PHILOSOPHY of EDUCATION SOCIETY
2005 Executive Board Minutes
Philosophy of Education
Executive Board Meeting
March 17, 2005 and March 21, 2005
In attendance:
Thursday: Sharon Bailin, Nick Burbules, Bob Floden, Jim Giarelli, Ken Howe, Kathy Hytten, Fran Schrag
Monday: Kal Alston, Sharon Bailin, Bob Floden, Kathy Hytten, Debby Kerdeman, Susan Laird, Sasha Sidorkin, Daniel Vokey
Approval of minutes of 2004 Executive Board Meeting and 2004 Business Meeting
- Motion to accept by Jim Giarelli, Fran Schrag seconded, minutes approved.
President’s Report – Bob Floden
Except for union issues with the hotel, it was a good year. We moved forward to appoint a new Executive Secretary, Sasha Sidorkin, and began the process to change the title officially from Executive Secretary to Executive Director.
Executive Secretary’s Report – Kathy Hytten
Membership
At the start of the 2004 meeting ( 3/25/04), 443 members had paid 03-04 dues. At the start of this meeting, 397 members have paid for 04-05 – and we expect more will pay at the conference. Here are the membership numbers for all the years we have in our database:
1989-90 239 1997-98 459
1990-91 250 1998-99 527
1991-92 279 1999-00 522
1992-93 310 2000-01 479
1993-94 322 2001-02 459
1994-95 358 2002-03 445
1995-96 465 2003-04 477
1996-97 441 2004-05 397
The membership numbers may be slightly lower this year because of the earlier conference date. This led to a shorter turn around time between the February update and this meeting. I expect to have a handful of forms in the mail when I return from the meeting.
Conference Registration
At the start of the conference, 112 people have paid registration. Including all the people who are on the program who have not yet registered (or whose registration fees are waived), we have 163 in the conference database so far. Again, I expect more to register than are listed in this database.
New Members
We have 57 new members so far this year, which is higher than at this time last year. In 03-04, we had a total of 59 new members. In 02-03, we had 54. One thing we may consider is requiring people on the program to become members of PES. Right now we do not make this mandatory as many other organizations do. 20 new members are registered for the conference this year.
John Ambrosio Dennis Metro-Roland
Gina Behrens Avi Mintz
Avi Bernstein- Nahar Anne Newman
Josh Corngold Judy Rabinowitz
Tasha Henry Lisa Satanovsky
Elizabeth Jackson Amy Shuffelton
Jim Lang Jeff Stickney
Paula McAvoy James Stillwaggon
Sarah McGough Terri Wilson
Michael Merry Sahar Zohouri
Financial Status
At this moment, our finances are secure. Our conference expenses last year in Toronto were significantly lower than the previous year, so we came in about $4000 under budget. We currently have about $38,000 on our operating account (this includes all the proceeds from the conference fees – and the cost of the conference will come out of this). Our Kneller account has remained stable at just over $77,000. At this time last year that account had just over $74,000. Our Legacy account has grown slightly, to just over $20,000.
I have still yet to add Legacy Fund contributions directly into that account. We initially took $15,000 out of our operating account to begin that fund. We have since received $10,264 in contributions. This includes $4404 since our last meeting. It appears that we can now begin to directly deposit donations into that fund as our operating account is healthy.
Budget Approval
I based the budget for 05-06 on figures from the past several years, and the agreement we signed with the hotel in Puerto Vallarta. The food and drink costs at most conference hotels are rather expensive. The hospitality committee had a very difficult time coming even close to our budgeted amount for the San Francisco conference. We discussed increasing the registration fees to $100 for non-student members. The committee approved the proposed budget with some changes to include a raise in the registration fees from $80 to $100 for non-student members, and approval to allocate up to $3000 for translation costs (including technology for simultaneous translation).
Kneller Budget for 2006 Conference
Because the Kneller fund is has not gained that much interest, we should keep our spending from that fund the same as the previous year’s amount of $2500. We may consider investing this money in more aggressive ways, as mostly it has just remained stable for the past year.
Blackwell
We have completed the transition to Blackwell to publish Educational Theory. This has been beneficial to our members – especially the ability to access several other journals on line in addition to Educational Theory. The one big way this has affected them, however, is that if they do not pay dues on time, they do not receive the journal. I have to prepare a special report to get back issues sent as people pay throughout the year (when we published out of Illinois, we would send regular members copies of the journal even if their dues were not paid up, assuming they would pay sometime during the year). I am still trying to stream-line this process to make it easier for the Executive Secretary to ensure everyone stays up to date. Blackwell has been easy to work with in this respect.
Committee Appointments
Sharon Bailin is working on getting Committee Appointments in place, ready to begin July 1, 2005 for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
Approval of Candidates for Fellow
- Craig Cunningham
- Denise Egea-Kuehne
- Michele Moses
- Alexander Sidorkin
Jim Giarelli motioned to approve, Sharon Bailin seconded, and all were approved.
Educational Theory and Yearbook Reports – Nick Burbules
- Educational Theory
- Blackwell is in the process of collecting data and information for us regarding Educational Theory, so we don’t have much to report yet. The preliminary incomplete data from December 04 shows that our submissions are up - over 2000 more libraries are accessing the journal through Blackwell (mostly on-line). This more than doubles the number of subscriptions. Things are still in flux with our revenue streams as we have been operating for the year without income. Starting next year we will have much better figures as the 2004 books are closed out and all the transitional issues are taken care of. Overall though, it is a good time for the journal.
- Other issues:
- Educational Theory has been doing more symposia and special issues.
- We are likely going to approach AESA to becoming a sponsoring member. It will help us to pick up about 500 new members.
- Reciprocal on-line subscriptions with other Blackwell journals all in place and working.
- We now have a 10 year archive of back issues on the Blackwell site. Within 4 more years, all issues will be available on line.
- Because JPES and EPAT are published with Blackwell, more collaboration with these journals is possible. Blackwell has some ideas about creating an on-line community space (using websites of these publications as a venue). This is one step in the direction of creating a framework that will grow over time.
- Yearbook
- Unlike Educational Theory, all decisions regarding the Yearbook are PES’s alone. Nick drafted the following proposals which were then discussed by the committee.
1. The titles and basic duties of the Editor, Contributing Editors, and Managing Editors do not change. There will be a new position, Editor-in-Chief, which for now would be Nicholas Burbules. The Editor (Program Chair) retains all responsibilities for reviewing and accepting papers, assigning respondents, etc, as at present. The Editor-in-Chief gets involved only post-conference, and is responsible for the production of the Yearbook itself: costs, deadlines, production schedules, and matters pertaining to those. There are some issues that overlap responsibilities (for example, enforcing word count restrictions, which are both content issues and cost issues), and in such matters the Editor-in-Chief will consult with the Editor about how best to proceed. But in these cases, final responsibility, and accountability for costs, rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Currently, accepted manuscripts follow a “two-track” process, going to the Editor and our production staff simultaneously. In the future, we are proposing, everything, once it is accepted, is submitted to the Managing Editor directly so that a central record of what is in and what is forthcoming can be maintained in one place, and then we send manuscripts to the Editor for his/her review.
3. The overall level of editing, at each stage, will be reduced to matters of format consistency (e.g., footnote style), clear errors of punctuation and grammar, typos, etc. (Our Managing Editor tells me this is termed “Level C” editing.) Most of these edits will take place here before the Editor even sees the galleys, so that the Editor’s responsibilities for editing will be reduced markedly. We will “batch” papers for the Editor, so that he/she can be reviewing one set of papers while we are working on the next ones. This will expedite the process at both ends, we believe. We expect all editing to be completed by the end of the summer.
4. One of the bigger changes is that authors will NOT be allowed to make substantial post-conference changes. There has been a perennial problem, in a limited number of cases, of changes being so substantial as to abrogate parts of the responses – which is for obvious reasons unacceptable. “Second thoughts” after the conference can simply not be accommodated any longer. Moreover, substantial changes also raise problems of new errors potentially being introduced, formatting needing to be re-done, and additional delays in the production schedule. While the Yearbook is not just a conference proceedings, we are proposing moving the book back to something much closer to a record of the actual texts delivered.
5. We are looking into the use of journal management software (open access, web-based) that can be used in future years for the submission, review, and management of all manuscripts. One of the many benefits of this will be a web-based record of where all papers are in the process, which any of us can access. Another benefit will be a web site where abstracts for all accepted papers can be read by conference participants pre-conference.
- Bob Floden entertained a motion to accept these proposals put forth by Nick. Jim Giarelli seconded. Discussion ensued. Nick clarified that nothing from the editor’s position changes; the Program Chair is still the editor of the yearbook. Procedures in the Program Chair’s handbook will need to be changed. Nick’s motions were approved.
- Other Developments
- We are considering using two different programs to help with journal submissions and conference activities: OCS (open conference site) and OJS (open journal site). These resources can help us to manage submissions, abstracts, conference registrations, etc. Bob encouraged the new leadership to look into these more fully and perhaps consider a trial run next year.
Committee Work and Reports
- Program Committee Report – Ken Howe
The program committee (which consisted of 10 members) reviewed 100 paper submissions (30 each) and 13 proposals for special sessions (about 3 each); I reviewed the most highly ranked 2/3s of paper submissions and all of the proposals.
Assembling the Program
- I selected the 27 best papers for the program in a way that balanced the reviewers’ ratings against having a decent variety among sessions. As per usual, some of the reviewers were considerably "harsher" (in measurement jargon) than others. As it turned out, there weren't many wild disagreements (though there were some). With some exceptions—particularly in light of differences in harshness and in the interest of the overall program variety—I based my judgment on working down from the higher to lower average ratings (in a few cases I became the third rater). Here are the overall ranks of papers that were accepted: 1-17, 19-25, 31&32, and 49 (the last exhibited the wildest difference of opinion of all papers—two 4s and a 1). The three general sessions were ranked 1, 2, and 4.
- I selected 6 of the proposals for alternative sessions and put together 2 others by inviting authors of good papers that were rejected to participate in symposia.
- Respondents were selected (1) from among authors of rejected papers who were extended invitations, (2) based on recommendations of the program committee members, (3) based on requests from program committee members (keyed to papers they’d reviewed), and (4) based on the identification of individuals with recognized expertise and stature who were particularly well-suited to respond to the paper in question (e.g., Elgin, Noddings, and Phillips).
- Chairs were selected primarily from among volunteers, particularly authors of rejected papers who were extended an invitation. Members of the program committee were on “stand by,” as it were, and two filled in at the last minute for chairs who backed out.
Some questions for the Exec Committee to contemplate whether to address and, if so, what the answers should be:
1. Should more than 27 papers be accepted if the pool warrants it? (I had at least 3 that I really agonized over rejecting.)
2. Should firm rules be established re: (1) # of reviewers/paper, (2) routinely providing feedback for all submissions, (3) not communicating numerical scores (which are misleading given the variance in harshness and the criterion of program balance), (4) standardizing the evaluation form (in my view, just rating vis a vis being on the program plus comments is all that is needed), and (5) whether people may submit more than one paper (several did and at least one PES veteran (Steve Norris) told me this was prohibited).
- After discussing Ken’s questions, the committee decided that the upper limit of papers that should be accepted is 29 (limiting it to 3 in the first an last concurrent sessions).
- Ken made the following recommendations for standards of practice in handling submissions for future program committees:
(1) All submissions should be assigned 3 reviewers.
(2) Evaluator comments should be provided to the lead author of all submissions, including those whose submissions were rejected.
(3) Numerical ratings should not be provided (which are misleading given the variance in harshness of the raters and the criterion of program balance).
(4) A standardized evaluation form should be adopted. (In my view a rating on a 1-5 scale plus comments is all that is needed)
(5) There should be no rule prohibiting people from submitting more than one paper, if such a rule exists.
(6) Authors of responses should be required to submit their remarks no later than the Thursday that marks the beginning of the conference. By this time they also should have provided a copy to author of the paper to whom they are responding.
Election Committee Report
The Election Committee included Barbara Stengel (Chair), Gert Biesta, Deanne Bogdan, David Hansen, Natasha Levinson, Al Neiman and Suzanne Rice.
The Committee named Susan Laird as the choice for President-Elect. Alexander (Sasha) Sidorkin was named as the new Executive Secretary/Director.
