Curriculum and Pedagogy Governing Council Meeting at AERA Wednesday April 14 2004 at 4:20 pm. Present: Louise Allen, Nancy Brooks, Jacob Easley, Katherine Haerr, Jim Henderson, Chris Higgins, Tom Kelly, Kathleen Kesson, Morna McDermott, Tom Poetter, Jim Sanders and Wendy Walter-Bailey. Absent: Kris Sloan, Susan Edgerton, Cathy Hammond, Kent Reichart, Karen Anijar and Patrick Slattery. (anyone missing here?) Meeting called to order at 4:20 pm by Tom Poetter 1. Introductions 2. Secretary’s report: Chris Higgins a) The minutes from the three meetings in Decatur (2003) have been distributed, amended and approved. b) Question raised: can we reach a final decision about whether approved minutes will be posted on the website? Tom Poetter said that he believes the minutes should be posted, as this contributes to transparency. Others stressed that this is a democratic practice. A decision was reached by consensus: council meeting minutes will be reviewed on the listerv and amended if necessary before being posted on conference website. c) Chris will chair the creative writing strand for the 2004 conference. N.B. the strand’s name has changed from “collaborative” to “creative” writing. d) When sending attachments, it is necessary to cut and paste information into the body of an email as well as attaching documents. This way they are properly archived. 3. Finance committee report: Katherine Haerr a) Katherine received no comments about the new (increased) registration fees. There is general agreement that the fees are appropriate. b) The graduate housing scholarships are available for 8 students this year. If enough donations are made, there could be 4 more offered. o make a donation contact Tom Poetter or Katherine Haerr. c) Susan Edgerton is overseeing the graduate housing scholarships. Tom Poetter will contact Susan. d) After a discussion on how scholarship applications have been processed in the past, Louise suggested making an on line form to expedite the process. This led to a discussion about the criteria for the scholarships. Some council members recalled that there were criteria in the past, but there wasn’t full agreement about what those criteria were. One point of confusion was whether students had to present at sessions in order to qualify. Kathleen suggested that the award might serve as an incentive to encourage more students to present. Jim Henderson wondered if some students who wish to attend the conference could be intimidated by this challenge. Others queried whether students who are also teachers or administrators are eligible for the scholarship, since they can be well compensated in their workplaces. Jim Henderson then asked whether practitioners should also be eligible. It was agreed by consensus that some sort of split of “students, school based and university based” applicants will be determined, with a suggestion of 8 full time students, 4 practitioners, and 4 part time students. The mix will be determined at least for this year according the applications received rather than by a set rule. Morna and Susan agreed to develop criteria for the scholarships by June 1, so that a decision can be made by July 1. They were directed to the website archives for further information. Applications for this year’s scholarships will go to Susan and Morna. e) Glitches with the conference website links and PDF forms were raised. Some links aren’t directing mail to the correct email addresses. f) Louise (the former treasurer) is still maintaining the conference bank account. Katherine wondered if all of the funds should move to her in Ohio, since Louise’s account is interest bearing. Jim Sanders mentioned that generally monies are handed over to each treasurer in turn. Katherine and Louise will decide how this will be handled. Registrar’s report: Wendy Walter-Bailey a) Wendy reported that everything is proceeding smoothly, and that the services of a student are available to her at her institution. b) Louise asked how applications and credit card numbers be processed. Tom Poetter and Katherine explained the process. Chris wondered if credit cards could be accepted for on site registrations. Tom Poetter will confirm this. c) Conversation turned to how the registration fee cheques are handled. Louise suggested using guaranteed delivery instead of standard mail. Tom Poetter suggested FEDEX. Katherine and Wendy agreed to meet in person to transfer the cheques, since they are close to one another. Conference site coordinator’s report: Tom Poetter a) Acknowledgement: Katherine Haerr has worked hard on site planning. b) Tom reported that everything is on target for the conference. He provided details about the conference facility, and pointed out that the registration fee will cover some entertainments, including a reception (cash bar), and a dinner. Tom requested that council members buy the prepaid lunch ticket so that we could meet over lunch during the conference. Since there are no sessions over lunch, this will be a convenient time to connect. c) Tom also discussed the general capacity of the site. Around 200 attendees can be housed at the Marcum Conference Center. There are many alternatives in the area. The session spaces can handle about 300 people comfortably. Louise asked if the University of Miami had begun thinking yet about how many local people might like to attend. There was some discussion about the possibility that there may also be a football game at the same time as the conference and that this limit room availability and dining off site. Tom noted that the football schedule hadn’t been made public yet. Publications committee: Louise Allen a) Louise clarified that the editing team she would be addressing was for annual publication rather than the new journal. She noted that 2004 conference is 2 weeks later than in previous years, so this year’s editing team is going to be rushed. Tom Poetter suggested that tighter timeline could be beneficial. b) Louise suggested that the process for selecting editing teams is evolving over time, and that more refined criteria for the selection of the editing team is needed. The council as a whole recalled that the present editing team criteria include: thematic or organizing ideas, participation by faculty, grad students and practitioners, institutional capacity, and representation from multiple institutions. c) Tom Poetter suggested that the criteria be posted on the website and in the acceptance emails so that people could assemble teams prior to attending the conference. d) Louise suggested that editing team proposals be reviewed on Friday so that the chair of the successful team can come to final council meeting on Saturday. e) Question raised: is the chair of the editing team a member of the council? This needs clarified. f) Louise brainstormed about ways to help new editing teams: Have some papers provided to the editing team at the conference. Keep teams to 4 or 5 people. g) Question raised: Can, or alternately, are arts based submissions available on the website? (I checked the 2003 website, and couldn’t see any-Chris) General Discussion a) Scholarships/Prizes Jim Henderson pointed out that at the Bergamo conference, prizes are given out for outstanding papers submitted prior to conference. Kathleen described her appreciation for the plaque and $1000 she received as a winner of this award. Louise suggested dedicating a prize to Jim Sears, and wondered about tying in a (Sears) prize to a housing scholarship and possible publication in the journal as well as recognition. The conference has no budget at present for a monetary reward. Kathleen suggested that award categories like grad student/school based/ university based could all tied to a polished draft which would be edited for publication. The prize could begin this year (2004). Winning papers could also receive acknowledgement in the proceedings book and a ritual at next year’s conference. Louise will give Jim Sears a plaque and announce the prize in his name at the 2004 Friday dinner. b) Discussion moved on to how the papers submitted for the Sears award would be assessed. It was suggested that strand chairs would read the papers at conference. c) Brochure: There was general satisfaction about the brochure expressed by the group. Tom Poetter suggested sending out the PDF version of the brochure to email lists. His support staff will also send out paper brochures. d) Institutional support: In previous years the conference has received financial support from several institutions. Tom Poetter was granted $500 for this year’s event. Jim Henderson offered to speak with his dean about more support. Louise asked if there is a committee in existence whose task is to garner funds from institutions in order to support the conference over time? e) Council elections at 2004 conference: Louise’s two students aim come to the conference with criteria for election, and will hold elections on Friday. f) Tours during the conference: Tom Poetter listed several sites of interest on or near the campus, and offered to organize tours for participants. The consensus from the council was that this wasn’t necessary. Community liaison committee (is this the right name for this committee?-Chris): a) Question raised: do we want a full day community practitioner program this year? Last year Donna Adair Breault created a complete day of workshops-a lot of effort on her part. Apparently the situation in Georgia was a bit unique-due to jurisdictional requirements for P.D. credit, special criteria had to be met for credited practitioner participation. Tom Kelly suggested that a special strand is not in keeping with our conference’s goal to integrate practitioners into all aspects of the conference. Morna pointed out that since Saturday is the best day for school based attendees, we should ensure that sessions of most interest to them appear on Saturday. b) Will the grad student credit program continue? Tom Poetter will contact Dan Marshall to see if he’s interested in doing it again. Journal committee report: Jim Henderson a) Patrick Slattery and Jim Henderson are the co-editors of the journal, elected for 2 year terms. b) Volume 1(1) features an opening statement as well as articles. In addition, several prominent scholars have offered statements on the importance and value of the journal. Louise has a piece appearing, as does Kathleen and a school based co-writer. c) Jim Henderson said that the quality of the pieces is good and that the identity of the journal and of the group behind it is apparent-the journal is well focused. d) Jim Henderson suggested that all of us on council team up with practitioners to respond to the journal’s mission statement in volume 2-perhaps with the exception of the members who have already contributed to volume 1. Another possibility he presented was that the council contribute as a group. He put forward that this would be a way of “growing together collegially as well as a business group”. These pieces would be reviewed by editors, making them invited rather than peer reviewed. He also commented that he needs to discuss this suggestion with Patrick, as it is a new idea. e) Journal ownership: Louise specified that the journal is owned by the C+P conference/group (both names are part of legal documents). Jim Sanders noted that other names could be used as long as registration documents show these original names. The council is the directive group, having been elected, but the entire organization owns rather than sponsors the journal. Kent State and Texas A+M universities sponsor the journal. Jim Henderson inquired if the legal names are “C+P group or conference.” Jim Sanders confirmed that our legal name is both “The Curriculum and Pedagogy Group” or “The Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference”, although we can “assume” any name that we want. this. f) Journal cover: Jim Henderson reported that the publisher wants names on the cover of the journal. He asked for opinions on this. In addition he asked if “owned and sponsored” or something like “a scholarly publication of the Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference” should appear on the cover. choice 1: no names on cover: everything on inner title page or inside cover choice 2: Jim Henderson pointed out that the publisher (Bill) is very knowledgeable, and perhaps his advice about having names on the cover of the journal is valuable. A general discussion ensued with questions like “how do other journals look” raised. The consensus was that usually names don’t appear on the covers of journals. Tom Kelly recommended that just the name of journal, artwork, and issue/volume number appear on the cover. g) Jim Henderson added that he and Patrick are seeking equity by getting some practitioners to serve on the editorial board (and become peer reviewers if they wish). He asked for suggestions for recruiting possible candidates. Others pointed out that the journal might not interest practitioners. h) Question raised: when will the online journal appear on journal’s website? Journal distribution overall to be discussed in the fall of 2004. Program committee: Nancy Brooks a) Nancy reported that the committee is proceeding well. She and Kris Sloan will both receive proposals and then distribute them to the conference chairs. Kris will distribute selection criteria to strand chairs soon. b) Nancy provided details of her timeline: Aug 1 is the preferable date to inform presenters that their proposals have been accepted. July 1 is the cut off date for definite inclusion in the conference. Proposals arriving after this point will be accepted but not guaranteed a session. Tom Poetter called for any other new business. There was none, so the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm.