuing professional careers in the field of education. The time needed to complete the EdD program is intended to be shorter than that needed for the PhD.

With regard to the academic preparation requirement, EdD students, unlike PhD students, are not required to take courses outside the Graduate School of Education. EdD candidates’ three areas of study should be applied domains of professional practice. Students are expected to collect information and analyze it in ways that demonstrate professional competence in their areas of specialization. At least one field-based practicum or internship is expected.

EdD students must complete two pre-qualifying papers (in contrast to three for PhD students) and a dissertation prospectus. The qualifying exam tests the student’s familiarity with the practice of education and his/her ideas for improvement based on the theoretical and applied perspectives reflected in their areas of specialization.

The EdD dissertation is usually an applied research undertaking that may resolve problems of design and evaluation in a work-related setting. The dissertation must demonstrate competence in applications of the theoretical and empirical literature in the practice of education.

Admissions. The School of Education admits students once a year, during the spring semester, for admission in the fall semester. The School has a December 1st application deadline for all programs except for the Principal Leadership Institute and the Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity; their deadlines are in early January.


Applications and supporting materials are collected (online and in paper form), processed, coordinated, and tracked by administrative staff in the School’s central admissions office before being forwarded to each of the School’s areas/programs for faculty review. 13 The review cycle typically begins in early January. The review of fellowship applications is completed by late February (to meet campus fellowship competition deadlines); other applications are reviewed by late March.

Faculty use a broad range of indicators to evaluate applications, including grade-point averages and strength of previous academic work, Graduate Record Exam scores (used as a criterion in doctoral degree programs and in some master’s degree programs), statements of purpose, letters of recommendation, relevant work experience, and other evidence of promise (e.g., honors theses, research assistantships, publications). No specific weights are assigned to these criteria: each is regarded as important, but a relative weakness in one area can be compensated for by unusual strengths in others.

In making admissions recommendations (formal offers of admission are made by the Graduate Division), the faculty seek to make an overall assessment of an applicant’s ability to succeed in our rigorous programs and his/her promise as a scholar and/or professional educator. We also consider the fit between an applicant’s interests and specialization with the expertise and research interests of the faculty. The availability of an appropriate faculty adviser to supervise a new student is sometimes critical. Occasionally, we are forced to reject a highly qualified applicant because an appropriate faculty member is not available to serve as his/her adviser.

The number of faculty who participate in the admissions process varies by program. Generally, preliminary reviews are undertaken by individual faculty—as forwarded by area speakers—either because they are members of the area admissions committee, because they have been named in the application, or because they have interests related to those named by the applicant. Preliminary reviews are normally carried out by at least two members of the faculty in a given area/program. Typically, the entire area faculty are involved in the final review and ranking of applications; recommendations are achieved through a consensus process.

In terms of traditional student quality indicators, the data for admissions have been consistent over the past five years, with GPAs hovering in the 3.4 to 3.5 range, and GRE scores exhibiting small swings (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Average Undergraduate GPA and GRE Scores of Admitted Applicants 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 GPA 3.51 3.41 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.40 GRE - Verbal 570 548 576 579 578 589 GRE -Quantitative 622 606 629 639 660 639 GRE - Analytical 619 609 636 659 663 625

13Some programs enlist students to participate in the admissions evaluation process. These students are selected by the faculty, and are briefed by the admissions coordinator of the regulations governing confidentiality of applicant records.


Admission to the doctoral program is competitive, as documented in Table 2.4. The School’s admit rates have ranged between 18% and 23% during the past five years. Admission to the School’s MA-only programs is also competitive, with the admit rate ranging between 11% and 24% for the past five years. The master’s/credential programs have a relatively high admit rate (40% to 53% during the past five years), which is probably largely attributable to targeted outreach efforts and the uniqueness of certain programs (e.g., the PLI) that create a more select applicant pool. In addition, it should be noted that the credential programs all make extensive use of interviews in the process of making admission recommendations.

As is also illustrated in Table 2.4, the School enjoys a high overall show rate for admits, ranging from 67% to 73% during the past five years. (The campus average, as reported by the Office of Planning and Analysis, is 55%.) The show rate is lower for our doctoral programs (ranging from 52 to 73%) than for the professional MA/credential programs (72 to78%).

Table 2.4: Admissions Rates, 2000-20051 Degrees/Credentials Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Credential (only) applicants 0 0 1 0 0 0 MA/credential applicants2 285 277 308 341 336 272 MA (only) applicants 129 127 162 192 182 158 MA/EdD and EdD applicants 28 24 33 583 38 47 MA/PhD and PhD applicants 275 245 316 438 394 313 Doctoral applicant subtotal 303 269 349 496 432 360 Total applicants 717 6733 8203 1029 950 790 MA/credential admits2 (admit rate)

115 (40%)

146 (53%)

147 (48%)

147 (43%)

136 (40%)

115 (42%)

MA (only) admits (admit rate)

30 (23%)

30 (24%)

25 (15%)

22 (11%)

32 (18%)

28 (18%)

MA/EdD and EdD admits 5 6 2 164 15 20 MA/PhD and PhD admits 59 54 67 74 65 62 Doctoral admit subtotal (admit rate)

64 (21%)

60 (22%)

69 (20%)

90 (18%)

80 (19%)

82 (23%)

Total admits (admit rate)

209 (29%)

236 (35%)

241 (29%)

259 (25%)

248 (26%)

225 (28%)

MA/credential registrants2

(show rate) 83

(72%) 108

(74%) 115

(78%) 112

(76%) 106

(78%) 87

(76%) MA (only) registrants (show rate)

19 (63%)

17 (57%)

13 (52%)

12 (55%)

23 (72%)

22 (79%)

MA/EdD and EdD registrants 3 5 2 134 13 11 MA/PhD and PhD registrants 34 29 34 53 35 42 Doctoral registrants (show rate)

37 (58%)

34 (57%)

36 (52%)

66 (73%)

48 (60%)

53 (65%)

Total new registrants (show rate)

139 (67%)

159 (67%)

164 (68%)

190 (73%)

177 (71%)

162 (72%)

1Data do not include coursework-only applications or admissions 2MA/Cred programs are DTE, MUSE, MACSME, PLI, and (until 2002) ARLLP 3SCS did not accept applications in 2001 or 2002 4Fall 2003: new Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity


The impact of financial aid on admissions. At the point of admission, the only written commitment of financial support made is that for a fellowship award, usually for one year’s duration. Other sources of financial support, such as student academic appointments (GSI/GSRs), are generally not included in the admissions offer. In light of this practice, we looked at the School’s admissions yield rate based on those candidates who received fellowship award offers.

At the doctoral level (see Table 2.5), there did not appear to be a strong correlation between yield rate and fellowship support. From 2001 to 2005, we offered admission to a total of 297 doctoral applicants. Of this total, 170 doctoral admits (57%) accepted the offer of admission; 127 (43%) did not. Of the 170 admits who enrolled, 110 (37%) had fellowship award offers, and 60 (20%) did not. Note, however, that the latter number is almost identical to the number of doctoral admits who declined despite having been offered fellowships.

This is not too surprising, since the School has many Graduate Student Researcher (GSR) and Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) appointments available to offer; over the past five years, for example, the head count average is 110 GSR and 29 GSI appointments each semester. Incoming doctoral students are informed that they have an excellent chance of finding employment in the School. In addition, there are other important factors that influence a doctoral applicant’s decision to attend Berkeley, such as the strength or uniqueness of our programs, or the opportunity to work with a particular faculty member.

Faculty in the School are concerned that we are losing top doctoral admits to competitor institutions (primarily Stanford and Harvard, but, depending on the specific research area, also Michigan, UCLA, and Northwestern) because our competitors are able to provide their doctoral admits with guarantees of financial support for four to five years, while we, for the most part, are able to give only verbal assurances of continuing support. We can also point to our successful record with incumbent doctoral students, but that is often not compelling to a student with a guarantee from a competitor. In an effort to address this problem, the School last year undertook a study to see if we could create our own multi-year financial support package for top doctoral admits, through leveraging School-wide and faculty resources. We determined that we could afford three or four GSE multi-year awards; surprisingly, only one award was requested for fall 2005 (and the student did enroll).

For our MA/credential programs (Table 2.6), fellowship support appears to be a more critical factor in the admit yield rate. During the past five years, the majority who accepted our admissions offer (average of 59%) had a fellowship award, while only 15% of those admits

Table 2.5: Doctoral Admissions as a Function of Financial Aid Decision Accept Decline Total Fellowship Yes No Yes No

Year 2001 18 (35%) 10 (19%) 10 (19%) 14 (27%) 52 2002 19 (35%) 8 (14%) 15 (27%) 13 (24%) 55 2003 33 (49%) 14 (20%) 10 (15%) 11 (16%) 68 2004 18 (29%) 15 (23%) 13 (21%) 17 (27%) 63 2005 22 (37%) 13 (22%) 14 (24%) 10 (17%) 59

5 year total 110 (37%) 60 (20%) 62 (21%) 65 (22%) 297


without a fellowship accepted our offer. Although these students are enrolled for just a year or two, the fast-paced, highly-structured, and time-consuming nature of our credential programs makes it difficult for these students to hold GSI/GSR appointments or to hold down jobs off campus; credential students are in the public schools for much of the day, and come to campus late in the afternoon for classes.

Table 2.6: MA/Credential Admissions as a Function of Financial Aid

Decision Accept Decline Total Fellowship Yes No Yes No

Year 2001 82 (61%) 10 (7%) 21 (16%) 21 (16%) 52 2002 90 (64%) 18 (13%) 17 (12%) 15 (11%) 55 2003 95 (65%) 11 (7%) 25 (17%) 16 (11%) 68 2004 60 (46%) 40 (30%) 9 (7%) 23 (17%) 63 2005 62 (58%) 21 (20%) 13 (12%) 10 (10%) 59

5 year total 389 (59%) 100 (15%) 85 (13%) 85 (13%) 297

It is important to note that the number of MA/credential admits enrolling without a fellowship award has increased in the past two years. This is not because of an increase in those not seeking or desiring funding, but the result of the decision by the state of California to discontinue its Teacher Scholars awards.14 We are not able to offer the financial support to as many of our candidates as we would like. We are now grappling with funding uncertainty for our Principal Leadership Institute (which was previously able to provide $10,000 scholarships for each student), and we are concerned about the impact this will have on the program’s yield rate this year and next.

Concern about the future of our capacity to offer financial aid. According to an analysis conducted by the Office of Planning and Analysis for 2002-03 and 2003-04 (see Table 14 of the OPA report), 192 non-doctoral students received financial aid in both 2002-03 and 2003-04. The average total aid award for non-doctoral students was $13,545 in 2002-03, and $14,722 in 2003-04. For doctoral students, 27 first-year doctoral students were awarded aid in 2002-03, and 53 in 2003-04. The average award for first-year doctoral students was $23,819 in 2002-03, and $24,080 in 2003-04. For continuing doctoral students during the same periods, 184.5 and 179.5 students received awards, averaging $18,752 and $20,968.

When OPA examined financial aid by type, in 2003-04 most awards to the GSE came in the form of UC fellowships ($3,437,346), loans ($2,130,035), research ($766,614) and teaching assistantships ($348,211), and finally from fee remission ($571,085). Graduate aid totaled $7,866,495 in 2003-04.

According to a PhD program exit surveys conducted by the Graduate Division, Education students have been somewhat less satisfied with financial support funding than were graduate students across all programs on campus (60% versus 74%). A lower percentage of Education students than campus students reported receiving teaching (GSI positions) assistantships (54%

14In 2000, Governor Gray Davis initiated the Teacher Scholars program to attract more UC students into teaching. The program provided forgivable loans to teacher education candidates willing to serve in low-income, low-performing schools for a minimum of up to five years upon their graduation.


versus 81%); those who did receive assistantships reported an average of 1.8 years of GSI support. Fewer Education students reported receiving research assistantships (GSR positions) than did campus students in general (69% versus 72%), and those who did receive research assistantships reported an average of 3.1 years of support. A higher percentage of Education students reported receiving UC fellowships than did campus students in general (61% versus 48%) although fewer (and only women) reported receiving outside fellowships (11% versus 38%).

These data support mixed conclusions. On the one hand, we appear to be holding our own with respect to gaining a fair share of campus resources. On the other, we seem to be lagging behind in providing opportunities for students to serve as GSIs, a factor that may affect students’ capacity to compete successfully for university jobs in which teaching experience is an important selection factor.

The greatest concern, however, is a looming problem not reflected in these data but known to all of us in the GSE who worry about financial support for graduate students. Our capacity to provide financial support to graduate students has been remarkable over the last decade, but in the past few years, it has begun to erode. For example, in addition to the usual sources of campus support from block grants and our share of various fellowships administered at the campus level, we have enjoyed three unusual sources of support: (a) the Spencer Research Training Grant (it has provided us with ten fellowships per year but is scheduled to end in 2007), (b) the Flanders Fellows Program (providing $350,000 to $600,000 per year, it closed in 2005) to fund future teachers committed to working in urban schools and future researchers who have chosen to focus their scholarship on urban issues, and (c) the Behring Fellows program, which has provided a $10,000 stipend to each student in our Principal Leadership Program over the last six years (through 2006), but now appears to be in jeopardy. In short, we could end up with $1,000,000 less in financial aid in 2007-08 than was available to us in 2004-05 (the last year of the Flanders Fellows program). Needless to say, endowment for fellowships is our highest fundraising priority.

Enrollment target size and trajectory. As seen in Table 2.7, after admitting and enrolling over target in 2000, Education has been slightly under its enrollment targets since 2001. According to the Graduate Division, however, targets have been made generous to accommodate increases resulting from mandated programs; the recent decline in targets is due to the end of the Teacher Scholars Program.


Table 2.7: Enrollment Trends in the GSE

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Target Enrollment1

471 480 485 507 457

Target Enrollment (GSE only)

4604 460 475 479 499 447

Actual Enrollment1

452 462 481 463 438

Actual Enrollment (GSE only)

415 447 453 475 453 429

Advanced MA/doctoral

294 285 269 2963 2833 2813

Credential 1212 1622 1842 179 170 148 1Per Graduate Division: includes SESAME students 2Includes ARLLP (Reading Credential) students 13 in 2000, 16 in 2001, and 10 in 2002 3Includes new Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity 4Target enrollment (GSE only) augmented in February 2000 by Graduate Division (by 55 students)

to accommodate expected growth in Teacher Scholar and PLI programs

Benchmarking our graduate program. As a highly ranked graduate school of education in a prestigious Research I university, we compete for students, most notably at the doctoral level, with other top tier, highly ranked graduate schools of education: Harvard, Stanford, and UCLA are competitors across the board. Depending on the particular field of study, we also compete with Pennsylvania, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Washington, Northwestern, Teachers College Columbia, Vanderbilt, Pennsylvania State, Maryland, and Illinois. Table 2.8 provides a matrix summarizing our major competitors by major area of study for the doctorate. As we suggested earlier, we face stiff competition from programs that are better resourced than we are and hence able to offer full four- to five-year guarantees of funding to prospective students. It is often the very best students that we lose to these other programs.

We have not included any of our credential programs in this analysis because we do not compete head to head with other research institutions for students in these programs: competition is determined more by place than subject area (e.g., science or English) preparation. Most of our credential students come from and return to Bay Area communities. Local California State University system and private institutions are more likely to be our competitors than are other Research I institutions, although our programs are so different that direct competition is not a major factor. We do lose some credential students to UCLA or Stanford on the grounds that in their programs students begin teaching full-time in their second year, whereas in our programs they do not.


Table 2.8: Ranking (1-5) of Most Competitive Graduate Schools by Specialty Area Competing Institutions

Doctoral Program

Stanford

Harvard

UC

LA

Colum

bia

Wisconsin

Vanderbilt

Northw

estern

Michigan

MSU

Pennsylvania

Illinois

Maryland

Toronto (OISE)

Other

Human Development 1 2 4 5 3 Educ Math, Sci & Tech 1 2 4 3 5 Lang, Literacy & Culture 1 2 5 3 4 Social &Cultural Studies 2 2 2

Policy & Leadership 1 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Quantitative Method 1 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

School Psych* 1 4 2,3,5* *Texas at Austin, UC Santa Barbara, and North Carolina at Chapel Hill are major competitors for our School Psychology program.

