PHILOSOPHY of EDUCATION SOCIETY
Executive Board Meeting
Executive Board Meeting
March 29, 2001 and April 2, 2001
In attendance: Burbules, Garrison, Rice, Margonis, Thompson, Houston,
Haroutunian-Gordon, Stengel
- Approval of minutes of 2000 Board Meeting
- Approval of candidates for Fellow
- Committee Reports
A written report was submitted to President Burbules [See Appendix to these Minutes].
Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon was named President-Elect.
Suzanne Rice was elected to the Executive Board
Dilafruz Williams was elected to COPA
-
Hospitality Committee - Steve Tozer and David Hansen
- No formal report submitted. [An informal report was offered later in the meeting.]
- Ed Theory - Nick Burbules
Program Committee - Suzanne Rice
A formal written report was submitted. [See Appendix to these Minutes].
Rice expressed some minor concerns verbally at the meeting. About 75% of the submissions came in late. While Rice accepted them and was able to get submissions reviewed, reviewers did not have the time to provide constructive comments. Rice also highlighted the difficulty getting she had getting chairs for sessions, especially since several cancelled at the last minute.
Board members offered several positive suggestions. The primary suggestion was to use some form of electronic review because it's faster and reviewers can cut and paste comments, etc. This suggestion will be passed on to the next program chair.
Other committees (COPA, COSW, CLSE/CSFE, Jobs for Philosophers, Membership
Committee, Ad Hoc Committee for Ethics in the Education Professions)
did not submit formal written reports and were not heard from at this
stage of the Board meeting.
Burbules described his discussions with representatives of Blackwell who would like to enter into a partnership to handle some of the functions of distribution (international distribution an on-line search capabilities). Burbules indicated that Ed Theory has always been an inexpensive, independently published journal and that it has been a publication of University of Illinois. There is no reason that this editorial independence would change.
The actual proposal is that Blackwell would handle subscriptions, mailing and on-line distribution and pass on royalties to the journal in a subcontractual relationship.
The Ed Theory Editorial Board will meet with Vicki Whittaker on Saturday of the PES Conference to consider Blackwell's proposal.
Potential benefits:
1) Blackwell publishes other philosophy of education journal and PES members might have access to other journals for lower subscription rates OR on-line access in a cluster subscription.
2) It would be possible to link journals with on-line discussion sites (in what Burbules called an international community for philosophy of education). There is also potential for interactive links with references to other journals published by Blackwell.
- 3) Pre-print service (post a draft and get feedback).
- Yearbook - Burbules
- Executive Secretary's Report - Barb Stengel
- Old Business
- New Business
- Approval of Program Chair/Program Committee for 2002 Conference
4) More powerful indexing capability.
5) Increased visibility based on Blackwell's marketing power.
Burbules indicated that this is not an action item because it is the ET Editorial Board decision. Margonis asked about maintaining low individual rates. Burbules indicated that he thought this would be the case, but Thompson reminded the group that Teachers College Record doubled when Blackwell took that journal over. Thompson also asked whether royalty fees for republication would also be raised, thus limiting access to the articles in the journal. Burbules reminded the group that any terms would be subject to our agreement and the agreement would be for a limited term. Haroutunian-Gordon confirmed with Burbules that the journal would be more broadly accessible as a result of this kind of relationship. Burbules waxed eloquent on the possibilities for new, virtual, international forms of interaction.
Garrison spoke from his experience as the Editor of Philosophical Studies in Education. He asked whether we could simply do this for a term and try it out. Burbules indicated that it wouldn't be that simple, since we would have dismantled our infrastructure for publishing and couldn't easily reconstitute it.
The sense of the group was that the international access was the really
attractive feature and that the electronic possibilities were linked
to that. At the same time, there was some degree of skepticism.
Burbules raised a series of items for Board decision:
Should we prepare on-line versions of the Yearbook preceding 1992? Burbules indicated that doing so would cost about $800-1000 per volume in editing from scanned versions and in web preparation.
Thompson asked whether there was a good argument in favor of doing this, given the significant cost involved.. Garrison was also skeptical. Haroutunian-Gordon asked what the benefits were. Burbules indicated that on-line access lets more people have access in general, allows teachers to use URLs to require the reading for a student in a course, and allows for full text search. Stengel suggested that this might be a bad time financially to take on a project like this in light of the slump in the investment markets. No decision was made.
Should we create an index of the yearbook from its beginning?
Houston asked about cost. Burbules suggested that grad students might be given this task for the summer. An author/title index would be easy; a subject index would be more time-consuming. Margonis indicated that the latter is what would be valuable. There was significant interest and Burbules will pursue specifics re time and cost.
What should we charge for republication of yearbook articles?
Burbules suggested that we create categories (course packet, author/self use, third party edited volume) with varying rates. Thompson asked how much traffic there is in something like this. Stengel indicated that she grants rights for course packets and member-edited volumes without charge, but that she charges $50 for requests from a third party for a published volume. The consensus was that this was a good policy and we should stick with it.
Wilson Education Index full text?
Stengel outlined the deal. The main question seemed to be whether it's a non-exclusive rights we are granting. The group agreed to revisit this on Monday. Houston will check it out.
Should we drop number of print copies? Burbules indicated that this would not be done because circulation is actually increasing. No one objected.
Should we advertise in other publications to promote the yearbook? (Based on the notion that the yearbook is a book that could be marketed like any other book).
Burbules indicated that there would be costs involved, either to pay journals for advertisements or to trade advertisement space with journals or other yearbooks.
Tozer talked about the NSSE yearbooks and how those are marketed. Others
wondered whether we might cross-advertise in the NSSE Yearbook. Tozer
and Haroutunian-Gordon both thought that might be so. Discussion ensued
about whether folks could be enticed to purchase the yearbook and who
might be enticed to do so. In general, there was not great enthusiasm
for the proposal at this time.
In order to gather information to make a reasonable decision about the dues structure should a change become necessary, Stengel asked that the Board approve a simple survey to be filled out by conference attendees at registration.
It was moved (Thompson) and seconded (Houston) that the Executive Board empower the Executive Secretary to solicit, by survey, information regarding members' status and income during conference registration. The motion passed.
Stengel noted that due to the stock market slump, the Kneller Endowment has lost approximately 20% of its value. This is not a problem for 2000-01 because there is a sufficient amount in cash to meet Kneller Lecture obligations. However, a policy is needed so that we do not use up endowment principal. Stengel offered a policy for consideration that was amended before an actual motion was made.
It was moved (Thompson) and seconded (Margonis) that the Executive Board designate a Kneller Lecture budget figure at the March board meeting for the next year's Lecture activities. That figure is the prerogative of the Board but the following guidelines should be considered: The figure should be based on the prior calendar year's increase in endowment value and should be equal to 50% of that value increase, with an upper limit of $4000. No matter what the Endowment performance, the budget figure should be set at at least $2500. The motion passed.
Stengel reminded the board that conference arrangements have not consistently operated on a budget basis. As a result, we often incur a conference deficit. This is exacerbated because members expectations are raised about receptions, refreshments, etc. More can be done when the Kneller Fund is flush and when institutional contributions are high; less when we rely on registration.
It was moved (Houston) and seconded (Garrison) that the President, Hospitality Chair and Executive Secretary prepare a Conference Budget by the beginning of the fiscal year that incorporates a) expected institutional contributions, b) expected Kneller funds available, c) anticipated registration revenues and meal fees, based on past experience with the site, and d) actual cost projections from the hotel. This budget should specify a registration fee and meal fees that will allow PES to anticipate breaking even for the conference. The motion passed.
In addition, graduate student room costs have increased significantly (about $50 per student per night), and those costs have not been passed on to students (currently $10 per student per night). Net cost to PES for student rooms is approximately $2500. If the charge to students were raised to $15, our net cost would be $2180; if it were raised to $20, our net cost would be $1860.
It was moved (Tozer) and seconded (Burbules)
that the graduate student room rate be raised from $10 per night to
$25 per night. The motion passed. [This action was later reconsidered
and amended to $20 on a Houston/Margonis motion. See action during the
extended meeting.]
Stengel reported that various website services have been requested, including: jobs listing, contact list of folks with like interests (e.g. technology, moral ed), books of interest (by members and others). She will work with Craig Cunningham to address these requests.
Finally, Stengel reported on actions taken in response to decisions
made at last year's board meeting:
Letters to presenters included reminders that they
should be members who are registered for the conference.
Domain names (www.philosophyofeducation.org
and www.pesyearbook.org)
have been secured and website/email are operating well using those addresses.
List of Fellows is being compiled through dues forms
and sign-up at conference.
Reply envelopes being used but dues/membership down.
"Millennial Group" Survey sent out and reported at
COPA session.
Tickets are being used for meal events.
Technology SIG in full swing.
Burbules asked whether we could fold the cost of the luncheon into registration. Stengel indicated that we separated it out in 1992 because not all members wanted to attend and/or pay for the luncheon. Thompson asked whether we should have luncheon at all. Some (Houston, Haroutunian-Gordon) thought the luncheon was a good central gathering; others (Burbules, Tozer) thought that it might not be useful.
Tozer asked whether we should put the Presidential Address back with the luncheon or combine the Presidential Reception with the Address. He was really asking how do we create a sense of the whole crowd together? There was general agreement that this is a good thing and we ought to try to do it.
Burbules proposed that the Board ask folks what they feel about this and what kinds of substitute activities might help.
Steve Tozer offered oral reports for the Hospitality Committee and CLSE/CSFE at this time. He noted the special Hull House "field trip" to be held Saturday afternoon. He also asked that presenters be asked to indicate their AV needs with their submissions so that these arrangements and expenses can be anticipated.
Tozer also raised on-going issues for Hospitality Chairs about balancing low room rates with plush accommodations. He asked just how nice the membership would like the hotel to be? (This question seemed to be a reflection of the somewhat modest facilities offered at the Congress.) Burbules suggested that the membership be surveyed. There was some information discussion about future sites (of special interest to Haroutunian-Gordon who is considering 2003 sites). Charleston, D.C. and Miami were the locations mentioned.
Tozer reminded board members that CLSE has changed its name to CSFE (Council for Social Foundations of Education. He also indicated that he (as incoming President of CSFE) planned to move the CSFE web site to UIC and to link it to the PES and AESA web sites. Some discussion of our involvement in CSFE ensued. Tozer indicated CSFE's continuing difficulty in paying its full dues for a "seat at the table" at NCATE, due largely to the small constituency of foundations scholars as compared to NCTM or NCTE. Nonetheless, he suggested it was well worth the effort to maintain a strong foundations role and presence in teacher education. Garrison and Haroutunian-Gordon spoke strongly in support of PES' involvment with CSFE and of CSFE's involvement in NCATE.
The first portion of the Board Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM
Executive Board Meeting Continued (April 2, 2001)
(In attendance: Burbules, Houston, Haroutunian-Gordon, Thompson, Stengel).
Stengel presented a budget for fiscal 00-01 that would not require
any dues increase. Houston moved approval; Thompson seconded. The budget
was approved.
Houston asked that the Board revisit the decision to raise grad student room fees to $25 per nite. The general consensus was that an increase from $10 to $25 was too "shocking," and that $20 would be more acceptable.
Houston moved that the earlier decision be rescinded and that the graduate student room rate be raised to $20 per nite. Thompson seconded. The motion passed.
Executive Board Listserve
Burbules noted that this good idea had never been implemented and promised to check it out.
Tech Committee/SIG Status
Burbules noted that the Tech SIG sessions at the conference were fairly well attended and it appears to be going well. After some discussion about the status of the SIG, Stengel moved/ Thompson seconded that the Board officially recognize the DIGITAL SIG. The motion passed.
Ad hoc Ethics Committee Status/mandate
Little progress has been made to date in specifying and carrying out the work of this group. Burbules indicated that this initiative and the Legacy Fund would rest on the shoulders of Houston as incoming President.
Legacy Fund
At this point, the Legacy Fund (an endowment that would help to build the long-term vitality of the Sociaty and the field of philosophy of education) is moribund. Burbules has not been able to find Co-chairs for the Campaign. Houston will think about and try to move further.
Millennial Committee/ COPA
The Millennial Group led primarily by Don Arnstine presented their
findings, through the good graces of COPA, at the conference. Lynda
Stone, as Chair of COPA, is picking up the ball and determining a course
of action. Barb Stengel will assist by making the Millennial Group Survey
Results available on the website.
Burbules raised the question and asked for a clear policy. Thompson indicated that she saw it as a conflict of interest and suggested that we disallow this. Burbules agreed and noted that ex-Presidents make good election committee candidates since they are not worried about being selected. Stengel reminded Houton about her responsibilities to constitute an Election Committee.
Thompson moved/Burbules seconded that we make it a policy that Election Committee members are not eligible for nomination. The motion passed.
Multi-year PES memberships?
It has been suggested that PES consider multi-year memberships as a way to simplify life for members. Stengel indicated little enthusiasm for the idea at this time, since a change in dues rates and/or structure may be in the offing. No action was taken
Fellow status?
Thompson addressed the question and suggested (with Margonis) that the structure is elitist and it doesn't make sense that we continue with it. Stengel noted that there had been some concern about eliminating it expressed at the Business Meeting. Burbules discussed the history of the designation, noted that he too found it anachronistic but suggested that we should consider carefully whether to do so. He said we might have two choices: to eliminate or to broaden the scope of the qualifications. Haroutunian-Gordon addressed the basic argument to retain the Fellow category, arguing that what it is to be a philosopher of education cannot be specified in a once and for all way and that the Society has a past practice that has allowed the definition of that to evolve.
Stengel suggested that we use the web to elicit comment re the idea by July 1. Houston and Thompson will be the Committee to consider possible action.
Special event for Jim McClellan next year?
Burbules asked what the plans were? Stengel indicated that there was talk of some kind of alternative session and that sentiment was to accept such a proposal were it submitted and of the expected quality.
How to help Program Committee to do fun things?
Houston raised this issue. She even asked if there should be a roasting of the President?! Folks gave Houston a list of names of witty folks. Stengel noted some interesting discussion in the bar the previous evening and suggested that a "follies" might be part of the Presidential Luncheon.
It was also suggested that alternative presentation styles be encouraged, specifically to have people give papers without readiing the papers. Discussion ensued. Consensus seemed to be to put a comment in the Call that encouraged "presentational" style and ask folks to experiment with what this would mean.
The question of providing abstracts was raised. This has been done on occasion but not consistently. Should we consider papers on web? Abstracts on web?
Stengel supported Houston's instinct to have something for grad students (a caucus). Several models were discussed: work sharing, "big shot" guest, social. Houston indicated that she would have a grad student organize it and then they would take responsibility to do it for the following year in a rotating format.
All agreed that we should ask the Membership Committee to take new members out again.
Haroutunian-Gordon asked about space for the program for the Aesthetics SIG. Folks indicated that the SIG had to submit a proposal and any proposals from recognized SIGS would be considered favorably.
Burbules suggested to Haroutunian-Gordon that she start thinking about her Kneller Lecturer and that she get a clear agreement that the paper be published in Yearbook. Stengel agreed that she would include this language in her contract letter.
Some discussion ensued about what kind of person should be a Kneller Lecture. Burbules said educator; Haroutunian-Gordon and Houston went for substantive and educationally interesting.
Burbules returned to issues raised by Program Chair Rice on Thursday about having difficulty getting Chairs. Burbules wondered if the Chair role could be made more substantial. Thompson suggested that Rice had some difficulty because she sought persons who were not already on the program.
Stengel suggested that a strong statement appear in the Update asking persons to volunteer to Program Director to serve as Chair and/or Respondent. Houston indicated that she would help Scott Fletcher, the next Program Chair, to seek out grad students to serve this function.
A question was raised about the quality of our Archives. Is there anything? Burbules indicated that some materials were available. Stengel will check with McCarthy.
The H.W. Wilson Contract to index Philosophy of Education in the Education Index, Education Abstracts and Education full-text database was raised again. The Board agreed that as long as rights were non-exclusive, cost the Society nothing, and put no restriction on our own web publication, the contract should be approved.
Stengel noted in passing that some members had indicated interest in
a teacher education SIG. She will put some mention of this in the Update
and see if any members take the lead in forming such a group.
Burbules moved adjournment; Thompson seconded at 1:55 PM. Members indicated
their votes by departing!
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Stengel
Executive Secretary
APPENDICES
PES Elections Committee Report - March, 2001
Clive Beck, Chair
The committee consisted of seven members elected by the membership: Kal Alston, Clive Beck, Deanne Bogdan, Megan Boler, Eric Bredo, Jana Noel, and Emily Robertson. The President invited Clive to chair the committee. The nomination and election process was conducted by e-mail with the assistance of Janet Munro in the Centre for Teacher Development at OISE/UT.
In early November, e-mail and postal addresses were obtained from committee members and information on election rules, PES membership, and past PES presidents was mailed out. Late in November there was a call for nominations with a deadline of December 15. The nominations received by this date were sent to the committee, with a request to rank the first 7 in each of the three categories. The deadline for responses was January 12.
The election results within the committee were as follows:
President Elect: Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon
Executive Board: Susan Laird and Suzanne Rice
COPA: Hilary Davis and Dilafruz Williams
Clive spoke by phone with those elected to confirm their willingness to serve/stand, and then notified Nick, Barbara, and the committee of the results. He formally notified Sophie of her election by e-mail, and told her she should feel free to share the news with others, make any inquiries she wished, and begin pre-planning.
Barbara sent a ballot to the membership in late January. The election was fairly close in both cases. The results were:
Executive Board: Suzanne Rice
COPA: Dilafruz Williams
I would like to thank sincerely Susan Laird and Hilary Davis for consenting to stand for election; they showed admirable willingness to support the Society in this way. Congratulations to those who were elected! And sincere thanks also to the committee members and to Janet Munro. They took the task very seriously and the process worked smoothly.
Three issues arose in the course of the elections. (1) Can people be nominated for more than one position? We decided they could, with priority in the results being given to President Elect, Executive Board, and then COPA. (2) Can people already on COPA be elected to the Executive Board? We decided they could, with the resulting vacancy on COPA being left till later. Perhaps the question of how to fill this vacancy should be considered by the Society. (3) Can people on the Elections Committee be nominated for any of the positions? We decided they could not. This is a difficult issue, since some people tend to be elected to the committee year after year, and they are obviously prime candidates for the President Elect and Executive Board positions. To become President they would have to think ahead and not stand for election to the committee. This puts them in a difficult position. However, we could not see a solution to the problem. Too many people on the committee would normally be nominated for the positions in question, and since they could not vote in such a case, the Election Committee would be too greatly depleted. But this problem also should perhaps be discussed by the Society.
I enjoyed this work. Many thanks for asking me to do it!
* * *
March 29, 2001
To: Philosophy of Education
Society Executive Committee
From: Suzanne Rice
2001 Program Chair
Program Committee Members
Kal Alston (alternative session chair), University of Illinois
Megan Boler, Virginia Tech University
Pradeep Dhillon, University of Illinois
Paul Farber, Western Michigan University
Christine McCarthy, University of Iowa
Kevin McDonough, McGill University
Alven Neiman, University of Notre Dame
Jana Noel, California State University, Sacramento
Walter Okshevsky, University of Newfoundland
Susan Verducchi, Independent Scholar
Submissions
While the quality of submissions was quite good overall, it should be noted that three-quarters of the submissions arrived past the deadline. This creates problems for the program chair and committee. Before sending out submissions for review, should the chair wait until two weeks after the deadline, assuming that most papers will have arrived by then? Should he or she send out submissions in dribs and drabs as they arrive? Neither alternative is without problems. The first leaves the review committee less time to read the submissions. The second makes record keeping and tracking of submissions more difficult for the chair. Perhaps the deadline for submitting papers should be earlier so that the inevitable late papers can be accommodated while giving sufficient time to the reviewers.
There were seventy-seven regular paper submissions, thirty-one of which were accepted. Three of these were designated "general session." (The tables below indicate the gender distribution of submissions.) There were six alternative session submissions; three were accepted. The other alternative sessions, including the breakfast sessions, that appear on the program were developed out of regular paper submissions that were not accepted or were added at the request of SIGS. The three book symposia that were submitted were all accepted.
Review Process
Each paper was sent to three reviewers for scoring and comments. Reviewers used the standard form, which includes the following criteria: strength of argument, quality of writing, centrality of issue, overall quality. In each category a paper can receive a score from between 0 (unacceptable) and 4 (very good). The form also includes spaces for comments, one for the chair, the other for the author. These forms were used somewhat differently by different reviewers. Some gave a numerical score in all of the possible categories, others gave only an overall score; some provided extensive comments, others provided no comments. One might think that this inconsistency would make the paper selection process rather difficult. But it is actually fairly easy to figure out how the different reviewers are using the form and what their numerical ratings mean in terms of quality. I was a little disappointed that some of the reviewers provided few or no comments. But considering that reviewers had little time because so many submissions arrived late, the lack of comments is understandable. I followed the recommendations of the reviewers as faithfully as possible, but made adjustments in order to achieve a better gender balance.
Two reviewers submitted their evaluations and comments electronically. It was much easier to work with these documents than their hard copy counterparts. A lot of paper, postage, and time would be saved if reviews were handled through e-mail.
Selection of Respondents and Chairs
Program committee members who wanted to write a response were allowed
to do so. Other respondents were chosen mainly on the basis of their
interests and expertise. Consideration was also given to factors such
as gender and seniority. Unforeseeable circumstances necessitated the
last minute recruitment of two substitute respondents.
The selection of chairs was much more difficult. Those who had submitted papers that were not accepted were asked first. A few individuals volunteered to chair sessions. I had to nag many people with numerous e-mail messages before getting firm commitments, and some of these fell through at the very last minute.
Note of Appreciation
I want to thank Nick Burbules for providing me the opportunity to chair the 2001 meeting. I learned a great deal from the experience, and it was an honor to serve the Society in this capacity. Barbara Stengel could not have been more helpful in the construction of the program. She responded to scores of e-mail questions, always promptly, helpfully, and cheerfully. David Hansen did a great job with the room arrangements. Lynda Stone was also a tremendous help in the process of putting together the program. Members of the program committee worked very hard and under tight time constraints. I am very grateful to you all for your competent and kind assistance.
Best wishes to the 2002 Program Committee.
Regular paper submissions and acceptance rates
| # Submissions | % Submissions | # Accepted | % Accepted | |
| Male | 47 | 61 | 19 | 40 |
| Female | 29 | 38 | 12 | 41 |
| M/F | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 77 | 99 | 31 | 40 |
Respondents
| # respondents | % respondents | |
| Male | 14 | 45 |
| Female | 15 | 49 |
| M/F | 2 | 6 |
| Total | 31 | 100 |
Session chairs
| # Chairs | % Chairs | |
| Male | 16 | 52 |
| Female | 15 | 48 |
| Total | 31 | 100 |
CONTACT: PES Executive Director Jeff Milligan
850-644-8171; milligan@coe.fsu.edu