(Note: The following minutes will not be officially approved until the 2010 Executive Board Meeting).
Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting, March 19, 2009
Present
David Hansen, Audrey Thompson, Michael Katz, Chris Higgins, Cris Mayo, Kathy Hytten, Jeff Milligan, Debby Kerdeman, Nick Burbules
Absent
Kevin McDonough, Gert Biesta
Meeting convened at 6:00 pm
Approval of the Minutes of the 2008 Executive Board Meeting
Chris Higgins moved approval, Audrey Thompson second. Approved unanimously.
President’s Report: David Hansen
David Hansen opened the meeting by offering thanks to Debby Kerdeman, Kevin McDonough, Jeff Milligan, and the external sponsors of the 2009 meeting. He noted that as 2009 Program Chair Debby Kerdeman has not only carried out the responsibilities of the program chair but has also assisted with hospitality-related tasks with exemplary attention to a thousand and one tasks. He noted that Kevin McDonough has been a wonderful hospitality chair, carrying out a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the Society. Unfortunately, Kevin was unable to attend the board meeting due to a death in the family. Jeff Milligan has been great to work with. David expressed his view that we are passing the Society on in good shape. He reported it has been a terrific pleasure to work with the board, which has been incredibly responsive. He concluded by thanking the external sponsors of the 2009 meeting, who contributed a total of $9,000: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, Democratic Dialogue (University of Ottawa Faculty of Education), McGill University Faculty of Education, Teachers College Columbia University, Centre de Recherce en Éthique de l’Université de Montréal, and University of Washington-Seattle College of Education.
Executive Director’s Report: Jeff Milligan
Jeff Milligan reported that the economic downturn has apparently had a significant impact on PES membership and finances. As of March 19, 2009 current (2008-2009) membership stood at 327 members, down from 491 last year. Membership over time:
89-90: 235
90-91: 250
91-92: 279
92-93: 310
93-94: 322
94-95: 358
95-96: 465
96-97: 441
97-98: 453
98-99: 527
99-00: 522
00-01: 479
01-02: 459
02-03: 445
03-04: 477
04-05: 447
05-06: 465
06-07: 412
07-08: 491
08-09: 327
Jeff reported that financial crisis over the past year has had a significant impact on the Society’s investments. The Kneller Lecture fund is down approximately 33% from last year and the Legacy Fund is down approximately 19%. The Operational Fund fluctuates depending on payments due at any one point in time; however, the portion of that account which is invested has seen similar declines.
Fund |
April 2006 |
March 2007 |
April 2008 |
March 2009 |
Kneller |
$77,353 |
$80,811 |
$84,425 |
$56,364 |
Legacy |
$21,079 |
$21,059 |
$21,614 |
$17,576 |
Operational |
$48,063 |
$53,704 |
$73,903 |
$61958 |
Jeff reported that 127 people had pre-registered for the 2009 Meeting. 188 had pre-registered for the 2008 Meeting.
Jeff Milligan raised the question of whether the Society wanted to consider raising dues and/or conference registration fees.
-Cris Mayo noted that the PES conference is reasonably priced and that a $10 increase for faculty would not be much. She wondered, however, whether people are not coming to the conference due to economic considerations.
-Kathy Hytten noted that it is difficult if we raise costs at this time.
-David Hansen suggested that we should not raise costs on students since they are the future of the Society. He suggested raising dues and registration costs by $10 on non-student members.
-Nick Burbules suggested that if our concern is regarding the cost of the conference, we should raise registration fees rather than dues.
-Audrey Thompson asked if our concern was the cost of the Yearbook or if there were things we could do to get more people to the conference.
-Debby Kerdeman reported that many people have said they only receive travel money for concurrent papers and responses. Some are reporting the loss of travel funds.
-Michael Katz reported that at his and similar institutions travel funds have dried up. If you are not giving a paper you are not getting money. Michael went on to raise the possibility of raising money outside the Society. He noted that we have had similar instances of drops in funds in the past. In hard times we should not gamble on growth funds. He reported that when he was Secretary Treasurer he made a special effort to get people to renew. We should look at a special effort to get those to renew who haven’t been members for several years.
-David Hansen offered to send e-mails to lapsed members. Personalized e-mails would be good.
-Nick Burbules noted INPE’s practice of taking members’ credit card numbers and renewing automatically each year. This means that people have to make an affirmative decision to quit. We should think about moving in that direction.
-Jeff reported that at present the e-Register system used by the Society does not capture and keep credit card numbers.
-Cris Mayo asked whether last year’s numbers weren’t unusually high. Michael noted that we had over 200 individuals at the conference.
-Audrey Thompson noted that we had not talked about changing the costs of the hotel. She noted that she did not plan to hold a presidential luncheon next year.
-Jeff noted that we would still have to meet food and beverage minimum expenditures contracted wit the hotel.
-Michael Katz argued that the principle should be that the conference should come as close to breaking even as possible. We should not be running continuous deficits.
-Jeff noted that the Society is a 501c2 organization rather than a 501c3. This means that contributions to the Society are not tax deductible. This could hamper efforts to raise money from outside the Society. Michael thanked Jeff for looking into this.
-Kathy suggested that communications with members about renewing membership should be decoupled from other information. She suggested that when members receive messages that appear to contain a lot of different information, they may tend to ignore it.
No action taken.
Committee Reports
Program Committee: Debby Kerdeman
82 papers were submitted. 30 were selected for inclusion in the program, including 27 concurrent sessions and 3 general sessions. There were 41 alternative session proposals with about half being selected for the program.
-Debby reported receiving numerous e-mails from authors about how helpful the feedback to authors had been. She also reported anecdotal information on the declining availability of travel funds. She reported that institutional support for the program chair is critical. Carrying out the responsibilities of program chair would have been extremely difficult without a course buyout and a graduate assistant. She noted that this is only the third year in which we have used OJS for submissions. It has made a huge difference. She noted there are kinks in the system but OJS has nevertheless been a blessing. She reported that she had tremendous support from Ron Glass, Barb Stengel and Cris Mayo. She noted the informal continuity among program chairs. Ron did some tremendous things last year. She noted the fireside chat with Paul Taylor and graduate students and having food at the business meeting as innovations this year.
-Michael noted conversations with Audrey Thompson regarding issues of continuity, suggesting that it might be useful to have some sort of written archival record.
-Debby reported that there is. Randall Curren wrote something up years ago that it still current. Procedures change—OJS, e-mail, etc.—and go out of date, but the judgment calls that must be made are still relevant.
-Michael noted that now things are tight economically people are having to make decisions about which conferences they will attend. Marketing becomes more important. We should get dates on calendars early, Kneller lecturer set, etc.
-Debby reported that authors were responsive regarding word limits. It is important to trust the judgment of the program chair.
-David Hansen reported that planning for this year’s conference did start early, including the selection of the Kneller lecturer and sending out information.
Elections Committee: David Hansen
-David reported that Eamonn Callan is the new president-elect. Jim Garrison, chair of the elections committee, is in Japan, so Sophie will make the announcement at the business meeting.
-Kathy noted that we should have elected a new member of COPA as well as a new member of the executive board to replace her prior to the 2009 meeting. She suggested we might be able to do this at the business meeting. Board members discussed the timing of elections so as to ensure that the new president-elect and executive board member are able to attend the Monday morning executive board meetings.
-David said that he would ask the current nominating committee to forward two names for the COPA vacancy and two names for the executive board to the Executive Director, who would then conduct an election for both vacancies. The new board member would come to next year’s Thursday board meeting. Another election will need to be conducted prior to next year’s meeting to replace Cris Mayo.
-Nick suggested we could elect one person for one year and the second for two years.
-Kathy noted that the election slate has always been two people. She suggested that we could have one election in April and have that person start on the Thursday board meeting, thus making the commitment of the board member five executive board meetings.
-Audrey Thompson moved and Cris Mayo seconded a proposal to hold a late election for the new COPA member and executive board member in April. Motion carried unanimously.
-Audrey moved and David seconded a second proposal to move the regular election for a new COPA member and executive board member to October instead of February. Motion carried unanimously. So the April (late) election will be for one member for COPA and one for the executive board. The nominating committee will forward two names for each vacancy to the Executive Director. The new nominating committee, to be elected in July, will provide two names for Cris Mayo’s replacement on the executive board in October. The election will take place in time to be announced in the February Update.