Recruiting a diverse student body. The Office of Recruitment and Retention, established more than fourteen years ago by then Dean Rohwer, supports the School’s efforts to foster a multicultural community by identifying and recruiting talented individuals to the field of education. The ORR provides information to potential applicants at recruitment fairs throughout the state and across the country, at group information sessions, and by providing opportunities for individual contacts.

There is evidence of the School’s success in this area. In 1990, 15% of our students were underrepresented minorities. By 1995 (the year before California’s Proposition 209 became law; it bars consideration of race and gender in public education), this minority proportion had increased to 31%, and is currently 36% (fall 2005 data). The GSE has the second most ethnically diverse graduate student population on campus.

The Office of Recruitment and Retention is staffed by three GSRs. We have found that prospective applicants appreciate hearing about the School from students’ points of view. The Recruiters meet with area admissions committees, the School’s equity adviser, the dean, and others in the School, coordinate our prospective students nights, and work with the Graduate Division and other campus-wide units in planning Berkeley’s annual Graduate Student Diversity Day. Recruiters are housed in the student academic services office, and serve under the supervision of the director of that office.

Mentoring and apprenticeship in the GSE. A distinguishing feature of the Graduate School of Education is the character of mentorship and apprenticeship offered to advanced degree students. Our goal is to provide students with meaningful and ongoing experiences conducting research from their very first days in the program so that they will have had multiple experiences in designing and conducting research by the time they conduct their own dissertation work. This goal is achieved in various ways.


Many of our courses require empirical projects, in which students are expected to frame an inquiry and to gather and interpret data. In addition to the traditional mentoring of graduate students, many faculty lead research groups. Faculty and students may participate in multiple groups, depending on their interests. Depending largely on faculty interests or area traditions, the research groups follow one or more of four orientations.

Project-based. This model has a project or line of inquiry that provides opportunities for students to engage in ongoing work, such as in curriculum development and evaluation or in studies of various work or learning environments. The GSE’s national centers and its various funded projects have provided many such opportunities. Exchange-oriented. Individual faculty sponsor and meet with small groups of students. Under the sponsor’s guidance, students take turns presenting their work and receiving feedback from the group–on course projects, position papers, conference proposals, or dissertation work. Some students find such groups so useful that they belong to two or three groups conducted by different faculty. Theme- or topic-oriented. The GSE has a number of centers that deliberately draw students and faculty from different areas in the school. These groups have included the centers for human development, integrated studies of teaching and learning, urban education, critical transitions, research on education and work, popular education and participatory research, and Berkeley evaluation and assessment research. Milestone-based. In some of our credential programs, students who are meeting a common requirement, such as their master’s papers, meet regularly in research groups to discuss methods, share drafts, and receive guidance from faculty responsible for reading their papers.

As a result of participation in research groups such as these, GSE students have the opportunity to engage in research from their very first days on campus. They see research formulated and executed, conduct research early in their careers, and find support in multiple ways, so that they will have had significant research experiences by the time they are ready to write their own dissertation proposals. Our students have a very high success rate in being included on the annual meeting programs of educational societies, even with projects done before their dissertation work.

Achieving our objectives. As suggested in opening section of this document, the ultimate objective of our graduate programs is to improve the quality of scholarship (for our research-oriented specializations) and practice (for the professionally-oriented specializations) in America’s education enterprise. The more proximal objective is to prepare individuals, in any and all of our specializations, who can compete successfully for the most important academic and professional positions available and go on to provide intellectual and professional leadership that improves their fields of study and practice. The most important evidence for measuring our success in meeting such objectives is the record of placement, durability, and influence of our graduates. These data are difficult to collect on a consistent basis, especially at the doctoral level, and we can report only what we have been able to gather through a variety of formal and informal means. Even so, the data available to us, summarized in Tables 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11, suggest that we are successful in achieving our overall objective of preparing leaders for research and practice.


Doctoral programs. The largest segment of PhD graduates, 33%, (Table 2.9) assume professorial positions in higher education, with about 60% of that group working at Research I universities and about 40% at regional or private universities. Another 11.6% (lecturers and postdoctoral fellows) also work at universities. The 11.4% who have assumed positions as researchers are equally split between university and not-for-profit research firms (such as American Institutes for Research/AIR, Educational Testing Service/ETS, the RAND Corporation, WestEd [a regional education laboratory for Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah] or SRA International). Thus a little over half of our graduates end up in some sort of university or research position.

Additional evidence of the quality of our programs comes from our students’ and graduates’ successful participation in the scholarly life of the profession of educational researchers. For example, since 1995, 24 of our graduates have been awarded National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral fellowships, and 18 GSE doctoral students have received Spencer Foundation Dissertation Year Fellowships. To provide a further index of this sort of participation, we looked at the 2006 American Educational Research Association (AERA) convention program database to determine the level of activity of our students: 59 of our students were listed for 130 presentations.15

Teacher education. We have more complete data on the graduates of our teacher education programs because most stay in the Bay Area and because accreditation requires follow-up survey data. Most take teaching positions, and most are still teaching five years later. In the sample summarized in Table 2.10, almost all who graduated in 2001 and 2002 are still in the profession, with a few assuming positions as teacher leaders (e.g., department heads, reform coordinators, professional developers). Unfortunately, we do not have specific data on the type of schools in which they are teaching; however, our informal evidence suggests that the city 15 See Appendix II.B. for the NAE, Spencer, and AERA lists.

Table 2.9: Placement of PhD Graduates, 2001-2005 Position type Number Percent Professorial track 64 33 Lecturer-instructor 15 8 Postdoctoral fellow 7 3.6 Researcher 22 11.4 Psychologist 17 9 Administrator 15 8 Teacher 5 2.6 Consultant 5 2.6 Self-employed 1 .5 Retired 1 .5 Writer 1 .5 Unknown 39 20.3 Total 192 100


centers (e.g., Oakland, San Francisco) and first ring of suburbs (e.g., Hayward, Richmond, El Cerrito), which are equally as diverse, are the preferred districts for our graduates. Thus we feel confident that the large majority of our teacher education graduates end up working in the very sorts of schools we prepare them for—low income, ethnically diverse, urban schools.

Table 2.10: Placement of Professional Program Graduates: Teacher Education, 2001-2005

Program Information completeness

Placement types (expressed as a percentage of the total number of graduates)

#Tracked/total # of grads

Classroom teacher

Teacher- or other

leader1

Further education

Other/not known

DTE (elem) 92/108 85%2 10% 4%

MACSME (math/sci)

45/49 86%3 5% 4% 8%

MUSE (English)

144/150 96%4 5% 1.5% 2.5%

1These may also be classroom teachers. 393% of those are teaching in public schools. 290% of those are teaching in public schools. 4100% of those are teaching in public schools.

Administrative credential program. The first cohort of our Principal Leadership Institute completed the program in 2001. 90% of PLI graduates come from and return to highly diverse, low-income area schools in the Bay Area, with San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, and Berkeley being the main recruiting and placement sites. The placement data on program graduates (Table 2.11) indicate that they are assuming responsible positions in the districts most in need of skilled and committed leadership.

Overall, these placement data for our graduates—both research and professional track—are encouraging because they suggest that our programs meet the needs of our students; they end up in career placements that are consistent with their aspirations as well as with our program goals. Our graduates—whether they become teachers, school administrators, researchers, college faculty, or consultants—become successful in their chosen careers, often rising to positions of leadership and professional responsibility.

Table 2.11: Placement of Professional Program Graduates: PLI, 2001-2005 Cohort Year

Entered program

Com- pleted

program

Not yet completed

Drop On leave

Prin- cipal

Asst prin or dean

District Coordi-

nator

Reading Coach

Tchr Leader

2001 27 22 3 2 0 7 8 3 2 4 2002 35 35 0 0 14 13 3 3 1 2003 47 45 1 1 15 15 2 3 8 2004 46 43 2 1 5 21 3 5 8 2005 47 44 1 1 1 4 18 6 7 8 Totals 202 189 4 6 3 45 75 17 20 29


The Undergraduate Program Although state law, at least until recently, has prevented the GSE from offering an undergraduate major, we have operated an active undergraduate minor for over fifteen years. The Undergraduate Minor in Education (UME) in the GSE is designed to provide students with opportunities to gain a critical understanding of the relationships between education and the development of societies and individuals. It offers interdisciplinary intellectual inquiry that serves to broaden and complement students’ work in their major fields of study. The UME enrolls a diverse student body, and is a suitable program for students who are considering a career in education, as well as those seeking a general background about educational issues as they relate to other fields of study. Students from all backgrounds engage in study and dialogue about current and traditional educational issues and alternative perspectives on teaching and learning.

The UME offers an expanding variety of coursework including fieldwork and academic inquiry. These field-based courses provide students with opportunities to observe and participate in educational settings in Bay Area classrooms and community settings—tutoring, mentoring, assisting with an environmental education course, or participating in an array of educational activities. Students who participate in the UME consider many important questions about education, for example:

• In the midst of accelerating global, national, and local change, what do students, parents, employers, and public officials expect of formal education? How realistic are these expectations?

• What are the roots of the criticism of public education and how does education influence those who participate in it—from students to the educators themselves?

• How do the institutions of society influence education? What about community-based education, education in the workplace, in unions, in families and at other non-formal sites?

• What are the essential processes of development, learning, and teaching? • How does education interact with social class, ethnicity, and gender?

Completion requirements. Our Undergraduate Minor in Education program consists of sixteen semester units of coursework (distributed among at least five courses) in Education. Undergraduate minor courses include not only academic inquiry, but also fieldwork that provides students with experience in their surrounding communities: in K-12 classes, co-teaching, tutoring, mentoring, or participating in a vast array of educational activities. Specific course requirements are as follows:

• Educ190, “Current Issues in Education” (core course) • Completion of three units of Education Minor-approved fieldwork (Educ 97/197) • Three elective courses (at least three units each) chosen from the approved course list

published each semester by the UME Advisor Office in the GSE • Three of the five total courses must be upper division


Admissions. For admission into the Minor program, students are required to attend an information session and complete a declaration of intent to minor in Education form. In the event that a student cannot make an informational session, he or she can schedule an individual appointment with the UME advisor.

Benchmarking our undergraduate program. Many major institutions around the country (e.g., Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin) provide undergraduate routes to teacher certification that involve education as either a major (in the case of future elementary teachers) or a minor (often the case for future secondary teachers). It is largely within the University of California system that one finds academic education minors such as ours at UC Berkeley. All of the UC campuses, except the newest at Merced, have undergraduate courses in education, but only UC Riverside has no minor. Among those with undergraduate minors, Berkeley’s is relatively small. In many ways, Berkeley’s is the most intentional, with application procedures and review, carefully monitored requirements, an active undergraduate minor committee providing development initiatives and ongoing oversight, and comprehensive professional staff support.

Table 2.12: Undergraduate Minor - UC Schools and Departments of Education

Institution Numbers of

graduates/year

% entering teacher

education

Percent enrolled locally Purposes

Investigate

teaching Understand Education

Pre-Psych

Studies UCB 100 20% 7% √ √ UCD 112 15% √ √ UCI 300 13% √ √ UCLA 154 18% 13% √ √ UCR* 255 60% √ UCSB 229 √ √ √ UCSC 175 √ √ UCSD 70 80% 56% √ √

*UCR does not have a minor per se, but many students take undergraduate education courses that meet credentialing requirements in post-baccalaureate programs.

An overview of the undergraduate minors in all UC education units that offer them (not

Merced) is provided in Table 2.12. Like many other UC schools and departments of education, the GSE’s UME allows students investigate teaching and understand education. At several campuses, such as UC San Diego, UC Riverside, and to a lesser extent, UC Irvine, the undergraduate program serves as a feeder into campus post-baccalaureate credential programs. Berkeley’s program appears to be more like those UCLA, UC Davis, or UC Santa Barbara, where the programs do not necessarily feed the local credential programs.

The size, trajectory, and resource base of the undergraduate program. The Undergraduate Minor in Education (UME) is open to all undergraduate students at Berkeley. Since its inception, the number of applications to the program has grown steadily. A database developed in 2000 reveals that since then over a thousand students have applied to the UME and seven hundred have completed it. The yearly average of active students in the UME is about 300, and a little over 100 graduate each year.


Adequacy of support for the students and the number of course offerings is regularly monitored by the undergraduate minor committee, comprised of Senate faculty, other teaching faculty, key staff in the GSE, and undergraduate student representatives. With support from the GSE (in the form of faculty FTE and GSI resources) and from the campus (in the form of Temporary Academic Staffing [TAS] funds to support GSIs and instructors), the UME has become a popular minor on campus. Many GSE faculty have developed courses that they teach on their own or with advanced graduate students. As a corollary benefit, this provides graduate students with opportunities to build their teaching portfolios in preparation for the academic job market.

Staff support for the UME is provided by a half-time undergraduate minor advisor who provides primary support for the undergraduate minor committee and offers workshops and individual advising to students on policies and procedures related to the minor. The undergraduate minor advisor is housed in the student academic services office, and serves under the supervision of the director of that office.

Contributions to general education. The GSE’s undergraduate course offerings contribute significantly to general education on campus, especially in promulgating ethnic diversity and in promoting service to schools and communities. UME electives include six academic service-learning courses and five American Cultures courses; they collectively enroll between 350 and 450 students each semester. In addition, Undergraduate Field Studies in Education (Educ 97/197) and the UME core course (Educ 190) together enroll over 600 students each semester. Freshman seminars were offered during AY 2003 and AY 2004. Enrollment in these seminars averaged 14 each semester. Overall, 16.67% of GSE faculty offer undergraduate courses that enroll over 2000 undergraduate students each year.

Several GSE faculty also sponsor sections of Directed Group Study (Educ 98/198) for the Democratic Education at Cal program (DeCal). As mentioned earlier (pages 24 and 25) DeCal gives students the opportunity to initiate and facilitate their own accredited courses, and boasts being the largest student-run educational organization in the country. On average, there are approximately 125 course sections with 250 course facilitators and over 4000 students participating in DeCal each semester.

GSE and other campus faculty sponsor 1- and 2-unit sections of Educ 98/198 designed for special student needs and subpopulations (such as study skills improvement, tutor and advisor training, research orientation, technology orientation, and for at-risk students, students in academic difficulty, and students new to the Berkeley campus).

Measuring quality in the undergraduate minor. The Undergraduate Minor in Education seeks to attract outstanding young people to the field of education to help them develop a critical understanding of education in the United States and globally and, if appropriate, for them to test the waters for a career in education. We also seek to motivate young people to become actively involved in a many ways so that education better serves our democratic society and all young persons equitably.

Consistent with our efforts to attract substantial numbers of outstanding underrepresented minorities, our students are drawn from some 60+ undergraduate majors and include many


students recognized as outstanding in their home departments. In the past decade, two of our undergraduate minors have served as student regents, two have received the prestigious Strauss Scholarship, two have received the prestigious Truman Scholarship, one was a finalist for the University Medal, several have been directors of the ASUC (Associated Students, University of California) DeCal program, and many others have taken on leadership positions across campus and in the community. Students who have completed the minor have subsequently been accepted to PhD programs in every major education school in the nation. Many have completed MA/credential and credential programs in schools in California and across the nation and around the world. One is an intern in the European Parliament; one is a superintendent of a local school district. Many are staff members and directors of non-profit community organizations. Others have gone on to other graduate and professional schools (such as medicine, law, and public health) while maintaining their interest in and commitment to education.

Another indicator of quality in the UME is its exemplary teaching. Over the past decade, three faculty members who teach in the UME have received campus-wide teaching awards (awarded by the Academic Senate). This year, John Hurst received a Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) mentoring award (from the Graduate Division) for his consistently strong preparation of GSIs for a core course in the minor. Over the past five years, the GSIs who teach in the UME have received four to six outstanding GSI awards each year.

Research opportunities for undergraduates. Undergraduates are provided a variety of opportunities to participate in research under the guidance of GSE faculty. Several faculty participate in the campus’s Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program (URAP) and offer research opportunities on an on-going basis. URAP research assistants often enroll in UGIS 192B or a comparable course for unit credit. Over the past five years, GSE faculty have worked with undergraduate students in 157 research placements. Of this total, 123 participated through URAP, and another 34 participated independently. (See Appendix II.C. for lists of URAP sponsors and students.)

The GSE also offers a course that fosters opportunities for undergraduates to develop research skills on independent projects. One course, Educ180 Logic of Inquiry: Introduction to Analysis of Research in Education, focuses on developing undergraduate students’ knowledge and understanding of the principles of research in the field of education. The first part of the course emphasizes the development of students as critical consumers of educational research, and then engages them in applying this knowledge and understanding to articulate and develop a class project in which they investigate a research question that meets the needs of an educational institution. This is followed by a series of library-directed sessions designed to help students develop their own theses for investigation. The course culminates with students’ submission of a research proposal for a study. Several students implement and complete their study in the following semester as seniors or by writing honors theses through an independent study course. This course was offered in fall 2004 with an enrollment of nine students; in fall 2005, sixteen students enrolled.

Enriching the undergraduate curriculum. Enrichment of our courses is a continuous process. But it has become a more systematic endeavor for us and the whole campus since 1994, when the GSE began to house the UC Berkeley’s Service-Learning Research and Development Center, which provides services and support to faculty and departments throughout the campus in the


development of academic service-learning courses. Each year, about ninety academic service-learning courses are offered across forty departments; about 2000 students are enrolled in these courses. The Center provides workshops to faculty, facilitates a campus-wide faculty instructional mini-grant program, assists departments in the institutionalization of service-learning courses, and implements the service-learning policies established by the campus’s Faculty Policy Committee on Service-Learning.

The GSE offers six academic service-learning courses (as defined by UCB Faculty Policy Committee on Service-Learning) for students at the undergraduate level. These courses embed a substantial service activity connected to the course’s academic content. Collectively, these courses involve undergraduates from a variety of majors.

Educ 114C: Practicum in Early Development and Education (Starkey) Educ 140AC: Literacy: Individual and Societal Development (Hull) Educ C147: Writing from the Field: The Social Issues of Literacy (Tateishi) Educ 180: Logic of Inquiry: Introduction to Analysis of Research in Education (Furco) Educ C193A: Environmental Education (Hurst) Educ C193B: Environmental Education (Hurst)

In addition to these academic service-learning courses, at least 35% of the approximately forty sections of field studies courses (Educ 97/197) offered each semester are co-curricular service-learning courses. In these courses, students provide various service activities (academic tutoring, youth mentoring, assistance with after-school programs) in the context of a course curriculum that explores key issues. While all field studies engage students in community-based activities in education-related environments, it is clear that in at least fifteen field studies sections each semester, there is a goal to meet an identified community need through the provision of student service to a community-based through the provision of student service to a community-based agency.

§III. The Faculty GSE Academic Review page 45

Section III. The Faculty16

In the opening paragraph of this document, we described the tripartite mission of the Graduate School of Education as

• producing high quality research addressing the most vexing and most important problems of American education

• preparing the next generation of educational scholars • implementing cutting-edge programs in professional preparation for a small but

significant cadre of teachers and leaders for schools in the Bay Area and beyond

The faculty is, of course, a key force in ensuring that we fulfill that mission, but ably supported by GSE staff and students in the process. In fact, we cannot simply examine faculty accomplishments to judge whether we have been successful in accomplishing our mission; we must also examine the accomplishments of our students and acknowledge the contributions of staff in all of our endeavors. We can determine the success of our research by examining what we publish, where we publish it, and how it impacts research and practice in the field. But we do not know whether we are producing the next generation of scholars until we examine the academic success (both their placements and their accomplishments) of our PhD graduates. We know that we are producing leaders for our schools only by documenting the commitment, longevity, and leadership of our professional program graduates in shaping education in the Bay Area.

So how are we doing in achieving this mission? Very well, we think. In §II, in which we analyzed our instructional programs, we documented the work of our students—their placements, successes in achieving honors, and staying power in the profession. Thus the evidence for achieving the second (the next generation of scholars) and third (leaders for our schools) planks in our mission is strong. And the evidence put forth in this section provides strong evidence that we have achieved the goal of high quality, highly regarded, influential scholarship.

Demographic Characteristics of the Faculty

Although the faculty of the GSE is weighted toward more senior levels (see Table 3.1), in recent years we have been rejuvenating the faculty with several appointments at the assistant professor and early levels of associate professor ranks. Currently, we have six assistant professors (with four appointed since 2002) and nine associate professors. The Senate faculty includes twenty-one men and fourteen women, with four faculty of color.

Gender and ethnicity. According to the campus OPA report for the School of Education (see Table 4 in that document), the total proportion of female and minority faculty has been fairly consistent since 1994-95 figures, although faculty in these groups are now more concentrated at the associate and assistant professor levels. In 2004-05, 32% of Education

16One-page curriculum vitae for our faculty are attached: Appendix III.A: Academic Senate Faculty, and III.B: Non-Senate Faculty.

GSE Academic Review §III. The Faculty

faculty were female, 13% were underrepresented minorities and 16% were minority (underrepresented plus Asian).

Data for education schools at three of the external peer institutions is available through the Association of American Universities Data Exchange, however by agreement, no institutions are identified. Female faculty at the peer institutions ranges from 30% to 50% for all ladder ranks combined, compared to Berkeley’s 32%. Among the three ranks, Berkeley has a lower percentage of females than any peer at the associate professor level (22%), and is slightly higher than average (35%) at the professor level.

Table 3.1: Distribution of Faculty by Rank (Fall 2005) Category Rank Number FTE Senior Lecturer 1 1.00 Ladder-Rank Faculty Professor 19 18.75 Associate Professor 10 10.00 Assistant Professor 6 6.00 Adjunct Faculty Adjunct Professor* 3 1.00 Adjunct Associate Professor 1 .50 Adjunct Assistant Professor 2 2.00 Professor of the Graduate School

1 .50

Zero-FTE 1 0.0 Total Number of Faculty 44 39.75 * One Adjunct Professor without salary

The GSE’s underrepresented and minority faculty representations are lower than all external peer departments17 at the professor rank, higher than all peers at the Associate rank, and just below average at the assistant rank. Among all ladder-ranks combined, Berkeley has the highest percentage of underrepresented faculty, although that number is only 13%. When all minority groups are considered, Berkeley’s 16% is second highest among the peer group, which ranges from 10% to 18%.

Age. Table 3.2 provides data on the age of ladder rank faculty in 2004-05. It shows that the average age of all ladder rank Education faculty (56.1) is higher than the average age on campus (51.6), and at each rank Education faculty are older than faculty across campus. In a separate calculation, data show that the percent of ladder rank Education faculty over 55 years of age (16%) is below the campus average (21%). However, as we have already indicated, we have made much progress recently in recruiting stellar early career faculty.

17As a reminder, our external peers are U Penn, Northwestern, Stanford, and UCLA.


Table 3.2: 2004-2005 Faculty Age Data for GSE Versus Campus Data Average ages UC Berkeley GSE Professor 56.4 59.2 Associate professor 46.6 54.1 Assistant professor 36.7 41.6 All ladder-rank faculty 51.6 56.1 Percent over 55 Professor 17 13 Associate professor 2 3 Assistant professor 0 0 All ladder-rank faculty 21 16 Source: Office of Planning Analysis (OPA) Report and Academic Personnel System

Compensation. The Association of American Universities Data Exchange also provides external peer faculty salary data by rank at the discipline level. Along with the stipulation that institutions remain anonymous, average salaries for private institutions can only be shown for a group of eight or more schools. For this purpose, the School of Education identified Harvard, Vanderbilt, Washington, St. Louis, Brown, and Cornell along with Northwestern, Pennsylvania and Stanford as the private peer group. The table below shows average salaries by rank for Berkeley, and weighted averages (based on FTE) for the public and private peer groups. This table also shows regionally adjusted salaries based on cost-of-living differences among peer locations. Actual salaries for Berkeley’s Education professors are only 1% below the public average, but 23% below the private average. After cost-of-living adjustments, the differences grow to 4% below the public average, and 50% below the private average. Similar differences exist for the associate and assistant ranks, ranging from 1.4% (public associate professors) to 93.7% (private associate professors) after accounting for regional variations. These comparisons, while shocking, are consistent with the general pattern across campus. The simple fact is that the GSE, along with the rest of campus, has lost much ground on the faculty compensation front in the past five years.

Table 3.3: Berkeley and Peer Group Education Faculty Salaries by Rank1 Average Salary Regionally Adjusted2 Berkeley Public Private Berkeley Public Private Professor 109,568 111,093 135,197 109,568 114,426 164,352 Associate Prof 70,811 69,713 87,486 70,811 71,804 137,180 Assistant Prof 55,600 60,875 61,753 55,600 62,701 79,198 All Ranks 91,423 94,205 106,662 91,423 97,031 130,929 1Source: Campus OPA Report and 2004-05 AAUDE Faculty Salary report. 2The adjusted salaries are weighted averages based on FTE and Runzheimer cost-of-living adjustments for each contributing institution.


Gauging the Success of the Faculty

By any standard, the faculty of the GSE is productive, distinguished, and influential. Faculty members in the GSE publish widely and engage in path-breaking research at the forefront of their fields. Faculty are widely sought out to lecture throughout the nation and in many parts of the world. Five faculty members in the School have been elected to the National Academy of Education (a highly select group). One of these five is also a member of the National Academy of Science and was recently elected to the prestigious Kappa Delta Pi Laureate Chapter. 18 In the past five years, six faculty members received fellowships to spend a year of residency at the prestigious Center for the Advancement of the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto.

The merit review process. Faculty members of the Graduate School of Education have made lasting and significant contributions to research, teaching, and service to the profession and the University. A primary means of assessing these contributions has been through the review process of School’s personnel committee, which oversees all appointments, promotions, and merit advancements. Overall, the faculty of the School have been highly successful in attaining promotions and advancements in timely ways both in the evaluation process within the School and subsequently at the campus level. Over the past five years over 90% of the faculty have regularly demonstrated their accomplishments and received regular advancements through this process.

The personnel committee has reviewed all but two currently active (as of July 1, 2006) faculty members in accord with normal time at rank and step. Several faculty have received accelerated advancements. In some cases, such advancements were in response to lucrative outside offers made to them. The clearest evidence of the success of the faculty in research, teaching, and service in these important and rigorous internal and campus evaluations is that of the thirty-five members of the ladder-rank faculty, ten have achieved the distinguished status of professor, step VI or above (28% of the faculty); of these ten, three are at professor, above-scale. Further, the faculty has an excellent record of promotion of assistant professors to associate professors with tenure. In the past twenty years only one of our assistant professors failed to be promoted.

Monitoring the quality of instruction. Another index of faculty success is the quality of instruction provided to our students. The GSE follows Berkeley campus guidelines for monitoring the content and quality of teaching by faculty in the ladder-rank, adjunct, and lecturer series. All GSE courses and instructors are evaluated toward the end of each semester using a seven-point Likert scale to rate a variety of instructional dimensions. These include the quality course material and presentation, the use of assignments to enhance learning, the organizational structure of the course, and the integration of theory, research, and application where appropriate. Some faculty members also conduct mid-semester evaluations and informal evaluation assessments to obtain feedback that can be quickly acted upon. The evaluation unit within the GSE coordinates all course evaluations for the School.

18The Laureate Chapter is limited to 60 living members, all significant educational scholars. In its entire history, only 293 scholars have been elected to it in its 102 year history.


In efforts to provide more immediate, accurate, and cost-effective evaluative feedback to faculty, GSE adopted an on-line course evaluation system during the fall semester 2003. Currently all GSE lecture and seminar courses are included in the on-line system. E-mail notices are sent to GSE students (with copies to faculty) during the last three weeks of instruction urging them to complete on-line evaluations of their courses. At the end of each semester, instructors can view via the web the quantitative summaries of students’ ratings and qualitative comments listed by question for their courses. The evaluation unit also provides evaluation summaries to the dean’s immediate office and the personnel committee for planning and assessment processes.

In the first two years of the implementation of the on-line system, we experienced some fall-off in our overall response rate; however, due to some special efforts on the part of our evaluation unit (such as arranging to make computer labs available for classes to use en masse), the response rates (as of fall semester 2005) have returned to pre-computerized levels. The mean rating for the overall quality of courses, on a 7-point scale, is 5.63 (sd = 1.49), while the mean instructor rating is 5.67 (sd = 1.46).

Incentives. In terms of incentives, we stress both accountability (through our evaluation system) and rewards for good teaching. As noted, students evaluate all our courses, and the results are provided to the instructors. In addition, the School’s personnel committee pays careful attention to the quality of teaching in all reviews for promotion and advancements. (The review by the Academic Senate’s Budget Committee also emphasizes teaching as a major responsibility for faculty). Since faculty members undergoing reviews are provided the opportunity to review merit review reports prepared by the personnel committee, they frequently receive feedback on the assessments of their teaching by other faculty. Insofar as there are problems or shortcomings in teaching, the dean communicates those concerns to faculty when he presents to each faculty member the overall results of his/her review. It should be noted that the mean ratings are quite high, suggesting that faculty have received positive teaching evaluations. Another index of teaching quality is captured in campus-wide recognitions; since the last review in 1994, three GSE faculty have received Distinguished Teaching Awards, presented by the Senate’s Committee on Teaching.

The School’s policies on teaching are aimed at ensuring a wide variety of courses, including undergraduate courses and courses in the professional programs. Each faculty member is expected to teach, along with courses in doctoral level programs, courses in either a professional preparation program or the undergraduate minor. Since undergraduate courses are often large, we have developed a policy by which faculty receive extra teaching credits for courses larger than sixty or one hundred twenty five students. (See paragraph on “internal teaching load policies” below, page 54.)

Follow up studies of recent graduates. One of the most important indicators of our success as a faculty is the capacity of our programs to provide our students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in their future professional responsibilities and, by implication, the success of our students in meeting the professional needs of the institutions that employ them. Among the best sources of information to assess how well we meet this standard are the follow-up studies of graduates after they are out in the field; another important source is follow-up studies with employers of our graduates. We have very little data to evaluate the success of our doctoral programs (save for the Graduate Division’s annual exit survey of doctoral graduates); by


contrast, we regularly collect follow-up data to evaluate the long-term success of our professional degree programs. By state mandate, these programs undergo an annual evaluation of their program with respect to current students, recent graduates, and employers of recent graduates.

GSE is home to five programs that offer a California State Credential in conjunction with a master’s or doctorate degree. They are the Developmental Teacher Education (DTE) program, the Multicultural Urban Secondary English (MUSE) program, Master’s and Credential in Science and Mathematics Education (MACSME) program, Principal Leadership Institute (PLI) program, School Psychology credential and doctorate program.19 The mandated evaluations of these programs address several program components including (a) the effectiveness of the program in preparing candidates for the work they will do and (b) the quality of courses, field experiences, mentoring and advising, and research experiences. The evaluation unit conducts these annual evaluations and summarizes the findings in reports that are shared with program faculty for program improvement; they are kept on file for periodic accreditation review by the state and, where appropriate, professional organizations.

Overall, recent graduates of GSE’s credential programs consistently rate the programs “above average” to “high” across all dimensions of program quality. Further, employers of these graduates frequently refer to them as leaders or as catalysts as compared to graduates from other programs.

Reviews of the annual program evaluation reports for the teacher education programs since 2001/2002 reveal that towards the end of their first year of teaching most graduates were teaching in urban public schools and many were teacher leaders in their schools. In addition, they had assumed many different professional roles, achieved many notable accomplishments, and participated in a variety of activities beyond their work as classroom teachers. These first-year teachers rated their preparation programs “above average” to “high” in helping them to plan instruction, design learning experiences, make subject matter comprehensible to students, create and maintain good student learning environments, engage and support students in learning, assess student learning, and develop capacity as a professional educator. In reflecting upon their preparation program, they often highlighted the value of student teaching and the support provided by their supervisors and mentor teachers, particularly in preparing them to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students:

The field experience was invaluable. It allowed us to integrate and apply our learning in a very unique way.

Many graduates reported the value of the strong theoretical background provided by the programs:

Good theoretical background–I feel like I know why I’m doing what I’m doing, whereas other programs just teach a grab-bag of techniques.

Components of the programs that were highlighted as important for learning to teach included courses on reading, working with English language learners, special education, urban education and technology. Also highlighted were the meaningful and relevant collegial relationships, and the emphasis on reflective practice: 19 Descriptions of the credential programs are included as Appendix II.A.


[program] is GREAT on reflection, I always feel like I’m trying to improve on my teaching and incorporate new ideas.

In addition, these annual program evaluation reports reveal high employer satisfaction with the quality of preparation for teaching of the graduates they employed as teachers in their schools. They reported that graduates were very well prepared. A selection of responses highlight the high level of overall satisfaction with the graduates:

…an outstanding classroom teacher; very well prepared; outshines many experienced teachers!; enthusiasm and hard work, diligence and meticulous planning. Ability for collaboration with other teachers – many with a lot more experience …and much less enthusiasm. [This teacher] will be a superstar! A very intelligent and passionate teacher. She is aware of the various cultural and linguistic factors at play in her classroom and strives to meet each of her students needs on a daily basis. She has been a wonderful addition to the school.

These employer supervisors have emphasized the strong content knowledge that our graduates have brought to their schools as first-year teachers, as well as their ability to communicate effectively with the school community and their commitment to high quality instruction. Other specific teacher strengths mentioned were their knowledge of assessment techniques, depth of understanding in constructivist pedagogy, collaborative focus, professionalism, and organization skills. High-level knowledge and expertise and an ability to share this with colleagues was also a noted strength of graduates:

This graduate has brought an outstanding knowledge of the teaching and learning process to our school. [The teacher’s] knowledge of serving ESL students has been outstanding. [The teacher] has already presented professional development to our staff even through this was [the teacher’s] first year.

One of the challenges of determining the effectiveness of programs over time is ensuring that we have accurate and current contact details for alumni. The teacher education program faculty have worked with the director of the GSE development and external relations unit to design a system to track graduates and explore ways in which they can be motivated to maintain contact with us. In addition, the GSE is working with other UC schools of education to secure an agreement with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing for access to a statewide database that includes contact details of credentialed teachers in California, with information about the institution from which they received their degree.

Teaching resources. Faculty members use a variety of campus and School-wide resources to enhance the quality of instruction. Within the GSE, the education technology service center provides instructional facilities, equipment, consultation, and support for faculty, staff and students. Specifically, the center provides audio-visual and computer-related equipment loans, a video library, a computer laboratory, digital video and audio services, and computer support. Staff of the education technology service center also serve as technical consultants to faculty regarding the creation of multimedia content for courses and presentations,


database development, software acquisition, and equipment configurations for technology-based instructional activities.

Over the past eight years, the GSE also has equipped two meeting/classrooms with comprehensive multimedia capability, including digital projectors, surround-sound systems, Internet connectivity, and 3-D document cameras. Last year, GSE was a beneficiary of a campus AirBears grant that provided wireless connectivity to all classroom/meeting spaces within the east side of Tolman Hall (the primary GSE teaching space). This has provided GSE faculty the opportunity to incorporate technology more easily into their courses, and large numbers of students can simultaneously connect to the web without individual hardwire connections. Though faculty have enthusiastically embraced available technology, our resources have not kept pace with the demands for more technology-equipped classrooms, nor have we been able to address ongoing needs to maintain and update rapidly-outdated equipment.

We also take advantage of campus resources, both as a way of bolstering weak teaching and enhancing strong teaching. For example, in the past three years, two GSE faculty have received campus-wide recognition as Mellon faculty fellows; the program for Mellon fellows uses a faculty community approach to promote the improvement of undergraduate teaching and learning by encouraging faculty to redesign courses and engage students in the research process.

Faculty Teaching Responsibilities

Internal teaching load policies. Standard policy is for faculty to teach four courses per year. Each faculty member is expected to contribute to the School’s instructional mission in two ways: first, by teaching in doctoral level programs and second, by teaching in professional preparation programs or in the undergraduate minor program. In order to account for the greater workload in teaching large classes, we instituted a policy, based on a point system, that provides extra teaching credit for large courses. The policy is as follows:

1. a course with zero or one .25 FTE GSIs (typically up to sixty students) is assigned two points;

2. a course with two to five .25 FTE GSIs (typically sixty to one hundred twenty five students) is assigned three points;

3. a course with six or more .25 FTE GSIs (typically one hundred twenty five students or more) is assigned four points;

4. a research group with fewer than ten students and meets three hours or less per week is assigned one point; and

5. a research group with ten or more students and meets for four hours or more per week, is assigned two points.

Faculty members are required to accumulate sixteen points over a period of two years. Reductions in teaching from four courses per year (or sixteen points for two years) must be approved by the dean. By policy, the following teaching reduction can be granted:

• Administrative release is granted to associate dean appointees (50% release) and to area speakers (25%)

• Research release may be provided by extramural funding salary reimbursement (up to 50% release)


• In some cases, newly appointed faculty members are given course relief for one semester to allow for the development of new courses.

Actual faculty workloads. Faculty workloads for each year from 2000-01 to 2004-05 are detailed below. Table 3.4 lists total student credit hours taught by various categories of instructors in lower division; upper division, and graduate courses; Table 3.5 converts the data from 3.4 into proportional division of responsibility among types of instructors.

Table 3.4: Actual Faculty Workloads, 2000-2005

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Actual permanent faculty FTE (Fall-spring average) 29.75 26.97 29.25 30.31 29.58 Primary classes (Divided by actual permanent faculty FTE) Lower division classes 1.23 0.95 0.96 0.76 1.28 Upper division classes 1.66 1.8 1.65 1.56 1.54 Undergraduate classes 2.89 2.74 2.61 2.32 2.82 Graduate classes 3.75 3.45 3.47 3.32 3.91 Total classes 6.64 6.19 6.08 5.64 6.74 Allocated student FTE (Taught by permanent faculty) Undergraduate 6.79 6.56 6.64 7.5 5.23 Graduate 7.06 8.74 8.09 8.76 8.49 Total FTE 13.85 15.3 14.73 16.26 13.72

Clearly Senate (permanent) faculty are more involved in direct teaching of graduate than undergraduate students, although our three largest undergraduate offerings, all satisfying the American Cultures requirement, are taught by Senate faculty. Moreover, all courses and/or sections taught by graduate students are coordinated and overseen by Senate faculty.

Table 3.5: Education Courses Taught by Instructor Type and Course Level,

2004-2005 Lower

division Upper

division Total

undergrad Graduate All

Permanent faculty 47% 49% 48% 67% 59% Lecturers 6% 8% 7% 20% 15% Other faculty 36% 25% 29% 1% 13% Graduate student instructors 0% 8% 5% 1% 3% Other (emeriti, visitors and administrators)

11% 10% 10% 11% 11%

A different picture of faculty workload emerges when other metrics from Cal Profiles20 are used. In Table 3.6, we have calculated an adjusted workload by including summer enrollments in overall workload calculations in accordance with recent campus policy. The all-important 20Cal Profiles are provided by the campus’s Office of Budget and Finance, Planning and Analysis.


adjusted workload metric (FTE students divided by FTE faculty) appears in the next to last line in the table. As the data suggest, student workload increased steadily from 2000-01 through 2003-04 but experienced a 7.5% reduction in total student FTE in 2004-05. The steady increases in student workload from 2000-01 through 2003-04 were driven by the enrollment increases in our professional credential programs. Similarly, the 7.5% reduction in 2004-05 reflected planned reductions in the size of our teacher education program in response to a reduction in our base operating budget (in line with UC’s agreement with the Governor). Throughout this period, enrollment in our advanced Master’s and PhD programs were remarkably stable. As we look toward the future and getting to a state of full incumbency, with 40.75 FTE faculty, the current enrollment numbers suit us quite well. The last line in the table represents a “what if” scenario; it depicts the all-important FTE student/FTE faculty ratio under the assumption that we were at a full complement of 40.75 FTE faculty throughout the period. As those data suggest, even at a full complement of faculty and under the questionable but conservative assumption that new faculty will not generate new FTE student enrollment, these data suggest that we can accommodate the increase in FTE faculty and stay above our baseline. It is also worth noting that to achieve the 2000-01 workload level of 16.05 (under the assumption of 40.75 faculty), it would have required 48.5 FTE faculty in the GSE in 2004-05. In short, the productivity of the GSE appears to be in good shape and definitely warrants the current target FTE for the GSE, perhaps even an increase to 43 or 44 FTE.

Table 3.6: Graduate School of Education: Workload Indicators Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Allocated Student FTE by Level Graduate Fall/Spring 332.88 383.42 410.04 449.79 410.43 Graduate Summer 44.92 63.42 61.33 Total (Adjusted) 454.96 513.21 471.76

Undergraduate Fall/Spring 321.23 263.77 257.8 318.07 291.25 Summer 8.97 12.3 16.7 Total (Adjusted) 266.77 330.37 307.95

Adjusted FTE Students per Year 654.11 647.19 721.73 843.58 779.71

Total Faculty 33.75 34.75 34.75 32.75 31.75 FTE Students/FTE Faculty (Adjusted) 19.40 18.60 20.80 25.80 24.60 FTE Students/FTE Faculty (assume full faculty complement) 16.05 15.88 17.71 20.70 19.13 Source: Cal Profiles

Faculty advising and mentoring. At the point of admission to the School, each doctoral admit is assigned at least one faculty adviser, by the area faculty, based on the availability and compatibility of research interests. Students admitted to our professional MA/credential programs are assigned as advisees to those faculty members who hold primary oversight responsibility for their specific programs. Even though this seems to create an apparent overload


for a few faculty, it turns out not be overly burdensome because MA/credential programs are largely cohort programs in which students take 90% of their coursework as a group.

By contrast, advisement in our doctoral programs is highly individualized, intensive, and continuous. Since the majority of the School’s doctoral programs follow a research-apprenticeship model, it is critical that students have faculty guidance from the outset. The individualized character of doctoral programs means that students have considerable latitude in selecting courses to support their areas of research specialization and in creating a thematic focus for that research. Faculty input and advice is key in making these choices, as is the faculty’s role in guiding their research. It is also expected that faculty advisers will help students develop as academic professionals—encouraging them to publish articles, attend professional conferences, and assume teaching responsibilities. Many of our doctoral students remain with their initial faculty advisers throughout their program; however, students have the option to change advisers and to have dual mentors (e.g., one faculty member as a program adviser and a second as dissertation chair).

A special advising role is played by the Head Graduate Adviser. The head graduate adviser is selected by the dean of the School and recommended to the Graduate Division (which makes the appointment). The primary responsibility of the head graduate adviser is to oversee and certify that Graduate Division and School requirements are met in selecting, advising, educating, evaluating, and approving candidates for higher degrees. However, the head graduate adviser also serves an important advising role, particularly when students experience academic difficulties. In such cases, the head graduate adviser works with the student, and his or her faculty adviser, to find a resolution.

While faculty members are responsible for students’ academic advisement, staff members in the School play a significant role in guiding students through the many School, Graduate Division and, in some cases, state credential requirements. Additionally, staff frequently assist students in navigating the tangle of School and campus administrative requirements. Admissions staff advise applicants about programs and admission requirements and procedures. Once students are admitted, staff members advise them about School and Graduate Division degree requirements, School and state credential requirements, fellowship opportunities, and financial aid options. In addition to providing advising services for our graduate students, the School supports a half-time staff member for the undergraduate minor program, who has the responsibility of advising undergraduates about program requirements.

Quality of advising and mentoring. Evidence of our success in this area is corroborated by information from the Graduate Division’s PhD program exit survey. In the academic years 1999 through 2005, survey responses indicated that 91% of Education students were satisfied with their professional relationship with their dissertation supervisor (compared with 86% campus-wide), and 75% of our doctoral graduates said they would select the same dissertation supervisor again (compared to 67% campus-wide).21 To underscore the importance of faculty advising, the School has made advising assessment an important component of our faculty merit reviews. Recently the Graduate Division established a campus-wide faculty mentoring award,

21“Summary of Central Data for the School of Education,” p. 23, UCB Office of Planning and Analysis


which is awarded to three to five faculty per year. Thus far, two of our faculty members have won this campus-wide honor.

With regard to staff advising effectiveness, we have anecdotal evidence from students who (in person, or through cards, candy, flowers) sing the praises of our staff, without whom, they say, they would never have made it through the system. The School’s advising staff is very dedicated and provides a valuable resource for students.

As already described in our review of graduate program mentoring experiences, by our using an apprenticeship model, graduate students are closely mentored starting in their first year. However, students are encouraged also to learn about the research of other faculty (for example, by participating in more than one research group). Students have the freedom to change advisers if their research interests shift, and can shift to a different faculty member as dissertation chair. But the large majority of students work with a single adviser to completion of the degree. The success of our students in fulfilling career goals and the popularity of our range of mentoring experiences among our students would suggest that the model serves both faculty and students well.

Faculty Life in the GSE

Included in our analyses of faculty experience in the GSE is an account of recruiting record over the last several years, our practices for mentoring junior, non-tenured faculty, activities to promote a School-wide culture, and our efforts to connect more closely with colleagues across campus and with public school partners in the area.

Faculty recruitment. The GSE has been highly successful in recruiting some of the very best educational researchers in the nation. Since 2000-01, the School has conducted twelve searches; in all but one case we were able to appoint the top-ranked applicant from excellent application pools. Table 3.7 lists the positions and outcomes of these searches since 2000-01. Of these eleven successful recruitments, seven are women and one is African-American.

Engaging junior faculty.22 We have several practices in place to welcome and apprentice non-tenured Senate faculty into the work and life of the Graduate School of Education. First and foremost, we engage them in the academic life of the School—encouraging them to take an active role in faculty governance. We, and they, must maintain a delicate balance here. On the one hand, they cannot and should not be excluded or excused from service, (How else will they become engaged in and committed to the larger community?) On the other, they cannot become so active that they compromise the time available to nurture their budding scholarly programs. Second, we ensure that each new faculty member, at some point during his or her first three years, serves a stint on the personnel committee. By reviewing and commenting on the cases that pass before the personnel committee, they gain invaluable insider knowledge about our collective values, how to examine a case for balance and quality, and how to construct their own case when the time comes for their own first major review. We also try to make sure that each new faculty member gets a turn at serving on a search committee early on. Like the academic review process, the search process is a good venue for unearthing our core academic values. 22The term “junior faculty” is seldom used in the GSE. The term “non-tenured Senate faculty” is more common and will be used throughout this document.


Table 3.7: Graduate School of Education Faculty Recruitments, 2000-2005 Year Position/Description Search Outcome

2000-01 Development and Science Education

Top candidate: Kathleen Metz, accepted offer effective January 1, 2001

2000-01 Dean and Professor Top candidate: P. David Pearson, accepted offer effective July 1, 2001

2000-01 School Psychology Top candidate: Frank Worrell, accepted offer effective July 1, 2002 (due to his sabbatical leave at Pennsylvania State University)

2001-02 Social and Cultural Analysis of Education

Top candidate: Ingrid Seyer-Ochi, accepted offer effective July 1, 2002

2002-03 Teacher Education and Associate Dean for Professional Programs

Top candidate: Diane Mayer, accepted offer effective July 1, 2002

2002-03 Educational Statistics Top candidate: Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, accepted offer effective July 1, 2002

2003-04 Leadership for Educational Equity and School Reform

Top candidate: Heinrich Mintrop, accepted offer effective July 1, 2004

2003-04 Leadership for Educational Equity and School Reform

Top candidate: Cynthia Coburn, accepted offer effective January 1, 2005

2003-04 Language and Literacy Education: Reading and Literacy in U.S. Schools

Top candidate: Laura Sterponi, accepted offer effective January 1, 2005

2003-04 Language and Literacy Education: English Language Learning in School Settings

Top candidate declined offer because she desired tenure and because of cost-of housing difference.

