next »

[ferg1]

I have a non-TT job in a teacher ed program department. My major is curriculum & instruction: educational administration with specialization in instructional technology/distance learning. The NCATE director in my school had convinced the dean and the chair that it is to the best interest of the college that I and seven others should be let go. The reason? They cannot leave us in the roll because of the coming NCATE review as my specialization is not in line with the teacher education programs, AND, I am an alum of this school where I am currently employed. If this is a joke, this is the worst joke ever! But I guess it's not, because I am now looking for a job, anywhere!

I wonder if this is happening to other institutions? Thank you for your wisdom! 

[msparticularity]

Ferg1, I'm so sorry you're suddenly jobless! While I can't offer any insight at all into what's going on at your institution, I can raise some possibilities here based upon my familiarity with accreditation processes. I don't have any idea whether this might help you, and if it isn't what you're looking for, just say so.

What happens in the NCATE review cycle is that a couple of years before the public event--the visitation from the committee and so on--a pretty massive self-study process occurs. This is very similar to the "best practices" for non-profit organizations, which require that the mission statement be revisited periodically to make sure that the organization has  clear vision and is conducting its business in a way that is coherent with that. One critical feature of this is to prevent "mission creep," where a group starts doing all kinds of things that are interesting and valuable, but which don't, upon consideration, have much to do with their supposed central mission. The purpose of all of this for a non-profit is to ensure that when people make donations to a non-profit to support their mission, the money is actually spent on that mission and not on a jillion other things. In the case of accreditation, the process is supposed to be about "Are we actually doing what we claim to do?"

This process is particularly crucial when times are hard economically, because when cutbacks have to be made, it's very important that the central activities be preserved if the program is going to retain accreditation. In the case of a college/department of ed, the central activities tend to be defined in terms of teacher preparation for P-12 licensure and perhaps credentialing for a variety of specializations for teachers and administrators. It sounds to me as if your institution's self-study may have shown some serious gaps in their performance of the basic mission, which then led to making cuts in programs/courses that, while good and valuable, are not essential to their mission.

It's a horrible, nasty process, because we're never really dealing with abstract "programs"--we're dealing with people's lives. And often courses and whole programs will have been added when times were better because they sounded interesting and appealing, but then they get dumped again when times are bad. The best way to preserve a program is to ensure that it is clearly linked to the central mission of an institution, and if possible to also make it financially central (through grants and major contracts). It sounds, though, as if those associated with your program were in no position to do any of this. In addition, it sounds as if this may have been particularly problematic because your program gave the appearance of existing largely to provide employment to graduates of the program.

Does any of this sound like it applies?