Rene Arcilla and Deborah Kerdeman were nominated for the open position on the Executive Board. John Covaleskie and Iris Yob were the nominees for COPA. Executive Secretary Kathy Hytten conducted the election by mail. Deborah Kerdeman was elected to the Executive Board and John Covaleskie was elected to COPA.
- Role and Charges of the Committees
- The Executive Committee discussed ways to get other PES committees more active and focused. Sharon will talk to committee chairs about setting an agenda for their committees. In general, we need to better communicate our committee expectations and charges. One role for the Membership Committee may be to encourage people to go to dinner together at the conference to avoid isolation by some graduate students. Another consideration is to set time slot on the program for business meetings of the committees, especially COPA and COSW.
Old Business
- Legacy Fund – Graduate Student Support
- The committee discussed the best way to allocate these funds. This year we gave free registration to graduate students who had a concurrent session or general session paper. Several options were considered for how to best use these funds in the future, including targeting airfare and/or paying for a graduate student meal. The proposal settled on for this year is to give $100 to all graduate students who get a paper accepted on the program. This should be put in the first call for papers. Sharon will also continue to encourage members to contribute to the Legacy fund in the July newsletter.
- Bylaws and Constitution Change
- The committee voted to change the title of Executive Secretary to Executive Director in the Bylaws of the Society. Changing the Constitution requires a membership vote. This will occur along with the Election Committee ballot in the July update. The constitution will also be changed to eliminate CSFE as standing committee (as that organization no longer exists). This will also be included on the membership vote in July.
New Business
- Program Issues Unique to Mexico
The committee discussed a number of issues related to the conference in Puerto Vallarta, including:
- AV costs for simultaneous translation of some sessions
- Graduate student support for attendance
- Sessions/papers in Spanish (including in the Yearbook)
- Connections with the newly formed Latin American Philosophy of Education Society
The committee agreed that we should try to allow some papers in Spanish, and to include up to four papers published in Spanish and English in the Yearbook. The committee also authorized Sharon to spend up to $3000 for translation costs (which includes equipment for use at the conference).
- Fee Waivers for International Members & Wording Change on Registration Form
- Our broker can no longer accept money orders from our members. This complicates things for our international members especially. Sasha will investigate what options exist to lower fee costs for these members.
- The committee also decided that for purposes of conference registration, we should expand the student member registration category to also include unemployed or underemployed members.
- Committee Replacements
- Sharon will appoint 2 new members to the Educational Theory Editorial Board (the terms of appointment of our last two members have expired), and will replace Dilafruz Williams (who asked to step down) & Debby Kerdeman (who was elected to the Executive Board) on COPA.
- Charge from Membership at the Business Meeting
- Due to some concerns raised by the membership both about holding the 2005 meeting in a hotel undergoing labor disputes, and the selection of a resort in Puerto Vallarta as the 2006 conference site, the membership charged the executive board with developing some principles for how conference sites get selected. Some of the issues we considered were:
- How do we take advantage of the particular location to promote discussion of issues that will move the society’s intellectual agenda forward?
- What issues have to be considered in the selection of sites (e.g., geographic balance, availability of hospitality coordinators, costs)?
- We decided that choosing several cities to return to on an ongoing basis was not feasible due to the need for hospitality committees and institutional donations. We also determined that it would be too unwieldy to try to plan conferences too far in advance given the size of our organization. Sharon will address some of the considerations that went into site selection in the July update.
Transition from Robert Floden to Sharon Bailin
Approval of site, budget, Program Chair, and Program Committee for 2006 conference
Site previously approved. Daniel Vokey was named Program Chair. The Program Committee will consist of Victoria Costa, David Ericson, Wendy Kohli, Tone Kvernbekk, Natasha Levinson, Walter Okshevsky, Rob Reich, Claudia Ruitenberg, Naoko Saito, and Paul Standish.
Bob Floden moved to adjourn the meeting Monday morning, seconded by Kal Alston. Meeting adjourned at 9am Monday.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathy Hytten
Executive Secretary
CONTACT: PES Executive Director Jeff Milligan
850-644-8171; milligan@coe.fsu.edu