2004-05 Mathematics Education Top candidate: Dor Abrahamson, accepted offer effective July 1, 2005

2004-05 Cognitive Science and Learning in Social Contexts

Top candidate: Randi Engle accepted offer effective July 1, 2005


Third, we assign a mentor from among senior faculty members upon request. We do not require, but we strongly encourage, non-tenured faculty to take up the mentoring offer. The main responsibility of the mentor is to offer advice, counsel, and answers to questions that often vex a young faculty member. Fourth, the dean (who is also the department chair) meets annually with untenured Senate faculty members to review progress, discuss and promote new opportunities (e.g., fellowships for young faculty or the pros and cons of getting engaged in a professional organization), and solve any problems that young faculty may have encountered. The associate dean for academic affairs meets with untenured faculty in preparation for merit reviews and upon their request, as well as via his role as chair of the personnel committee.

Promoting a School-wide culture. In response to the 1994 review, the GSE took a number of steps promote a more vibrant School-wide culture, including the creation of several School-wide “centers” of research and development activity, and the sponsorship of a school-wide research day to feature both student and faculty research (see §I, page 5). More recent initiatives include a GSE Educational Research Series focusing on methodological and policy issues in educational research and a series of workshops to promote the use of cutting-edge technological tools for collecting and analyzing data. The meetings of the Department of Education also bring together all of the constituencies of the GSE—students, staff, and faculty.

Connecting the GSE to the broader campus community. Currently, GSE faculty work regularly on a range of research and development activities with faculty in many other departments and research units on issues of educational equity; research, curriculum, and professional development in math, science and technology; and the impact of linguistic, cultural, and physical environments on education and learning. Several colleagues, most notably in science and technology, work closely with faculty in Letters and Sciences and Engineering, especially as they find common interests in the use of technology to enhance advanced learning. In fact, our SESAME graduate group is a long-standing (over thirty years) collaboration between GSE faculty and faculty from many other departments across campus with interests in science and mathematics. And we have built strong relations with colleagues in psychology, anthropology, city and regional planning, English, linguistics, and statistics as well as those in professional schools such as social welfare, law, public health, and public policy. These relationships often result in joint participation in graduate student committees, research proposals to the National Science Foundation or other agencies, and other campus-based collaborations.

Joint and courtesy appointments. Most of our faculty’s official connections to other departments come from the home discipline within which they were trained. In about half the cases, faculty teach systematically both in education and in their affiliated departments. Other cases involve a more-than-usual participation on PhD committees in other departments. These links constitute ready communicative avenues for ad hoc inter-departmental discussions on research or instructional improvement initiatives. Many faculty teach in both departments and cross list their courses. The joint and courtesy appointments of record are these:

German: Kramsch Psychology: Turiel, Ranney Mathematics: Schoenfeld Electrical Engineering and Computer Science: White


Teaching affiliations. Already mentioned is the strong tie between the GSE and the cognitive science program, which involves GSE faculty in major teaching roles in this interdisciplinary major within the College of Letters and Science. Also mentioned are the interdepartmental teaching arrangements and cross-listed courses of our faculty with joint and courtesy appointments. Also, via their participation in the activities of the various research units detailed earlier, faculty participate in student supervision of research projects and dissertations related to all those organizations. The School’s strong interdisciplinary base makes our faculty sought-after “outside” committee members for several other departments, including engineering and psychology.

SESAME (Studies in Engineering, Science, and Mathematics Education). This long-standing interdepartmental graduate group, which offers a PhD in science, engineering, or mathematics education, is probably the most transparent example of interdisciplinary teaching and mentoring in which the GSE is involved. At least since 1985, School of Education faculty members have been the majority participants in the group, and they have held the majority of leadership positions (chair, executive committee) in the program. The program brings in students with strong disciplinary backgrounds (physics, mathematics, chemistry, engineering) who have decided to make teaching and learning in their discipline a major focus of their future professional work. Additionally, SESAME includes a number of faculty from the science and engineering departments on campus; for them, SESAME participation has established collegial links that help in conducting educational research and program development.

Service and outreach. Several outreach programs provide conduits for interdisciplinary connections. For example, the Service-Learning Center (reviewed in § II, page 45, under enriching the undergraduate curriculum), helps faculty understand and organize courses in a model academic learning in the context of community service. UCLinks is a system-wide computer-based portfolio of projects involving the use of technology to connect to K-12 students in schools and community centers. Several of our faculty have participated (Starkey, Baquedano-López, Hull) in this unique mix of service, research, and research training in the context of service, involving students and faculty from across the campus and several other UC campuses.

Participation in organized research units, centers, and institutes. Many GSE faculty participate actively in cross-disciplinary units across campus. Among our major affiliations are the following:

Institute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences (Abrahamson, diSessa, Engle, Ranney, Saxe, Schoenfeld). For at least twenty years, faculty members from the GSE have been active participants in the Cognitive Science Group. The Institute hosts an extremely popular interdisciplinary undergraduate major in cognitive science, in which School of Education faculty and lecturers have been stalwart participants. A number of training grants have hosted special-focus graduate programs (e.g., spatial cognition, cognitive neuroscience), and School faculty members have participated actively when the focus was appropriate.

Lawrence Hall of Science (Metz, White, Pearson, Wilson). There have been continuous, tight connections of many sorts between the School of Education and the Lawrence Hall of Science for decades. The Hall provides a strong science/math outreach for the


university, and many School faculty members have participated in research and development with the Hall. The relationship is mutually beneficial, providing needed expertise for the Hall and much appreciated funding for graduate students and faculty research.

Institute of Human Development (Turiel, Starkey, Saxe). The cognition and development area has long been active in the Institute of Human Development. Specific connections include sponsored research projects run out of IHD, supervision of students in IHD-related studies, and institute leadership.

Center for Cities and Schools (Pearson, Stern, Seyer-Ochi). The focus of the center is the relationships, sometimes synergistic and other times not, between schools and the communities in which they reside. Center participants examine a range of demographic, environmental, and human factors that influence both the quality of schooling and the quality of life in these settings. Berkeley Institute of Design (Linn). The institute is a research group and proposed research/teaching unit that fosters a new and deeply interdisciplinary approach to design for the 21st century.

Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity (Grubb, Perlstein, Stern, Fuller, Pearson). The Institute is a multidisciplinary, collaborative venture to produce research, research-based policy prescriptions, and curricular innovation on issues of racial and ethnic justice in California and the nation.

Human Rights Center (Freedman). The Human Rights Center conducts interdisciplinary research on emerging issues in international human rights and humanitarian law. Included in its portfolio is work on war crimes, justice and postwar reconstruction, health and human rights, and globalization.

Center for Latin American Studies (Shaiken). For almost a decade, Harley Shaiken has directed this center, which is dedicated to research and collaborative activities situated in the countries of Central and South America, with a major focus on education and workforce issues.

Center for Latino Policy Research (Baquedano-López). CLPR is committed to sponsoring research efforts that have direct policy impact on the Latino population in the United States. Professor Baquedano-López will serve as chair of the center in 2006-07.

Collaborations currently under development. In the past few years, three collaborations have begun to take shape but are still very much in a developmental stage. Each represents an opportunity for the GSE to work with colleagues across campus on an emerging agenda that is as relevant to the broader society as it is to the campus’s goal to build partnerships that address vexing social issues.

The most ambitious collaboration—Cal Prep, the recently opened charter school in Oakland’s west side—involves GSE faculty with faculty from all across campus—engineering, L&S, law, and journalism, just to name a few. Cal Prep will continue to be a powerful catalyst for enhancing our relationships across campus because it will link our faculty with L&S and


professional school faculty who share a commitment to improving teaching, learning, and student engagement at Cal Prep and, ultimately, across a range of urban school settings.

For the past two years, several GSE faculty members have worked with colleagues in psychology, social welfare, and public health to re-establish a campus-wide commitment to early childhood education. Through the work of a campus-wide committee, we have the opportunity to create a campus-wide research center and two new programs of major importance to the campus, Bay Area, and state. The research center is almost a reality (fall 2006); it will provide opportunities for faculty who work on early childhood issues to better situate their efforts and build collaborations with colleagues in these three units (psychology, social welfare, and public health). Two interdisciplinary programs are under consideration. One would be an interdisciplinary minor in early childhood education. The second (with an annual N of 12-15) would evolve into a graduate group in early childhood; that graduate group would sponsor an MA in early childhood leadership to provide teacher educators for community college programs, administrators for local pre-schools and child-care centers, and leaders for county and regional agencies.

The Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative has promoted collaboration with several campus units. Several of our faculty have worked with the law school, ethnic studies, and African-American studies on one proposal for the BDRI; another group has worked with physical sciences and engineering on another. The work that would be conducted under the auspices of the BDRI would complement work already underway in other campus collaborations.

As part of the University of California system-wide Science-Mathematics Initiative (SMI) "California Teach" program designed to address the critical need in California for highly qualified K-12 teachers in science and mathematics, the GSE is actively involved in Berkeley's Cal Teach program with colleagues in the departments of physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering, and the Lawrence Hall of Science. This program, now taking in its second cohort, provides the opportunity for students to complete bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics, or engineering while learning to be effective teachers. Current and planned courses in the GSE’s Undergraduate Minor in Education will provide the theoretical introduction and practical orientation to a range of professional issues for teaching mathematics and science in the Bay Area’s urban schools. Graduates will be eligible for intern teaching credentials, and the GSE is actively involved in planning the intern experience for these graduates in their first two years of teaching as they work towards their preliminary teaching credential.

A somewhat unusual collaboration involves the GSE with other higher education institutions, community organizations, and educational institutions. Funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation, the Arts Education Initiative (AEI) is a collaboration with Humboldt State University, Mills College, St. Mary’s College, California State University East Bay, and involves The Center for Art and Public Life at the California College of the Arts, and the East Bay Conservation Corps Charter School. AEI aims to offer teachers and school leaders a learning theory that will enable them to integrate the arts into their curricula. AEI focuses on establishing principles of professional preparation for arts integration that can be applied in professional education programs across the country. The program has been very successful and in December 2005 the Ford Foundation approved further funding a second cycle.


Participation in campus service activities. Given its small size, the GSE has been active in the committee work of the Academic Senate. As documented in Table 3.8 (see Appendix III.C. for a listing of individual faculty members and the committees on which they have served), GSE faculty members have become especially active over the past three years, with about 20% of the GSE faculty serving on Academic Senate committees each year.

Table 3.8: Participation in Academic Senate Work Number of Faculty participating as a Year Member Chair/Vice-Chair 2001-02 4 2002-03 4 1 2003-04 6 1 2004-05 8 1 2005-06 8

Collaborations with preK-12 education. Mainly as a function of a strong research portfolio, with literally dozens of projects situated in schools throughout the Bay Area and beyond, we have strong relationships with school-based partners. But our strongest connections to schools are the result of our professional graduate programs—teacher education, the PLI, and our new Joint Doctoral Program in Leadership for Educational Equity. The graduates of our credential MA programs continue to assume positions of teacher leadership throughout the Bay Area. With fifty-some new principals taking positions of leadership in Bay Area schools and, in another few years, with fifteen new superintendents assuming even higher levels of leadership, we anticipate having a network of alumni in well placed roles in area schools. These programs and their impact on Bay Area schools will benefit us and the broader campus in the future by providing access to schools for collaboration, research, curriculum development, outreach, and professional development. Equally as important, they also establish the GSE and the Berkeley campus as a Bay Area presence in pre-K through community college educational issues and efforts.

Faculty Research

Research units. The Graduate School of Education either hosts or is connected with several units that promote research. (Those items with asterisks also host sponsored research from external sources.) *Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research Center (BEAR)

Established in 1994, the BEAR Center conducts research on the integration of assessment (the measurement of individual students) and evaluation (the study of educational and social intervention).

Center for Integrated Studies in Teaching and Learning (CISTL)

CISTL undertakes research at the intersection of teaching and learning. Research projects span a wide range: teaching and learning processes; the teacher-student relationship; teacher learning and the education of teachers; and the socio-cultural, institutional, occupational, and community contexts of teaching and learning.


Center for Popular Education and Participatory Research (CPEPR) CPEPR promotes and supports popular education and participatory research in order to strengthen the participation of everyday people—-especially the poor, youth, immigrants, and people of color—in efforts for social justice.

*Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE) CREDE is a federally funded research and development program focused on improving the education of students whose ability to reach their potential is challenged by language or cultural barriers, race, geographic location, or poverty.

Center for Research on Education and Work (CREW) Crew is dedicated to the study of education and work.

Center for the Study of Critical Transitions “The central mission of the Center for the Study of Critical Transitions will be to investigate and, if possible, catalyze and extend recent confluences of perspective and focus within cognitive, developmental and socio-cultural approaches to the diverse phenomena surrounding critical transitions.”

Center for Urban Education (CUE)

“The Center for Urban Education is dedicated to supporting school-based research and reform efforts that focus on the problems and issues confronting urban schools.”

*Diversity in Mathematics Education (DiME): Partnership with Berkeley Schools The Diversity in Mathematics Education (DiME) Center, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), brings together UC Berkeley, UCLA, the University of Wisconsin, and their partner school districts. It focuses on of research and professional development that will enable ALL students to be successful in mathematics.

Excellence through Collaboration and Outreach (ECO) Center

The Excellence through Collaborative Opportunities (ECO) Center serves as the administrative arm for Graduate School of Education (GSE) school-university partnerships.

*Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

“Founded in 1983 as a cooperative venture between the schools of education at UC Berkeley and Stanford University, PACE is an independent policy research center whose primary aim is to enrich education policy debates with sound analysis and hard evidence.”

*Service-Learning Research and Development Center The Service-Learning Research and Development Center was established in 1994 to help better understand the implications of service activities on teaching, learning, and schooling.

Research productivity. Most of the data in this section come from the analysis prepared by the Office of Planning and Analysis (OPA). That office, in turn, relied heavily on data


provided by Cal Profiles, maintained by the university’s office of Budget and Finance, Planning and Analysis. According to the OPA report, federal, not-for-profit and non-federal government support were the three primary sources of School of Education sponsored (external) research funding in 2004-05. As seen in figure 3.1, when adjusted for inflation, between 1994-95 and 2004-05, federal funding declined from $11,933,000 to $2,532,000 (-79%), although the 1994-95 figure was high and not representative of average awards in this category. Not-for-profit support has been consistently above $2,500,000 since 1999-2000 and after a sharp increase and decline between 1999-2000 and 2002-03, non-federal government support increased again to $1,941,000 in 2004-05.

Figure 2: Prorated Sponsored Project Summary by Sponsor Category

Adjusted for Inflation ($000s)

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

FEDERAL

INDUSTRY

NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

NOT FOR PROFIT

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Federal

Not for Profit

Non-Federal Government

University of CaliforniaIndustry

Figure 3.1. Prorated sponsored project summary by sponsor category adjusted for

inflation ($000s). Source: Cal Profiles

As seen in Table 3.9, the School of Education was the only unit within the internal comparison group (psychology, public health, and social welfare) to show an overall decline in SPO funding; campus and all comparable units had increases in SPO funding of 40% or more.

Table 3.9: Total Prorated Sponsored Project Awards (in $000) Adjusted for Inflation

1994-95 1997-98 2000-01 2004-05 % Change Total Campus 288,205 291,680 334,694 406,721 41% GSE 13,895 10,630 12,951 7889 -43% Psychology 6,035 4,931 4,564 8,462 40% Public Health 18,195 19,451 25,612 37,686 107% Social Welfare 14,759 18,104 20,733 26,443 79% Source: Cal Profiles


When examining prorated sponsored project awards per faculty member the decline in SPO funding is also apparent (Table 3.10). In 2004-05, average awards per School of Education faculty FTE were $249,000, which was similar to the averages for campus ($240,000) and psychology ($219,000) but significantly lower than the averages for public health ($828,000) and social welfare ($1,652,000).