-Michael stated that it is important to recognize that the hardest position to replace is the executive director. He suggested that the nominating committee start looking for candidates early enough to have a transition year. The new nominating committee should be charged with identifying a replacement for Jeff. Jeff agreed. The important thing, Michael continued, is not just the transition, but finding someone who is willing to do it.
-Kathy noted that many of the board’s actions are based on precedent rather than what is in the bylaws. AESA plans meetings three years in advance, for instance, rather than year by year. Board conducted a discussion on how to ensure continuity in positions and how long out to determine conference sites.
-Cris suggested that the Executive Director ask the outgoing nominating committee to write a report on their activities that could be passed on to the next committee.
-Kathy noted that it is not complicated. The Executive Director simply needs to give them a list of names of those who have already served.
-David suggested that we could perhaps entertain suggestions for continuity at the Monday meeting.
Old Business
-David Hansen noted that the yearbook discussion has been going on for two years. It has been particularly intense over the past few weeks with Claudia Ruitenberg, Nakia Pope and Paul Smeyers making a final recommendation. Now on the table for us to move forward regarding their recommendations. They have suggested a three to five year transition period to on line publication of the yearbook.
-Nick noted that the rational for the transition is to let people get used to it given that some people are not convinced about the credibility of on line publications. That’s the rational for not doing it right away. The decision we are facing now is whether we are going to do it or not? If so, then how long do we need to allow for transition?
-Kathy: Does the PDF significantly reduce the cost?
-Nick: Yes, you are subsidizing the yearbook either way. Everything up to the production of the PDF will be the same. After that point there are other things that take place: printing, mailing, etc. The sales of the paper product do not cover the production cost of the yearbook. The second part is what can be streamlined in the PDF phase. Clearly you want careful editing, but with the PDF you can change things later. You can’t do that with a book. There are other savings as well. You will be able to do it for less than the $11,000 subsidy that we incur now.
-Kathy: I seem to recall that in your report last year the costs will not go down dramatically with PDF.
-Nick: You could also devolve some things to author. You will save something under the $11,000 the yearbook currently costs us. The PDF is expensive. You could do it for less, but we want it to look right.
-David: One of the things that came up was concern about untenured faculty. That’s why we appointed Nakia ad Claudia to the committee.
-Nick: Some PDFs look just like a journal page, others look perfectly fine but don’t look exactly like a journal page. The task force consensus was if we could do something a little less complicated, you could save money but still have something that looks book-like and saves money. Two other things are pertinent to this discussion. We have been this as it impacts tenure decisions. We (Illinois) call yearbook publications refereed book chapters. Chris Higgins has argued that they should be called refereed articles. Other people don’t seem to understand book refereeing. In fact, if it is in OJS it is a journal and would be identified as a refereed article and thus judged more highly than a book chapter. Colloquially we call it the yearbook, but it isn’t formally called that. We might want to consider changing the title so it sounds more like a journal.
-Debby: I think people would understand that better, but at my institution being the editor of a book carries more weight than editing a special issue of a journal. If we are trying to identify to others what the work is, it is important that we make clear the sessions are refereed rigorously. If we‘re talking about nomenclature, I agree that it makes a difference for authors to say it is a refereed journal, but for the editor, the edited book is better.
-Kathy: We should make a recommendation that a clear statement about the process and the role of the editor be included in the web version.
-Cris: One confusion here is that PES is not a publisher, so the ranking of the publisher is unclear to anyone trying to evaluate the quality of the publication.
-Debby: People thing it’s the University of Illinois, so they think it’s an academic press. We should not say responses are non-refereed, but rather that they are invited.
-Cris: This is partly due to institutional differences.
-Michael: One of the tensions is between academic credibility and accessibility. Will this format online allow the publication to come out earlier, say in October?
-Nick: Yes.
-Michael: In the British PES conference people get to read articles before the conference and make decisions about what sessions to attend. It would be nice to have access to the papers before the conference. We should be getting it if it is on line by September or October. I hope the online proceedings cuts down on the lag time between the conference and publication of the yearbook.
-Nick: Regarding the issue of accessibility to PES members and to outsiders, when people Google, they will be able to find the yearbook and more will read it. Currently, the yearbook only goes to 100+ libraries. There’s a benefit to the author and to the field by being more accessible.
-David: How soon could the yearbook be available after the conference? Five months?
-Nick: Much faster. You want this done by the end of the summer.. From a cost standpoint we want one year done before we start the next year. We’ve never been able to do that.
-Audrey: Last year we talked about getting PES stuff on line, getting yearbooks on line, etc. We’re backed up in this.
-Nick: We have all the files in PDF form. We can do that online immediately. We actually have to create a second OJS system for the PDF publications. We have to create two entities: one for the conference and the other for the journal. (We do need to think about what we call it.) We have PDF files, so it’s a matter of how far back we want to go. I didn’t want to set up the second entity until we decide what we want to do. We could start with the three year gap. We could also have an archive that goes all the way back to 1967.
-Audrey: If we have simultaneously the book and the online version we have a different discussion.
-Chris Higgins: The credibility will not be decreased by the online version. It’s a net plus. What we call it matters. The papers are short. The inclusion of papers and responses is great for the conference. But if we rework them for publication it makes it seem like a proceedings after all. What we call it is crucial. We should keep the credibility issue front and center. The current bound journal makes it look like a proceedings. We’ve been confused about this for a long time.
-Kathy: All my department look at is length. They judge the quality by the length of the article. Thirty pages versus fifteen looks more substantive.
-Debby: We need a way to let people know that there is a serious review process. It’s harder to write 4500 words. I don’t know what to do about the response piece. Part of what makes this unique is there is real dialogue.
-Cris: It’s the inclusion of the whole package in the yearbook—city, president, etc.—that makes it look like a proceedings.
-Debby: There’s the issue for non-tenure folks and the issue for the editor. The program chair/editor has to get support for this from your dean. Saying I was editing a book was useful in getting support from my university.
-Nick: For many years the program chair didn’t edit the proceedings.
-Debby: That’s an extremely important move.
-Nick: If the name is something like The Annual Review of Philosophy of Education and its 250-400 pages long with the information about the procedures included then it will be a major thing for the editor.
-Michael: We don’t let people know how much work it is to be the program chair. COPA needs to make institutions aware of the importance of the position.
-David: In summary, the committee recommendation is summarized in their five points:
I’ve heard suggestions to call responses invited responses rather than non-refereed papers, to include a stronger statement about the review process, the role of the editor and contributing editors, the historical average rejection rate. None of this is set in stone, but I’m inclined to suggest we accept the committee’s proposal
-Kathy: Seconded.
-Nick: I would like to clarify two points about what we’re agreeing to: We are authorized to put everything we have into this new OJS entity, and second, that in the short term there will not be cost savings but a bit more in that we will be maintaining two publications for a short period of time. The issue about the name is feeling more important now. I want the new name to be on this new OJS entity.
-Debby: Along with name, there is continued tension between keeping the acceptance rate low and getting people on the program. If we change the name, we’ve got some competing issues.
-David: The name of the publication is a separate issue from the proposal before us.
-Michael: When will the name discussion occur?
(Brief discussion of possible names)
-Nick: The question is what makes it more journal-like than book-like
.
-Unanimous vote to support committee proposal to transition to the on line publication of the yearbook with a three year transition in which both the current hard bound and on line versions of the yearbook would be produced.
New Business.
Transition
-David Hansen welcomed Audrey Thompson as the new president of PES.
-Audrey announced that the 2010 meeting will be held in San Francisco at the Hyatt at Fisherman’s Wharf. Lorraine Code will be the 2010 Kneller Lecturer. Code accepted the invitation to offer the Kneller lecture after examining this year’s program. Audrey indicated that Michael Katz was a big help, as were Lonna Smith, who helped negotiate the hotel contract, and Jeff Milligan. Next year’s program chair is Gert Biesta. Susan Verducci will serve as site coordinator.
COPA
-David: We have one COPA bylaws issue to address. Nick has proposed to rename COPA to Commission on Professional Advancement. The chair would serve for two years and serve on executive board. COPA was asked to consider this. John Covaleskie says COPA has endorsed all three bylaw changes, but they didn’t have a full blown discussion of this. So they haven’t thought through everything. In short, we are missing some things before we can go forward with a vote. This next year they can have this discussion, decide who the chair should be and be ready to move this forward. John will be finishing his term as committee chair.
-Michael: I find it extremely disappointing that COPA has not functioned as a committee or moved forward on this.
-Nick: What is the public face committee going to present? We need a committee thinking about the external face and visibility of the field. Is this committee going to report something out that will move this forward?
-David: We’re not ready to vote on this as a society. I’d like to get them to make a full blown discussion of this. It is a big deal to add a new voting member to the executive board.
-Cris: The impetus of this comes from this body, not COPA. COPA should not be just an advocacy board but a representative board. We may say that we should come up with the proposal rather than COPA since the idea comes from the executive board.
-Nick: My proposal was that COPA become more important, the conscience of the society. It needs to be understood that it is an important committee rather than just another committee.
-Kathy: I think Cris is right. The executive board should do that. We should change the whole article V of the bylaws.
-David: It’s critical to express our respect of the current members. All agree.
-Michael: COPA used to play such a more important role, the professional conscience of the society. They monitored the field, had political debates about substantive issues. It has been in the past something like what Nick has in mind.
-Nick: There has been a problem with continuity from committee to committee over the years. Perhaps we should have something on the website that explains what each committee’s job is.
-Chris: When committee members are appointed they have to be informed that they actually have to meet.
The executive board conducted a brief discussion of how to discuss this matter with COPA and involve them/solicit their involvement in expanding the role and visibility of the committee.
Race and Ethnicity Committee: Cris Mayo
-Cris reported that she has received several letters of support, which have been forwarded to the executive director. There was a strong turnout last year of scholars of color and people working on race and ethnicity. If we have attracted such scholars and we don’t keep them then we miss an important opportunity.
-David: We might need to raise questions in the future about how many committees are appropriate for the society.
-Michael: It’s not the numbers of committees but whether they function or not. When you have key committees, they need to function or they’re just names on a program.
Publishing Relationship between PES and Educational Theory
-Nick: As a member of PES, I have been saying that we have to be aware of how we speak to other constituencies other than ourselves. There are two things I can do as editor of Educational Theory. One is the summer institute we have launched. It has been very successful. The focus will be on policies and child rearing for this year. The other thing is adding a 5th and 6th issue of the journal. This is not just about making more money, but about doing something more than we are currently doing. We can use the extra issues strategically to make clearer how philosophy engages other fields. This should be externally directed rather than internally. One maybe additional issue could be focused on the summer workshop and the other could reflect what the society does with the conference. As individuals many of us do this, but the conference doesn’t reflect this.
-Nick: My proposal is that an optional theme be identified for the conference. Papers presented would not have to be on the theme. The president, program chair, editor and perhaps others would collaboratively decide on the theme. Some of the papers on the theme presented at the conference would be expanded and developed, changed in light of discussion at the conference. Participants in the symposium might share their papers with each other. In some cases a salient response might be expanded too. These papers would be published as the 6th issue of Educational Theory. It probably wouldn’t appear in the same year as the conference. It would be decoupled from the conference and the yearbook. It could possibly be issued as a monograph by Blackwell. There would be no cost implications to the society. If it is published as a book, we have revenue.
-David: Thanks to Nick for the time and effort he has put into this. How do we think about a theme set in advance? What would the pressures on the program be? What if the papers on the theme are judged weak by the program committee? Is this something we would do every year? There is likely to be a certain amount of pressure on the program committee? What about the quality of papers on the theme?
-Nick: There is an element of serendipity we like about the conference that we don’t want to give up by dictating a theme. Nothing changes in what is published from the program. If you identify something in advance, we are not promising acceptance just because it’s on the theme. We don’t want to be in a position to publish poor work just because it’s on the theme. After it’s done for two or three years people will start anticipating the theme and want to know what it is. Some people might like the stretch to write about something they might not otherwise write about.
-Michael: I suggest the society take a proactive stance to address relations of philosophy and policy. I like the notion of trying to increase visibility through a special issue. The issue of quality control is also a political issue. The decision about the theme should be made by more than just a couple of people. Perhaps there should be an advisory board?
-Chris: The two PES members of the Educational Theory advisory board, the president, the program chair, and editor of Educational Theory could constitute such an advisory board.
-Nick: I don’t want to unilaterally decide on the theme. The more people involved the better. The theme has to be identified far enough in advance to get people to think about it. We don’t want any papers on the program just because someone thinks they have a quota.
-Audrey: We might test run this. If the idea is to have a wider readership, then we have to be talking reading outside of philosophy. If you invited a historian, sociologist, etc. to talk with the philosophers on a theme…
-Kathy: How will AESA and the John Dewey Society feel about Educational Theory picking only one of its supporting societies for this extra issue?
-Audrey: I like the concern with trying to reach out to others, but is this the best way to do it?
-Debby: It would be useful to talk to different program chairs about this. I’m not sure I agree with the basic premise, that PES is the best forum to address the issue of the public face/relevance of philosophy of education. PES has been primarily for us to talk to each other. Is PES the best strategy to address this important question? In terms of quality, some of the papers that didn’t make the program, even alternative sessions, might make the best articles for the extra issue.
(Extended discussion of pros and cons of Nick’s proposal.)
-Nick: We have become more of an inbred book club. We talk to each other. This could change the public profile of the society by saying here’s what philosophers are saying about the issues of the day.
-Debby: If we need to do this we need to engage in dialogue with people outside philosophy, and if this is the case PES might not be best venue.
-Chris: Might this attract others to the meeting/society?
-Michael: This requires structural continuity and organization. We don’t have this in PES. This needs a structural change.
-David: I think it’s important to guard the quality to make sure that we do the best philosophizing about education as we can. I agree that we need to find issues/venues for communicating with other societies.
-Debby: We are right to be concerned about the relevance—the perception of relevance—of philosophers. We need to engage in this conversation with others outside our field. The issue is critical, but is this the right strategy?
-Nick: We keep saying this is important to do, but we keep saying not here. I think this is a matter of survival. This is a little step. Our inward looking nature is hurting us and hurting the field.
Members continued with a long discussion about whether PES should do carry out the proposal. Questions discussed: How do we address the issues of relevance, survival, whether PES is the best venue to address these questions, and whether the sixth issue is the right way to do it? Concern was expressed over how the proposal might impact/pressure the conference in the particular directions of the theme. Nick noted that if we do this he has to commit to Blackwell to produce six issues a year.
-Nick: Is PES a meeting group or a professional society promoting its profession? This is a change in thinking, and people are uncomfortable with that.
-Michael: Should we discuss this with members in the Business Meeting?
-Kathy: We’ve been discussing this for a long time. I think we need to make a decision.
-Nick: We don’t want to have a themed conference with everything on the theme, but just a suggestion, a possibility people could choose to write on.
-Cris: Maybe the Kneller lecture becomes a focal point for this.
-David: I think we accept the proposal of working with Ed Theory on this, but we don’t commit to a theme every year.
-Nick: I’m not comfortable with that since I have to make a commitment to Blackwell for a sixth issue. I have to do that. The advanced theme is an important part of this proposal.
-Michael: This group does not seem to be ready to make this decision at this time. Next year would be a perfect time to make a decision on this. Nick said that we could have the wording of an agreement ready by then.
-Cris: Perhaps COPA should be involved in this.
-Audrey: Let’s put it on the agenda for the Monday executive board meeting.
-David: We will announce at the business meeting that we are going to go forward with an experiment on this for a period of time and take questions at the business meeting. We will work on a written agreement that will be brought back to the members for review.
Meeting Adjourned at 10:30 pm
Meeting Resumed 7:30 am, Monday, March 23, 2009
Present: Audrey Thompson, David Hansen, Michael Katz, Jeff Milligan, Cris May, Kathy Hytten, Chris Higgins, Gert Biesta, Nick Burbules
Approval of arrangements for 2010 Meeting
-Jeff Milligan shared preliminary figures from the 2009 meeting, suggesting that it looked like the conference had come in slightly under budget. On site registration brought the total number of attendees to 177. He shared the proposed budget for the 2010 meeting with board members. He noted that he is projecting attendance to be the same as that projected for this year: 160. While this is lower than actual attendance this year, he thought it best to be conservative in our expectations.
-Members present discussed conference costs, food costs, etc.
-Kathy: People appreciate the food, but we may want to consider raising conference costs in the future.
-Members present offered their compliments and thanks to the staff of the Hyatt for helping to make the 2009 meeting a success.
-Audrey Thompson announced that Lorraine Code has accepted her invitation to give the Kneller Lecture next year. Gert Biesta will be the 2010 program chair
-Gert announced that the program committee is almost in place. 14 people have agreed to serve. He is still awaiting word from one more person.
-Michael noted that California Association of Philosophy of Education may sponsor an alternative session panel. CAPE may have the funds to offer a luncheon or party of some sort in lieu of the presidential luncheon, which Audrey has opted to forego. Michael will ask Ron Glass, the new president of CAPE, if they want to sponsor some sort of celebration.
-Kathy suggested that the Society could arrange for someone to have a suite in order to host a party. It’s a nice event, and graduate students appreciate it.
-Michael noted that it is tough to get hotels to agree to this in the contract.
-Kathy replied that we have negotiated this in the past.
-Gert announced that he is planning to do something on Thursday night, but he and Audrey need to think a bit more about the format.
-Audrey suggested a possible model along the lines of a session at the 1988 meeting in New Orleans on the question “Who is PES?” It was a funny yet philosophically thoughtful discussion about who we are. That might be a possible model that engages us at both levels. She is open to suggestions.
-Kathy reported that AESA brought in people who were experts in performance pedagogy. A number of people came for that.
-Michael observed that the most entertaining effort was at the meeting in Vancouver when the Society had straight out entertainment. He noted that it would probably cost.
-David suggested the possibility of organizing something with Bay Area colleagues in teacher education or other areas. Several people were mentioned possibilities.
-Cris Mayo moved approval of the proposed 2010 budget. David Hansen seconded. Approved unanimously.
Unfinished Business
-Nick addressed a proposal regarding OJS support to the program chair. Because the program chair changes from year to year there’s a fair amount of education and technical support from staff to the program chair. It is in PES interests to have a regular person who has worked with OJS to serve as a modestly paid consultant to help the program chair. There’s a connection between substantive decisions and technical decisions on OJS. This doesn’t have to be someone from Illinois. It might be combining with web person.
-David: Joyce Atkinson has given us an estimate of about 100 hours as well as a description of the tasks that would need to be carried in support of the program chair.
-Nick: You are paying for it either way, whether you are paying Joyce to do it or someone else. As we move from 5-6 issues, Joyce is going to be spending more time on Ed Theory.
-Michael: We could get away with $20/hour?
-Debby: This year is only the third year we’ve used OJS so there are a lot of kinks. I was able to get the process down for reviewers. It’s a steep learning curve in the beginning, so there’s a lot of tutoring and help needed to understand procedures. Since Jeff Thibert submitted a paper we had to take him out of the process so it fell to Joyce. I would go with Joyce’s estimate of 100 hours.
-Kathy: We used a similar system at AESA –OCS—without support, just a little consulting. If we could use it to support a graduate student in philosophy of education that would be great.
-Nick: It doesn’t have to be an Illinois person, but Jeff Thibert would be great.
(Members discussed the complications presented if the individual employed is a graduate student who might also want to submit a paper for the conference.)
-Debby: There are gray areas where authors wrote directly to Joyce. In some cases it was awkward for her. It does put the OJS person in a funny position.
-Nick: That may make it worth giving it to a PES person rather than a grad assistant. Kathy is right that we will need less assistance as time goes by.
-Audrey: It sounds like we could use the help. The concern seems to be whether it’s a grad student or someone else.
-Cris: Debby’s process sounds good, but it could put a grad student in an awkward position.
-Debby: They took Jeff off the OJS assistance He helped uploading initial submissions then came back after decisions were made. Joyce is supposed to be providing technical assistance. The OJS person is the constant working with new program chairs.
-David: Could it possibly be a graduate student from a different program?
-David moved and Cris May seconded a proposal to set aside up to 100 hours at $20/hour for an individual to provide OJS assistance to the program chair for three years. Approved unanimously.
-David Hansen noted that the business meeting was perceived by some as ending abruptly. He asked whether the board wanted to create a space for an open forum/discussion on issue of the conference theme and sixth issue of Educational Theory. He felt some members left feeling it was decided too quickly.
-Michael noted that some people misunderstood that it was something to be discussed rather than voted on.
(Discussion)
-Debby: If the decisions has been made, what’s the point of opening up a forum?
-Nick: Some people have asked if they can make comments.
-Kathy: We post this in the minutes. It’s available. We have mechanisms for this. We should call people’s attention to this.
-Debby: We need to make sure that people understand who will make the decision about themes. This is not a vote. This will be spelled out in the call for papers.
Audrey initiated a discussion of a possible conference theme: considering the problem of re-centering education in philosophy of education, also a troubling of what philosophy of education is from a variety of perspectives.
-Nick: That’s not exactly what we are thinking of. It’s introspective. It’s not the kind of thing we were originally talking about in terms of an initial problem “out there.” The concept behind this originally was what does philosophy of education have to say about “x” out there.
(Discussion of ideas of about themes.)
-Nick: We can work with this and consider possibilities.
-Debby: Whatever the theme is there may be alternative sessions that could feed into this.
-Nick: These are PES decisions. There are details we will have to deal with. This is the start of a conversation.
-Mike pointed out that the program chair and editor of Educational Theory have different roles. He proposed a conversation between program chair and Nick to come to some agreement on the theme.
-Audrey initiated a discussion about the need for a collaborative approach to how this process will work between PES and Educational Theory. We don’t have yet, but will have a written agreement.
-Audrey reported on her attendance of the COPA meeting. COPA came up with an idea for next year’s panel, but they don’t seem to have a sense of what they can do on the public face initiative.
-The board discussed clarifying what we want COPA to do. COPA is not clear. Discussion of an explicit charge to COPA regarding its role in the public face of PES initiative.
-Kathy and Michael reported that COPA did not have a sense of being involved in the conversation and that there may have been some breakdowns in the communication between the conversation of the ad hoc committee and COPA. Ron Glass is incoming chair of COPA. He has been part of this conversation from the beginning.
-David: I have had a strong interest in having COPA part of this from the beginning. We need to come up with a specific charge to COPA, ask Ron to draft the charge and run it by the board. Ron can tweak the bylaw change. The board will want to consider the ramifications of adding another voting member to the board (the COPA chair)
-Jeff: This would require a change to the constitution.
-Michael: It’s the voice that is more important than a vote. Kathy mentioned that if there are currently six votes it make sense that we have a 7th vote.
-Debby: We should discuss this with Fran Schrag and others with historical perspective on the role of COPA.
Discussion of Assistance with Future Conference Planning
-Audrey discussed the process of negotiating with hotels for the contract for the 2010 meeting. She noted the invaluable assistance of Lonna Smith, a former colleague of Michael Katz’ who assisted him with the Boston negotiations and assisted Audrey with the San Francisco contract. She proposed considering someone like Lonna to help us with the next two or three years. It would be a great help. We are going to give her Hyatt points and flowers. Jeff discussed how she has helped. David discussed help of Kevin McDonough. Having continuity was helpful. Continuity and expertise is critical.
-Kathy said that AESA has a long term member who does this for them. Perhaps we should look for a member who could do this.
-Kathy moved and David seconded a proposal to give Lonna Smith $500 and flowers in appreciation for her assistance in negotiating the contract with the Hyatt at Fisherman’s Wharf. Carried unanimously
Other
-COSW has asked to have one ex officio member on the board.
-Cris: We may want to revisit this to decide whether we want to have one representative of all the committees on the board.
-Audrey: What about a policy on pre-conference sessions? Audrey initiated a discussion of the possible impact on the program chair, hospitality chair, and hotel contract. This was done with the best of intentions, but there is no precedent.
-David: We did have a full blown conversation on e-mail. Perhaps future contracts can include a possible extra room for Thursday activities.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:00 am.