Table 3.10: Total Prorated Sponsored Project Awards per Faculty FTE (in $000) Adjusted for Inflation

1994-95 1997-98 2000-01 2004-05 % Change Total Campus 199 197 218 240 20% GSE 456 319 384 249 -45% Psychology 176 133 123 219 25% Public Health 418 455 566 828 98% Social Welfare 984 1,207 1,481 1652 68% Source: Cal Profiles

To provide an additional benchmark for explaining these trends, we looked outward to

compare out funding patterns with our group of external peers (Northwestern, Stanford, Pennsylvania, and UCLA) over the past five years. Using data reported by institutions to the US News and World Report annual survey of graduate schools, we plotted trends in per capita extramural funding. These data, reported in Figure 3.2, suggest that we track on a par with Stanford and Northwestern but far behind both UCLA and Penn, both of which have large federally-funded research centers.

This trend is of grave concern to us in the GSE. The annual reports from Cal Profiles do not adjust for inflation; thus we have been lulled into a false sense of security by the profile of level funding expressed in dollars unadjusted for inflation. This downward trend is difficult to explain and impossible to tolerate. Extramural funding has been the lifeblood of the GSE for over twenty-five years, allowing faculty to do the research that has earned them national and international reputations as scholarly leaders and allowing us collectively to apprentice doctoral students in the craft of research.

Several factors are likely involved in accounting for this trend. First, we started this period (1994-95) in a very strong position and suffered some very real losses in the mid- to late 1990s. Notably, both the Center for the Study of Writing and the National Center for Research on Vocational Education lost their large national center grants early in this period, accounting for a loss of several million dollars in stable long-term funding. Also we lost key faculty who were successful in obtaining grants—most notably Ann Brown and Eugene García.

Second is the hidden cost of collaboration with other campus units: Some faculty members, for personal and collaborative reasons, run their grants through other campus agencies. Two GSE researchers have sizeable portfolios in the Institute for Human Development; another two run grants through Lawrence Hall of Science.

Third, policy changes in the federal education bureaucracy have narrowed the range of research options in ways that make it more difficult for many GSE faculty members to fund their research through that agency. There is also some reason to believe that in Education, as in


environmental studies and other areas of federal science funding, an ideological agenda is at work.

These explanations notwithstanding, it is our highest priority to reverse this trend, both for our reputation and status in the field and, more importantly to gain the resources that allow us to do the work that undergirds that reputation and to support the apprenticeship experiences of our students.

Figure 3.2. Per capita extramural research dollars for the GSE at UCB benchmarked against national peers. Source: US News

UCLA

Penn

UCB Northwestern Stanford

§IV. Staffing, Physical Facilities, and Budget GSE Academic Review page 67

§ IV. Staffing, Physical Facilities, and Budget

Staffing

The GSE is fortunate to have a host of dedicated and productive staff members who embrace the School’s mission and proactively contribute to its welfare. There are five staff members with more than thirty years of service in the GSE. Over the past several years, three staff has received the Chancellor’s Outstanding Staff Award for exemplary contributions to the university’s mission. Staff also serve as members of the School’s committees and are knowledgeable advisers to the faculty, students, campus community, and public.

The GSE currently employs 68.85 FTE staff: 73 (headcount) in career and contract positions in six personnel programs and five functional areas (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). The cadre of staff provides a range of administrative services to the school to aid the faculty in meeting the School’s teaching and research mission as well as providing quality service to the public. Although not shown in the tables below, during fall 2005 the school employed 3.83 FTE temporary employees and 16.25 FTE student employees. The headcount for these groups is 8 and 41 respectively.

Table 4.1: FTE Staff and Headcount by Personnel Program Personnel Program FTE HC

Senior Management Group 1.00 1 Management/Senior Professional 5.60 6 Professional/Support Staff 36.70 38 Research 1.00 1 Technical 1.80 2 Clerical 22.75 25 Total 68.85 73

Table 4.2: FTE Staff and Headcount by Function Function FTE HC Administrative/Service 34.50 36 Instructional Support 9.50 10 Outreach/Service 9.60 11 Research 9.25 10 Research/Service 6.00 6 Total 68.85 73

Allocating staff to GSE units and functions. Table 4.3 shows the distribution of core staff to administrative, service, and instructional units; these assignments comprise about 50% of the staff workforce. Instructional support is housed in the three areas of study described in §I and §II—cognition and development (CD), language and literacy, society and culture (LLSC), and policy, organization, measurement and evaluation (POME). Administrative and service units include the dean’s immediate office, business services, student academic services, development and external relations, the education technology services center, and the office of communication

GSE Academic Review §IV. Staffing, Physical Facilities, and Budget

and collaboration. Research, outreach and service projects and programs account for the remaining 50% of the staff (not documented in this report); salaries for this group are primarily derived from extramural and revenue funds.

Table 4.3: Staff Duties as Allocated to Functions and GSE Units Function Units: FTE Staff duties Instruction CD: 3.5

LLSC: 3.0 POME: 2.0 SESAME: .5 JDP: .5 Total = 9.5

• Provide administrative/clerical support to area speaker, program faculty, and/or directors and supporting researchers and collaborators of funded projects

• Provide academic advising for entering, returning and continuing students.

• Serve as liaisons between area faculty, the school and university administrative offices

Dean’s Office Total = 8.0

• provide administrative support for the dean, associate deans for academic affairs and professional education programs, and assistant dean for administration

• functional areas: School governance, personnel administration, budget, space, facilities

Business Services Total = 11.0

• provide financial, personnel, payroll, purchasing, and support services (e.g. receiving and access control)

• establish policies and procedures for business practices and operations

• serve as the intra-departmental control unit for research and outreach units performing similar services within the School

Office of Communication and Collaboration Total = 2.1

• coordinate educational partnerships • serve as informational clearinghouse for GSE activities • sponsor collaborative, educational and enrichment events and

activities • promote scholarship within GSE community

Development and External Relations Total = 1.75

• fundraising and identification of major donors • implementation of special scholarship gifts campaign • cultivation strategies and planned giving • media and external relations

Education Technology Service Center Total = 3.5

• provide instruction and service facilities for GSE faculty, staff, and students

• oversee equipment loans, an instructional laboratory, video and audio duplication services, binding and other miscellaneous services

• maintain a computer lab (The Corey Lab) in 1635 Tolman where instructors can teach and demonstrate subjects related to computers; GSE faculty, staff, and students also use the lab

Student Academic Services Total = 8.15

• program information, • admissions, fellowships and registration • student records and related data • credential degree counseling • certification of public school personne1 • course and room scheduling

Administration

Total = 44

The complete staffing picture in the GSE. While the budgeted staff FTE reported in Cal Profiles is 34.9, the actual FTE staff providing central support is 44 FTE. Cal Profiles also reports the budgeted permanent faculty-to-staff ratio as .98. The budgetary ratio does not reflect the support provided to non-Senate instructional faculty nor does it identify non-provisional staff


FTE who provides central support to instructional faculty. The number of academic employees in instructional positions must be included to display an accurate measurement of ratios. Non-Senate instructional staff hiring fluctuates from year to year.

In 2005-06, the school employed 13.45 FTE (21 headcount) academic coordinators, adjunct faculty, and continuing lecturers. In addition, there are 5.76 FTE (35 headcount) temporary lecturers, field supervisors, and supervisors of teacher education. A third category consists of 1.22 FTE (5 headcount) lecturers without salary. These non-Senate faculty are supported by the 44 FTE staff as cited in Table 4.3. When taking the non-Senate faculty into account, the instructional faculty to actual staff ratio decreases to .80.

Registered graduate students in fall 2005 totaled 429, making the ratio of students to budgeted staff .08. The ratio increases to .10 when the total number of staff providing central support is taken into account. Staff services are also required for students enrolled in the undergraduate minor, primarily in advising; however, the employment of GSIs who service the minor increases the workload of those responsible for budget and personnel administration.

The school also employs 22.16 FTE researchers (28 headcount) and seven postdoctoral scholars. While many of the researchers and postdoctoral scholars are provided with administrative support from research/outreach projects, services such as personnel, financial administration, space, and facilities are provided from the 44 FTE core staff.

To cover the shortfall in central campus funds to support staff salaries, a combination of resources from academic salary savings, gifts, endowments, discretionary funds, revenue, private contracts and grants, and most recently, opportunity funds (return of funds generated by overhead). Each year, an arduous comprehensive analysis is undertaken to ensure that resources are sufficient to cover core staff salaries. The uncertainty of adequate resources for staff support is an ongoing administrative burden.

Maintaining staff morale. Like many other academic units, the School has struggled to maintain adequate staffing levels to meet service needs. In 2000, the School responded to a mandate to increase its teacher education student population and launch a MA/credential program for principals. In 2003, a third doctoral program was added with targeted enrollments of another 12-15 students annually. Garnering resources for staff support was and remains a major challenge of program growth. Coupled with the addition of new and expanded programs, central campus units decentralized many of their services, and those services were moved to academic departments. The staff undertook these challenges and convened to conduct a study to examine effectiveness and efficiency. The objective focused on identifying areas and functions where duplication of work might exist and eliminating those redundancies without sacrificing effectiveness. Workflow and operations were analyzed and systems were streamlined. It was exceptionally challenging to accomplish this while experiencing growth of 60 to 65 new students each year.

With three instructional programs operating year-round with student cohorts overlapping during the summer months, the volume of Summer Sessions courses, and summer institutes and conferences, the workload is difficult to manage. The frequent advent (sometimes of our own volition but more recently from externally imposed mandates) of new initiatives is traditional for


the School but when compounded by the ongoing heavy workload, the level of efficiency and effectiveness is jeopardized and impacts staff morale. New initiatives seldom come with staff support—there is an expectation that the current staff will absorb the additional workload. In short, our staff is at the breaking point with respect to workload, especially workload imposed by these externally mandated programs.

The GSE strives to build and sustain high staff morale. It promotes employee development, acknowledges staff contributions, recognizes staff accomplishments, provides updated equipment, addresses ergonometric issues, and exercises flexibility in the application of personnel policies. With all of the morale-building activities, the School is still handicapped by the nagging problem of long delays in awarding cost-of-living adjustments and merit increases. This is a university-wide problem that cannot be resolved at the School level. To further complicate the problem of salary increases for staff, the campus requires departments to permanently fund reclassifications and new hires paid from central funds at certain levels of the salary scale. Since the school employs 9 FTE over and above budgeted provisions and is severely under-funded for non-salary support costs, we must identify funds from within the non-provisional academic budget to accommodate promotional opportunities for staff. Given the dire need to maintain and promote exemplary staff, while striving to maintain the integrity of the academic salaries budget, the School is faced with a difficult decision when redirecting resources to staff salaries. But without supporting our staff, the integrity of our core operation is weakened. The School will continue to provide the staff with opportunities that make the GSE one of the best places to work in the university system.

Facilities

Space utilization. Since 1962, the east wing of Tolman Hall has been the home for the GSE. Of the 64,622 assignable square feet (ASF), 79% or 50,737 ASF is in Tolman Hall, and 3,022 ASF (4%) is located off campus at 2195 Hearst Avenue. Three research and service units lease 10,863 ASF (17%) off campus at 2105 Bancroft Way, 2140 Shattuck Avenue, and 2000 Center Street. Table 4.4 details the manner in which space is allocated to various academic functions.

Table 4.4: Space Utilization Category ASqFt1 Percent Instruction 6,954 0.11 Meeting/Study Rooms 4,648 0.07 Office and Support 34,602 0.54 Research 17,363 0.27 Special Use - Computer Lab 1,055 0.02 Total Assigned Space 64,622 1.00 1AsqFt = Assigned Square Footage

The allocation and condition of space in Tolman Hall. Tolman Hall is located in the northwest quadrant of the campus, and is adjacent to Hearst Avenue. The GSE shares Tolman Hall with the psychology department and the institute of human development, located in the west wing. The office of the registrar is responsible for 14 classrooms located on Tolman’s second floor.


The east wing also houses the campus’s Education-Psychology Library and the Tolman Microcomputer Facility, one of twelve satellite computer laboratories controlled by the campus’s Information Systems and Technology unit.

The School controls nine classrooms and two combination meeting/classrooms. Since maintenance and upgrades of these rooms are the sole responsibility of the School, seven of the eleven rooms have updated furnishings. The furnishings in the remaining four classrooms are tattered and torn and not suitable for a teaching and learning environment.

Each faculty member is assigned one research room in addition to a faculty office. Additional research space is allocated to accommodate research projects, with a priority to sponsored research. Faculty members in mathematics, science, and technology are also assigned computer/research laboratory space. The limited availability of research space in Tolman prompts one of two responses from faculty: either they overcrowd their existing Tolman space or they rent space off-campus. As our research portfolio has expanded, so has our use of off-campus space.

One office is designated as the Student Commons Room. Many faculty allow GSIs, especially their advises, to share research offices with the GSRs on their projects. We designated the Student Commons Room for students who are not currently involved in a specific project; it gives them a place to study, but it is inadequate to accommodate the number of students who require space. Furthermore, the students in our MA/credential programs have no designated study rooms or offices. A common complaint among GSIs is that they have no place to hold office hours. They are right.

Earthquake seismic correction. Although Tolman Hall has a seismic rating of “poor,” it is not currently included in the 2005-10 campus Capital Improvement Plan. Poor ratings are assigned to buildings expected to sustain significant structural and nonstructural damage and/or result in falling hazards in a major seismic disturbance. In the 1997 SAFER program study, the cost of replacement or correction of Tolman Hall was estimated at $20,000,000. It is our understanding that Tolman Hall is under discussion for its placement in the Capital Improvement Plan.

Maintenance. Over the past ten years, the campus has provided minimal assistance in maintaining and upgrading the facilities. A common occurrence is flooding in labs and offices due to the condition of the heat steam piping system. Several of our research rooms have inadequate heating and ventilation systems rendering the rooms practically unusable. With the demand for space greater than the supply, unusable space poses a major problem.

Computing and audio-visual equipment. The GSE’s educational technology service center, located on the first floor of Tolman Hall, provides audio-visual equipment and training to GSE personnel. ETSC also houses the Corey Computer Laboratory. It is equipped for instruction or can be used by those working on education projects. The lab carries an array of equipment and software. Resource allocations from the central campus for instructional equipment replacement have been non-existent for the past several years. Technological upgrades are funded from within the School’s limited resources.


In 2000, the School, in concert with Communications and Network Services, installed a state-of-the-art network infrastructure in offices, rooms, and classrooms under its control.

To house the equipment, the school sacrificed two rooms that were previously used for research and small classes to create two modern equipment rooms. The GSE funded 50% of the $235,000 project. More recently, AirBears was installed to accommodate wireless connectivity in all of our instructional spaces and some faculty offices (also see page 54); however AirBears does not always serve offices and classrooms on the north and west sides of the building adequately.

Classroom and conference facilities. With a combination of donor funds and discretionary resources, the School’s one large conference room was updated with state-of-the-art audiovisual equipment and conference room furnishings. It was re-named the Lionel and Lorraine Chan Room to honor the donors’ generosity. Due to the high demand for classrooms that can accommodate multimedia instruction, the school identified discretionary funds and renovated one of its largest classrooms. Resources to update the furnishings were provided by an anonymous donor in honor of a former faculty member, Charles S. Benson. Although these two multimedia rooms were added to the School’s inventory, shortages of state-of-the-art facilities for instruction continue to plague the School. We estimate that at least another six to eight technologically upgraded classrooms are needed.

Resources

Table 4.5 shows appropriated and expended funds from 2000 to 2005 by source. These data suggest a relatively stable but nonetheless downward trend in general state funds and private contacts, with upward swings in student fees and an irregular pattern of government contracts and grants.


Table 4.5: Resources and Expenditures by Source ($000)

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Appropriated Funds General Funds 12,224 13,808 11,227 11,113 10,880 Other Central Funds 953 1,614 1,255 1,390 1,423 Private Contracts and Grants 8,707 8,844 8,751 7,292 7,494 Gifts 1,004 1,286 837 1,158 1,176 Endowments 1,258 1,399 1,187 1,246 1,256 Revenue and Student Fees 2,466 3,293 3,374 3,823 3,634 Government Contracts and Grants 13,544 15,638 11,630 13,784 13,602 All Other Funds 0 12 0 0 0 Total Appropriate Funds 40,157 45,894 38,261 39,805 39,465 Expenditures General Funds 9,895 10,886 9,414 9,895 10,015 Other Central Funds 463 634 829 865 711 Private Contracts and Grants 2,835 2,661 3,732 3,278 3,004 Gifts 232 598 316 362 349 Endowments 373 637 440 465 335 Revenue and Student Fees 965 1,401 1,274 1,806 1,957 Government Contracts and Grants 4,203 5,731 6,772 6,866 8,020 All Other Funds 0 41 0 0 0 Total Expended Funds 18,964 22,588 22,777 23,537 24,391

§V. Administration and Governance GSE Academic Review page 75

§ V: Administration and Governance

The Graduate School of Education is headed by the dean, who reports to upper levels of the university administration, presides over most faculty matters, and oversees the administrative functions in the School. The dean serves as administrative chair of the Department of Education, the sole department in the School. Other senior administrative personnel include the associate dean for academic affairs (primarily concerned with faculty review, advancement, and hiring), the associate dean for professional programs (coordinating the management and improvement of all the teacher training and other professional programs), and the assistant dean for administration (holding oversight for business and administrative services, budget, non-Senate academic personnel, staff, space, and facilities). A Senate faculty chair is elected every three years to represent interests of the faculty, particularly in cases where independence from the dean is required. The head graduate adviser is responsible for the School’s adherence to the Graduate Division’s standards for instruction and student affairs, and oversees our student academic services office, which manages admissions, student recruitment, advising regarding campus requirements, student records, and other functions related to the student body.

The Graduate School of Education holds regular meetings of several types. Department meetings23 are open to all members of the GSE community, including faculty, administrators, staff, and students. Meetings of the Department occur regularly, usually once a month, and involve distribution of information about issues, initiatives, and other matters that impact the whole GSE. Faculty meetings convene the Senate faculty to deliberate and vote on matters such as hiring and academic program; they are restricted to tenured faculty in the case of hiring and tenure decisions, although hiring procedures involve the whole School in open discussion of leading candidates after an initial screening by an ad hoc search committee. Ad hoc meetings of the faculty or School are called to consider important issues, such as a recent retreat (January 2006) convened to discuss our emerging ten-year plan; participants included Senate faculty, program coordinators, and some of the senior staff. In November 2005 we held another ad hoc meeting—a School-wide town hall meeting to review our long-range plans and mission.

The School operates with two sets of by-laws: one for the School of Education (as affiliated with the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate), and one for the Department of Education. Both sets of by-laws are attached in Appendix V. The faculty within each of the School’s three areas (cognition and development—CD; language, literacy, society, and culture—LLSC; and policy, organization, measurement, and evaluation—POME), each headed by a speaker, meet regularly, usually about once a month, to manage internal issues, especially concerning the academic program, student admissions, and fellowship recommendations.

Our policy committee (called an “executive committee” in the School by-laws) is the pivotal umbrella executive forum for the GSE. Its membership includes the three academic area speakers, committee chairs, associate and assistant deans, the chair of the faculty, and elected student, staff, and non-Senate faculty representatives. The policy committee is chaired by the dean, and it holds open meetings once a month. Its purposes are (a) to inform faculty, staff, and students of ongoing administrative issues, (b) to provide a small, more immediate forum (than

23Since Education is a one-department school and we have few official “School” meetings, most people use the terms “department meeting” and “School meeting” interchangeably.

GSE Academic Review §V. Administration and Governance

the department meeting) to discuss such issues, and (c) to advise the dean, particularly on matters of policy and short- and long-range planning. A full listing of department committees, their charge, and membership is attached as Appendix V.C. In Table 5.1, we provide an abbreviated listing of the committees and their functions.

Table 5.1: Committees of Department/School of Education

Committee Name Function Academic Review Committee

Reviews courses, programs, and, in general, implements the academic policies of the Faculty in order to establish and maintain high standards in the academic programs of the School

Committee on Professional Education Programs (formerly, Teacher Education Com)

Chaired by the associate dean for professional programs, oversees and manages teacher training and other professional programs, as described above

Outstanding Dissertation Prize Committee

Reviews and awards a prize for best dissertation each year.

Equity Committee (formerly, Affirmative Action Committee)

Advises the dean, faculty, and staff about issues of fair treatment and affirmative action, especially with regard to faculty and staff hiring

Fellowship Committee Reviews and makes recommendations for fellowships, both for School-allocated funds and campus-wide fellowship competition

Personnel Committee Chaired by the associate dean for academic affairs, deals primarily with faculty appointments, promotions, and policy issues regarding these

Policy/Executive Committee

Advise the dean/department chair on matters of policy, including short- and long-range planning

Undergraduate Minor Committee

Oversees the School’s Undergraduate Minor in Education program

Vision Committee An ad hoc committee charged with long-term planning and new initiatives for the School

Participation. Because we are a small unit, we generally operate by discussion and consensus. Non-tenured Senate faculty, students, and staff are included in all deliberations of the whole. All committees, including search committees for new faculty, have designated student participation, except in cases where especially sensitive matters are discussed (such as faculty review and advancement in the personnel committee). The dean appoints student representatives to all committees, including search committees, from nominations by students in the areas. As mentioned, the Senate faculty meets as a whole to discuss and vote on priorities for hiring and on certain personnel matters. Areas may develop priorities for hiring, but they then bring those priorities to the faculty as a whole with justification on the basis of School-wide needs and priorities. Although the faculty vote on hiring priorities is advisory to the dean, a tradition exists of the dean following the main lines of faculty prioritization. Guidelines for faculty searches are

§V. Administration and Governance GSE Academic Review page 77

designed to encourage the widest participation possible, including a final departmental meeting to discuss short-listed candidates before a final recommendation is reached by the ad hoc committee.

Non-tenured Senate faculty.24 The dean and associate dean for academic affairs counsel new faculty on managing their programs of research and teaching, especially with respect to obtaining tenure. New assistant professors members are regularly given summer salary and teaching release by the dean as part of their start-up resources. They are generally shielded from extensive committee and other administrative responsibilities, although all serve on at least one GSE committee each year. Area faculties are active in advising assistant professors on their development, especially following the mid-career (pre-tenure) review. A formal mentorship program has been established to provide junior faculty regular one-on-one advice from senior faculty. At the time of mid-career review (and whenever circumstances appear to warrant), the dean may, and often does, allocate resources such as release time for assistant professors who may need special consideration. In the last twenty years, no assistant professor has been denied tenure, and only one left without tenure.

24As suggested earlier, we do not normally use the term junior faculty to describe this group.

GSE Academic Review §V. Administration and Governance

§VI. Summary and Strategic Plan GSE Academic Review page 79

§ VI: Summary and Strategic Plan

Summary of Findings

We are doing well in fulfilling our mission. The self-study has confirmed many of our assumptions and hopes about the Graduate School of Education. Taken together, they suggest that we are doing well in achieving the three broad goals that define the mission of the GSE: producing high quality scholarship, preparing the next generation of scholars, and improving professional practice.

We have strong, highly regarded programs at both the undergraduate (an education minor) and graduate (master’s and doctorate) levels.

Our students are committed, productive, highly regarded, and diverse. They come to us with strong academic credentials and relevant experiences. They are disproportionately successful in competing for fellowships, dissertation grants, and post-doctoral awards external to the GSE. Upon program completion, they assume important positions in public schools, institutions of higher education, and research or community organizations. Equally as important, we have a student body that is diverse by many standards—race, ethnicity, income, or intellectual interest.

We have a committed, productive and renowned faculty. They conduct cutting-edge research that appears in our most prestigious scholarly outlets, teach courses that meet the needs of our students, mentor the next generation of educational researchers, occupy positions of honor in academic societies, edit major journals, serve as leaders in professional organizations, and successfully compete for external grants to study important issues in education.

Our workload metrics (teaching productivity) are on an upward trend over the last several years mainly as a result of adding new professional programs and expanding others. We have expanded our teacher education enrollments by 60% over the last six years. We have established and nurtured new programs in professional preparation for school and district administrators. Despite the external aegis for these programs (the California Legislature and the UC Office of the President), they have proven beneficial in providing Bay Area schools with much needed expertise in urban school leadership.

We have expanded our collaborations with other departments on the Berkeley campus and at other UC campuses. Most notable among these collaboration is Cal Prep, a grades 6-12 charter school committed to helping low-income urban students develop college readiness; it is governed by a faculty advisory committee with membership evenly split between faculty in the GSE and across many departments in L&S and professional schools. Other collaborations focus on a wide range of issues, such as the following: (a) legal, moral, and ethical issues surrounding race, ethnicity, and equity; (b) the role of education in rebuilding histories and cultures in countries experiencing mass genocide, (c) the physical and cultural contexts of urban education; (d) mathematics and science research, pedagogy, and teacher development; (e) second language learning; and (f) the use and power of technology in community, public, and higher education.

GSE Academic Review §VI. Summary and Strategic Plan

Areas of concern. Our successes notwithstanding, the self-study also brought many concerns into focus:

Faculty salaries are inadequate by any standard. When the salaries of GSE faculty are compared to salaries of other education school faculty at public and private institutions, our faculty salary data show an overall 6% gap with other public institutions and a 43% gap with private university peers, with even more dramatic gaps for certain categories. This is a problem we share with the rest of campus. The statewide financial woes of the State of California in the first half-decade of this century have widened the salary gap between UC Berkeley and our peers.

Faculty are vulnerable to outside offers. The combination of high costs of living in the Bay Area and salaries well below our peers make our world-class faculty common targets for recruitment by institutions that can offer better material resources, endowed chairs, and lower costs of living. We have successfully defended ourselves against outside offers in three of four cases in the past five years, but the combination of low salaries and high living costs create a context of continued vulnerability.

The GSE has inadequate faculty resources. The expansion in enrollments prompted by new and expanded professional programs has outpaced our faculty recruitment. Even though our FTE has been raised by 3 FTE faculty, we have been hampered in two ways: (a) even that increase does not meet our needs, and (b) faculty loss due to separations and retirements has kept us 5 or 6 FTE below even our target.

The GSE has a disappointing record in recruiting faculty and students from underrepresented groups. Given the Berkeley commitment to diversity and the fact that the doctoral pipeline for minority scholars in education is fuller than in other fields, the GSE should be at the forefront of the campus in recruiting minority faculty. We are not. In the last six searches conducted in the GSE, not one has resulted in the hire of an underrepresented minority. On the student front, even though we have among the highest proportion of underrepresented minorities of any department on campus, we fall short of our aspirations. As with faculty, the available pool of minority advanced graduate students is larger in education than in other areas.

The GSE has lost ground in its capacity to attract extramural research funds. In the early 1990s, when the GSE hosted two national centers, we were among the most—if not the most—productive graduate schools of education in the country in terms of per capita extramural funding, and we compared most favorably with our peer departments on campus. With the loss of those centers and a shift in federal funding toward different methodological and epistemological criteria, we have fallen behind our national and local peers. Our absolute dollar figures have not changed much, but in terms of dollars discounted for inflation, we are down about 30%.

Graduate students are inadequately funded. Two factors—an unanticipated reduction in philanthropic resources and dramatic rises in student fees—have conspired to reduce our capacity to offer adequate support for our talented pool of graduate student recruits. Equally


as serious, because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage with our peers, is our lack of capacity to offer multiple-year guarantees to all our recruits.

Our physical plant is inadequate. Tolman Hall’s seismic upgrading, originally scheduled for 2006, has been pushed back to some distant date in the campus schedule, with little prospect for the sort of “incidental” upgrading in the physical integrity and appearance of the building that usually accompanies the retrofitting process. We limp along with maintenance funded by “loose change” we are able to accumulate from a variety of modest sources—painting a hallway here, patching leaks there, and attempting to keep up a respectable physical appearance. The physical appearance of our building not just an inconvenience for students, staff, and faculty; it is a serious impediment to both faculty and student recruiting, especially when candidates compare our setting to those of Stanford, UCLA, Penn, or Northwestern. In addition to maintenance, the layout of the floors above the second floor symbolizes and reinforces compartmentalization rather than community.

Strategic Plan and Action Steps

Our strategic plan is shaped by our mission, our three central goals, our history, and the three areas we have chosen for in-depth analysis. Just as surely, it will be shaped by the current academic review process, especially the advice we will receive from external and internal reviewers in the next stages of that process and by the deliberations of the GSE community over the next several semesters. These caveats, however, should not diminish either the significance of these strategic goals and plans or the commitment of the GSE community in achieving them.

Here are the “action steps” we propose to follow:

1. Embrace our three strategic research themes. These themes of diversity and equity, learning in complex environments, and improving professional practice have the potential to shape our scholarship, teaching, and service in important and synergistic ways. They can provide a filter for examining all we do in the GSE. Most important, they increase the reach and significance of our work.

2. Increase faculty salaries and support. Our salaries are not competitive with our peer institutions. We must work with campus to address this problem. We must also increase the number of endowed chairs available to faculty to provide research support that will reduce vulnerability to outside offers.

3. Increase faculty capacity. Here two remedies are necessary: (a) we need to implement an accelerated recruiting schedule so that we can reach our target FTE allocation of 40.75, and (b) we need to increase our target FTE from 40.75 to 43.0 in order to take advantage of new strategic research opportunities and meet our programmatic needs.

4. Increase minority recruiting. We need to improve our record for both faculty and student recruiting. For faculty recruitment, we need to rethink our approach—perhaps the areas in which we recruit, the strategies we use to ensure a high density of minority candidates, or the procedures we use to interview and evaluate candidates. One positive step to improve student recruitment would be increased success in recruiting minority faculty. It is essential to have faculty who can serve as role models and “existence proofs” that

GSE Academic Review §VI. Summary and Strategic Plan

minorities can succeed in academia. Another would be to increase our recruiting capacity in terms of staff charged with the responsibility of increasing the size of the pool of minority candidates for admission.

5. Increase extramural research funding. We need to restore our levels of funding to the standard of the mid 1990s. Increased funding will serve two goals—increasing faculty capacity to conduct cutting-edge research and improving our support base for doctoral students. In the process of securing extramural funding, we should accelerate the work of the vision committee by securing the funds required to create the Learning Place and the Learning Institute.25

6. Increase support for graduate students. We need a major effort to increase endowment for graduate fellowships. As already noted, increased extramural research grants will support graduate students with much needed research apprenticeships.

7. Improve our physical plant. The cost of an inadequate physical facility in terms of student, staff, and faculty morale is serious. A major remodeling should occur in conjunction with seismic upgrading, and our upgrading should be accelerated in the campus-wide schedule.

Schedules and Procedures for Strategic Planning

We are not likely to make progress without creating both time and space for the members of the GSE community to discuss, debate, refine, and—finally—to enact the ideas inherent in the steps and in the three themes that we have chosen to shape our future efforts. To this end, we commit ourselves to the schedule outlined in Table 6.1. We envision these conversations, planning, and action steps occurring in parallel and intersecting settings: (a) in town hall meetings of the entire GSE community, (b) in day-long faculty/staff retreats, (c) in the revitalized work of the vision committee, and (d) in regular program area meetings (CD, LLSC, and POME). In this way, we maximize the likelihood that we will examine the ideas embodied in these three themes in both the depth and breadth they deserve. Needless to day, as we engage in this process, we expect our plans to evolve and our action steps to take on more precise definition.

25See page 10 for descriptions of “learning place” and “learning ‘institute.”


Table 6.1: Schedule for Strategic Planning in the Graduate School of Education

Working Groups Semester Town

Meeting Entire GSE

Faculty Staff Retreat

Vision Committee

Work within Program

Areas Fall 2006 √ Nov √ Sep Regular

meetings Regular meetings

Spring 2007 √ Jan Summer 2007 √ May

Fall 2007 √ Sept √ Aug Spring 2008 √ Jan

Summer 2008 Fall 2009 √ Sept

GSE Academic Review Appendices

Appendices

Appendices GSE Academic Review page 85

Appendix I: California Institute for Educational Science and Innovation

Submitted by Professors Andrea diSessa and David Pearson The California Institute for Educational Science and Innovation will capitalize on advances in educational inquiry and the knowledge base in other disciplines at UC Berkeley to focus the collective attention of our campus on the problems that concern public education at every level in our society—the Bay Area, California, the nation, and the global society. The rationale. The Institute is based on two fundamental assumptions about the problems of educational practice:

1. The problems of education have become so complex, so intertwined with other institutions and social problems, that only the broadest of efforts—one that marshals intellectual resources from all academic disciplines—stands a chance of succeeding.

2. If we can locate our work Pasteur’s Quadrant (that context of science where theory is advanced in the service of solving practical problems; Stokes, 1997), we can improve the quality of teaching and learning in our educational institutions and advance both educational theory and disciplinary knowledge.

Five advances in educational research render the proposed interdisciplinary structure of the Institute feasible at this point in history. These advances, elaborated in Appendix A, are (a) new perspectives on teaching and learning that have emerged as the field has shifted from the lens of educational psychology to cognitive science, (b) a shift in socio-cultural study from the broad analysis of exotic cultures in faraway places to the close analysis of commonplace cultures in everyday institutions, (c) the development of design-oriented research that applies theoretical tools to the creation of useful educational products, such as digital learning environments or curriculum materials, (d) the emergence of technology and new media as a resource for education, and (e) a growing realization that the goals of K-12 education must be linked to the structures of knowledge and the tools of inquiry within the academic disciplines at major universities. The structure. While the structure of traditional institutions, such as schools of education, should and will change over the coming decades, it is not feasible to “release” them at once from current practices and responsibilities. Nor is it feasible to “transfer” existing obligations as a whole to a new institutional form, which would undoubtedly stifle true innovation. Instead we propose to establish a significantly scaled, but somewhat independent, organization that sits between education and its institutional partners. An institute structure, with broad membership from many departments on campus, seems the logical choice. It would need to have the following characteristics:

1. Scholarly responsibility – The new institute will have the obligation to carry out modern educational research built on the fundamental assumption that we can work on practical problems and simultaneously advance theory and disciplinary knowledge.

2. Intimate connection with practice – Like Andrew Flexner’s innovations for medical practice about a century ago, the institute will provide durable connections to real-world


educational practice. Like the teaching hospital, we propose to have a model school or “learning place” associated with the institute, where innovations can be tried out and studied in nearly real-world conditions. Unlike traditional “lab schools,” which often suffer from becoming “boutique schools” for elite families, we propose to organize a learning place that is truly representative of the diversity of the State of California. Unlike outreach efforts or university school-rescue missions, our learning place must accept true and deep research and innovation, under the guidance of scholarly researchers, as a condition of existence. It is possible that our current Campus-sponsored charter school, California Preparatory Academy (Cal Prep), may serve that role—as it expands the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of its student body toward its goal of broad representation.

3. New classes of professionals – The teaching hospital contains professions of many sorts necessary to the running of a “real” hospital, but which cannot be supported in more academic institutional contexts. For example, while “clinical faculty” who have intimate knowledge of conditions of real-world practice exist in some schools of education, they are often marginalized as rotating professionals, independent of the main scholarly trends. In the case of our new institute, these professionals—including curriculum specialists, technology and materials developers—will be necessary to support the development of truly innovative but practical teaching of the sort that can transform current educational practices in our schools.

4. An intrinsic openness to a broader intellectual community – Supporting a greater openness to educational stakeholders of all sorts needs to be a high priority. The institute should reach out, in many cases in terms of short or long-term visits, to many constituencies outside the university. But it should also reach out within the campus to establish broad inter-disciplinary collaboration. More particularly, we need to recruit from neighboring professions (Law, Social Welfare, Public Health, Public Policy, Business, and Journalism) and disciplines (virtually all of the units in Letters and Science) in order to fill—and, indeed, create—emerging new cross-disciplinary efforts at (a) improving teaching and learning, (b) changing the contexts that impact schooling to provide better support for teaching, learning, and curriculum designed to maximize student opportunity.

5. A project-centered agenda – The need to solve specific problems in our schools and society is urgent. Thus, we would propose a project rather than a topical structure for research and development projects—but with the expectation that each project would last for a duration sufficient to tackle the problems addressed.

Funding. Currently, there are no funds available to start the institute. However, it seems reasonable to apply for start-up funds from the Futures Initiative and to ask the Graduate School of Education for some in-kind and cash contributions to get the institute started. Ultimately, private endowment, foundation support, and extramural grants would comprise the fiscal resources of the institute. It is likely, for example, that many projects currently operating independently within the Graduate School of Education would seek a home in such an institute. We would hope, of course, that projects currently floating around in other departments might find a relevant and intellectual supportive home in the institute as well. Most important, we are certain that the existence of such an institute—and the involvement of faculty across campus—will motivate a new scholarship currently not in our portfolio at all.


Governance. As a starting point, we would propose an institute director and an advisory committee comprised of faculty from participating schools and departments. References ER (2003). Special issue on design experiments. The Educational Researcher, 32(1). JLS (2004). Special issue on design-based research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1). Gardner, Howard (1985). The Mind's New Science: A History of Cognitive Evolution. NY: Basic

Books. Stokes, D. E. (1997) Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.

Washington DC: Brookings Books.


Appendix A (of CIESI Proposal): An Elaborated Rationale for

the California Institute for Educational Science and Innovation

Introduction Sometimes the context and societal obligations of institutions change so radically that discontinuous innovation is required. Old institutional forms simply do not take advantage of the latest knowledge and practices, nor do they address emergent needs, and these are true to such an extent that incremental change falls far short of what is necessary. Such was the case just after the turn of the last century when Abraham Flexner’s report on medical education in the U.S. initiated a radical transformation of institutions that trained doctors. The change was transformatory. Emblematically, the teaching hospital established a highly synergistic meeting ground for the highest levels of scientific research, apprenticeship style experiences for doctors-in-training, and intimate, everyday contact with emerging clinical practices. We propose that present educational practice, research, and innovation have reached a state that a change similar to that initiated by Flexner is necessary. In fact, many of the conditions that drove Flexner’s proposal, and even some of the solution forms, are relevant to educational innovation and scientific study today. The State of the Art In the last quarter century, the scientific capacity and style of educational research has changed at an unprecedented rate. We identify four intertwined strands in this change. First, the “cognitive revolution” (Gardner, 1985) brought the nature and evolution of complex knowledge systems into scientific focus. Before that time, for example, developmental psychology typically studied large-scale changes in individual growth that made only tentative connections to knowledge and learning of particular important topics as they appeared in schools, such as mathematics and science. Similarly, theories of leaning, such as behaviorism, were global and did not distinguish educationally relevant categories such as “understanding” vs. “skill development.” Cognitive science replaced educational psychology as the backbone discipline of psychological study relevant to education, and tracking the evolution of particular concepts and competencies at a fine grain of analysis became the norm. During the same time period, rigorous social and cultural study was adapted and extended to educational issues. Similar to the shift from traditional educational approaches toward cognitive science, socio-cultural theory has “turned up the microscope” in engaging educational problems. Whereas classic anthropology and ethnography focused mainly on exotic peoples, or even “modern” cultures in broad brush, educationally centered socio-cultural research turned its attention to contexts in which learning occurs—the workplace, community settings, and, of


course, schools. Thus we now examine, at a very fine grain of analysis, the cultures and discourses of communities of practice in all of these settings. The consequence of these two quasi-independent trends in educational research is that, for the first time, educational research can plausibly study—with high scientific accountability— the intricate details of emerging of competence in the same complex social contexts where these competences are practically cultivated, such as school classrooms. Classrooms have become laboratories for true scientific study. A third trend, evident mainly in the last decade, is the development of design-oriented research in education (ER, 2003; JLS, 2004). This trend, itself, has emerged from feelings of dissatisfaction toward prior institutionalized splits in educational research. On the one hand, laboratory and theoretical study was often validly criticized as ivory-tower pursuit, irrelevant to widespread practice. On the other hand, development and testing of new instructional methods often pursued intuitive (rather than principled) design and only summative study of effectiveness so that general principles for developing good materials and practices were not articulated. Even when innovations worked, the process details of that “working” remained invisible and, at best, conjectural. Today, many researchers are collaborating in building new modes of educational research that simultaneously (a) support long-term accumulation of deep scientific understanding, and (b) result in the creation and study of state-of-the-art and disseminable educational materials and practices. The fourth trend has been the emergence of technology and new media as powerful resources for education. Obviously, this is a trend that is highly synergistic with design-oriented research. In addition, it provides powerful outlets for high-tech software and similar developments coming out of specifically educational concerns, quite unlike any prior time in the last two centuries of educational research. And yet, many or most current institutions of educational research are incapable of supporting this kind of high-tech research and development. All of these trends have built up a high degree of “stress” in current educational research and development institutions. Most schools of education and independent educational R & D centers have changed little, if at all, over the last few decades. So, they are incapable of taking optimum advantage of these powerful background changes. We want to catalyze a substantial reform and realignment in educational research institutional forms that will optimally recognize and build on the changing forms and capabilities of educational research and development.


Appendix II.A: Credential Program Descriptions

Developmental Teacher Education is a two-year, full-time sequence of courses and student teaching for elementary school teaching. The course of study is based on the fundamental premise that the quality of learning in the classroom is substantially improved when the educational process is understood as an interaction among developing individuals. One way this is achieved is through combining knowledge of subject matter and classroom organization with knowledge of children’s cognitive and social development. Faculty specializing in human development and other aspects of education have designed courses that help students grow in their understanding of child development and the teaching of mathematics, science, social studies, reading, and writing. These courses also help students grow in their sensitivity to sociocultural factors that must be considered when adapting curricula to meet the educational needs of children from diverse communities.

The Master’s and Credential in Science and Mathematics Education (MACSME) is a two-year graduate program for teaching either science or mathematics at the secondary level. Graduates of the program have a thorough understanding of the subject matter they will teach, knowledge of fundamental educational principles, and strong skills in the practice of teaching. The program is designed for talented individuals with undergraduate degrees in mathematics or science who are dedicated to the improvement of mathematics and science education at the secondary level. The course of study includes a combination of courses taken with advanced degree students in Cognition and Development and carefully designed field experiences. The program is based on the idea that learning is best achieved when three factors interact: the environment, prior knowledge, and reflective assessment of student and teacher performance.

The MUSE (Multicultural Urban Secondary English) Master’s and Credential is a two-year program (one year full-time, one year part-time) that prepares candidates to teach secondary English to both native speakers of English and second-language learners. At the end of the first year, which begins in June and ends the following June, candidates receive a teaching credential. This credential certifies them to teach English and English Language Development classes in grades six through twelve. During the second year of the program, candidates usually are in their first year of teaching and take one additional seminar to receive their M.A. As part of the M.A. seminar they complete a project, which involves them in teacher research and reflection on their teaching. Operated in association with the Bay Area Writing Project (BAWP), the MUSE Program’s course work and field experiences emphasize theoretically sound teaching methodology that draws on the resources of the University as well as experienced BAWP educators. The program places a particular emphasis on teaching students in multilingual, multicultural urban schools to become proficient and competent readers and writers in a society that is placing increasing literacy demands on its youth.

The Principal Leadership Institute (PLI) was established at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education in 2000 to prepare leaders for San Francisco Bay Area urban schools. Students completing the program receive an MA in Education and a recommendation toward a Tier I Administrative Services Credential from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). The Administrative Services Credential (ASC) authorizes service as a superintendent,


associate superintendent, deputy superintendent, principal, assistant principal, dean, supervisor, consultant, coordinator, or in an equivalent or intermediate-level administrative position.

The PLI relies on strong relationships with Bay Area school districts and maintains active communication with districts in order to facilitate field experiences, receive feedback on the program, and ensure that there is a strong link between university coursework and urban school reality. The Principal Leadership Institute (PLI) assumes that administrators are instructional leaders first and foremost, and are able to work collegially with teachers to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Students in the PLI become familiar with the broadest possible range of reforms and understand the process of change in order to implement these reforms.

The Principal Leadership Institute includes conventional coursework as well as a structured practicum in the candidate's district. Most classes employ a problem-based pedagogical model in which graduate students are required to complete group and individual tasks that are designed to reflect the “real” life of their work in schools. All courses emphasize a theory to practice connection, and most courses are co-taught by instructors from the university and from practice. Often, persons from practice are invited to make presentations and/or provide feedback to candidates when they present. All students have a university field supervisor while participating in the program, chosen from our excellent staff of retired school principals.

School Psychology. In order to be eligible to work in public schools, graduates of the doctoral program in School Psychology also receive a School Psychology Credential from the California Department of Education. All of the requirements of the credential are embedded in the courses for the doctoral program, which is accredited by the American Psychological Association. In order to be eligible for the credential, students complete (a) basic and advanced course work in school psychology, (b), practicum in elementary and secondary school settings, and (c) a supervised internship in a school district under the auspices of an Internship credential. Topics covered in the required courses include (a) the conceptual, theoretical, and scientific bases for school psychology, (b) individual appraisal of intelligence, (c) diagnosis of human handicaps, (d) legal issues in education practice, (e) school based consultation, and (f) educational interventions. Students must also complete coursework on ethnic and cultural differences and have experience working with diverse populations. Eligibility for the program includes passing the California Basic Educational Skills Test and obtaining a Certificate of Clearance for working in schools. The credential represents one milestone in the journey toward the Ph.D., which is the terminal degree in the program.


Appendix III.C: GSE Faculty Participation on Academic Senate Committees

2001-02 Memberships: Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education: Mark Wilson American Cultures (CEP Subcommittee on the Breadth Requirement in: Glynda Hull Educational Policy (CEP): Claire Kramsch (German, and Education [0% FTE]) Graduate Council: Nadine Lambert 2002-03 Memberships: Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education: David Stern (Vice Chair + UCOPE26);

Mark Wilson Graduate Council: Nadine Lambert Teaching: Claire Kramsch (German and Education) 2003-04 Memberships: Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education: David Stern (Chair + BOARS27) Computing and Communications: Glynda Hull Graduate Council: Nadine Lambert Protection of Human Subjects (Graduate Committee for the): Prentice Starkey, Judith Warren

Little (Alternate) Teaching: Claire Kramsch (German and Education; spring 2004 only) University Extension: Sonja Martin Poole (graduate student, Education) 2004-05 Memberships: Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education: David Stern, Chair American Cultures (CEP Subcommittee on the Breadth Requirement in): Ingrid Seyer-Ochi Assembly Representation: Ling-Chi Wang (Ethnic Studies/Asian Am Studies; affiliated faculty

in Educ) (not included in tally) Graduate Council: Nadine Lambert Protection of Human Subjects (Graduate Council Committee for the): Prentice Starkey, Judith

Warren Little (Alternate) Status of Women and Ethnic Minorities: Sarah Freedman Teaching: Claire Kramsch (German and Education) University Extension: Anne Cunningham (spring 2005 only)

26 UC Academic Senate, systemwide: Preparatory Education Committee 27 UC Academic Senate, systemwide: Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools


2005-06 Memberships: Admissions, Enrollment and Preparatory Education: David Stern (+BOARS28) American Cultures (CEP Subcommittee on the Breadth Requirement in): Ingrid Seyer-Ochi Assembly Representation: Ling-chi Wang (Ethnic Studies/Asian Am Studies; affiliated faculty

in Education) (not included in tally) Faculty Awards: Claire Kramsch (German and Education) Graduate Council: Nadine Lambert (+CCGA)29 Research: Geoffrey Saxe Status of Women and Ethnic Minorities: Sarah Freedman Student Diversity and Academic Development: Herbert Simons Teaching: Glynda Hull

28UC Academic Senate, systemwide: Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools 29UC Academic Senate, systemwide: Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs