PHILOSOPHY of EDUCATION SOCIETY
2010 Executive Board Minutes
PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION SOCIETY
2010 Executive Board Meeting
April 8, 2010
MINUTES
Present: Audrey Thompson, Gert Biesta, Cris Mayo, Susan Verducci, Nicholas Burbules, Jeff Milligan, Barbara Houston, David Hansen
Call to Order: 6:15 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Barbara Houston moved approval, Cris Mayo seconded. Minutes approved. Audrey Thompson commented on the good quality of the minutes.
President’s Report:
Audrey Thompson discussed hotel selection process, geographic considerations, costs, etc. This Hyatt was cooperative. Lonna Smith has been helpful. Michael Katz helpful in recruiting Susan Verducci as hospitality chair. Thanks to Lonna, Michael, and Susan V. for great work.
Discussion of union request to boycott the hotel. Audrey Thompson reviewed the reasons for the Society’s decision to honor the contract. Discussion of how to prepare the Society for this sort of thing in the future.
Barbara Houston asked whether the Board should bring a motion to address this at the business meeting and get a clear sense of the Society’s views. Discussed possibility of an “escape clause” in the contract.
Jeff Milligan mentioned that the union sent useful language, which can be passed on to future Executive Directors for possible inclusion in contracts with hotels.
Discussion of how to do this so we have room for discussion and a concrete result to guide future boards. Barbara suggests board make a motion to bring to the membership.
Audrey thinks it’s good for membership to discuss, but important to keep the conversation going because some of those who are not here may have not come because of the union issue. Other difficult point is what is a labor dispute? Complications of the issue. What are other major organizations doing?
Audrey, one possibility is forming an ad hoc committee to see what other organizations are doing.
Gert, we want to hear from members who are and are not here. We want to incorporate some kind of clause in the contracts in future. Membership needs to tell us what dimensions to include, but the board has to decide. MOTION. Cris seconded.
Barbara: What’s the process for getting the sentiment of the members? Is it critical to hear from those who aren’t here? How do we do business?
Discussion of how many may have not come because of this? Audrey suggests that it is something that should be discussed over more than one business meeting. Audrey proposed we conduct a conversation via Update and e-mail. What level of detail and specificity? Audrey says we need to gather facts about what other organizations are doing, and ask whether it is viable, etc.
Gert suggests a motion that we at the business meeting open the conversation for a specific period of time for issues the members want us to consider and to include an escape clause in future contracts. Gert moved, Cris seconded. Unanimously carried.
Nick B. noted that there is no way to plan for all this in advance. It will remain a difficult decision. Barbara, we need to do the best that we can.
Audrey: we have had wonderful cooperation from hotel. Professional experience so far.
Audrey: Lonna has helped us for next year as well. The knowledge of this doesn’t pass on easily given one-year terms. We were looking for a place good for grad students.
Gert and Audrey worked out who the program committee would be. Lorraine Code as Kneller Lecturer. Gert did everything else. Program looks wonderful.
Thank Jeff and Cris and Barbara and David and Eamonn for pitching in.
Jeff’s report on membership. Suggestion of multiple year memberships. It locks people in. Encourages longer term commitment. Gert, is there a list of the disappeared? Have a membership drive? Small organizations need support.
Audrey moved we create a three-year membership option. Barbara seconded. Unanimous.
Executive Director’s Report
Membership
2009-10 310 1999-00 522
2008-09 327 1998-99 527
2007-08 491 1997-98 459
2006-07 412 1996-97 441
2005-06 465 1995-96 465
2004-05 447 1994-95 358
2003-04 477 1993-94 322
2002-03 445 1992-93 310
2001-02 459 1991-92 279
2000-01 479 1990-91 250
Finances
Funds |
April 05 |
April 06 |
March 07 |
April 08 |
March 09 |
April 10 |
Kneller |
$75,550 |
$77,353 |
$80,811 |
$84,425 |
$56,364 |
$79,480 |
Legacy |
$20,355 |
$21,079 |
$21,059 |
$21,614 |
$17,576 |
$22,153 |
Operational |
$53,131 |
$48,063 |
$53,704 |
73,908 |
$61,958 |
$61,571 |
Total |
$149,037 |
146,496 |
155,574 |
$179,942 |
$135,898 |
$163,214 |
The on-going recovery in financial markets has enabled us to recover from our losses last year in the Legacy Fund and almost recover our losses in the Kneller Fund. The Operational Fund fluctuates considerably due to inflows from dues, conference registrations, etc. and outflows for the conference, Educational Theory, the Yearbook, etc. so this is really not an accurate comparison from year to year.
Membership is a little lower than at this point last year; however, it may have stabilized. Nevertheless, membership is down considerably from 2008 and previous years. It is the lowest it has been in 18 years. The precipitous drop last year, and the continuing lower numbers this year may be due largely to the economic crisis and unemployment, but it is worth considering whether there are other factors that we have not considered and that we might be able to impact.
I typically put reminders in each of the Updates, and then some time in the fall send out individual reminders to those with lapsed memberships in the previous two years. I have not sent individual reminders to individuals whose memberships have been expired for more than two years on the assumption that they have made a decision regarding their membership. (I have had one or two complaints from such members about continuing to receive communications from us.) I could go ahead and contact everyone on our list. That might net a few more memberships.
As for costs and fees, our membership and registration fees have remained the same for several years. The membership fee is based on income, with a $35 minimum for students and unemployed. Our costs per member are roughly $25 for the Yearbook, and $5 per issue of Educational Theory. We have added however a fifth and sixth issue of Ed Theory. So our cost per member is roughly $55 each.
Conference registration remains at $150 for non-members, $120 for members, $40 for student members and $60 for student non-members. Our total conference costs this year, assuming attendance is roughly what it was last year, will be around $177 per person. Food and beverage expenses are considerably higher this year, approximately $121 per person. Just anecdotally, I’ve noticed many more individuals registering as student or unemployed than I recall last year. Given these figures I do not believe total receipts for registration will balance with actual conference costs.
Lonna Smith, who has assisted us in negotiating hotel contracts for Cambridge, San Francisco, and next year’s conference in St. Louis, has suggested we consider attractive smaller cities for future conference venues. Costs may be lower than San Francisco, Miami and other major cities we have visited.
Discussion:
How do we cut conference costs? Or raise registration fees? Nick B. suggested we consider meeting at the same place or rotate through the same places during a four or five year cycle to develop business relationships. Audrey, works out that way with AESA. How would this impact international participation? Barbara, maybe include Montreal? Nick B., how would this impact the local universities support for the conference if it comes year after year? Nick B., raise it at the business meeting? Not clear that the city is the main draw for members.
Gert wants to know how important the city is for people. Discuss at business meeting. Also discuss the cost issue, raising registration rates, membership rates? And we need to make decisions on that.
Comparison with AESA. Board makes the decision. They plan several years in advance.
Program Committee Chair Report:
Gert Biesta reported the committee included 16 people. Big but made it doable. 74 primary papers. Accepted 30. Only 8 down from last year. 43 alternative sessions, accepted 35. One innovation is I wrote an introduction to the program. Useful for new members. I received no institutional support. Everything reviewed by three members. We should support program chairs in getting support from their institutions. Having a larger committee helpful in getting reviews. Got two who were specialists and one non-specialist to read papers. Gert suggests OJS takes a lot of extra time. Not suited for conference but for journal. Joyce was helpful with technical issues, but Gert doesn’t think it’s a good system for a conference.
Audrey, if the program chair wants to opt out, they should be able to opt out. Cris, I’ve seen with other conferences that things go missing, but they don’t go missing with OJS.
Kathy H. and Deron B. says that AESA having similar problems. The same group has a system for conferences OCS but may have same problems. Should talk with several program chairs. Audrey suggests it doesn’t need to be a board decision, but a program chair decision.
Nick, most members will find it helpful to have a consistent system from year to year. Audrey suggests that people will want/need a website.
All say Gert did a beautiful job of this.
Gert’s brief paper on the conference organization. Concern about alternative session proposals, a lot. Good for getting people to come but the program is getting really full over lunch etc. Will work with future program chairs on this. Works-in-progress sessions have become more prominent. Difficult to organize so they have become low-key meetings. Works-in-progress sessions are a good deal for those proposing them but unlikely to get an audience. What do we want to do with this kind of session?
David: Are people applying for alternative sessions because it seems less rigorous to get on the program?
Discussion of pros and cons of the works-in-progress and alternative sessions, or alternative ways of organizing them and consolidating them rather than having every minute scheduled.
Audrey: two questions here: a) how to organize the works-in-progress; b) what to do with the alternative sessions. This is not just a program chair issue, but a question of the culture of the meeting.
David suggests limiting the number of alternative sessions that can be accepted to, say, 30 papers and 15 alternative sessions, and Susan V. suggests protecting the lunch time.
Gert: Four points for next program chair: a) protect lunch; b) limit alternative sessions; c) go back to original works-in-progress session; and d) more slots for primary papers.
SusanV: Hospitality committee. Food and beverage and AV budgets. Grad. student rooms. Grad students are not good for hospitality point people. We are sharing space on Friday in Northpoint Lounge for just Friday till noon. Union issue: should we make an announcement about alternative ways in and out?
Discussion of the invaluable assistance that Lonna Smith has been.
Elections Committee Report:
Cris Mayo reported on the work of the Elections Committee. Selected Gert Biesta as president-elect. Barb Stengel replaces Cris Mayo on the Executive Board.
Gert: thoughts on president-elect. I’ve been in correspondence with Lonna. She is suggesting smaller cities.
Nick: first non-North-American president.
Old Business:
Nick: discussion of the 6th issue of Educational Theory.
Nick: do we still want to go ahead with the 6th issue agreement? If you’re comfortable with this I’ll start working with Eamonn. David said we agreed last year for a 3-5 year experiment. We had a long discussion last year. Nick OK for a trial basis and we revisit in three to five years.
Audrey: there was resistance at the business meeting, sense that we moved too quickly. We should put something in writing to guide future program chairs.
David noted there were some concerns expressed at business meeting and Monday board meeting. Audrey, if there is a sense of this being an experiment, then we need to have some indication of how this is a PES thing, how we expect it to work and benefit the Society.
Gert: Main thing to do is to make it work. What needs to be done to make this work?
Audrey: Ask business meeting to indicate what would make the experiment successful?
Nick agrees. What are the indicators of success? Failure?
David: Get Rob (Eamonn’s program chair) involved in this. He’ll be one of the first to try this out.
Gert and Audrey agree: Let’s get a sense of what our criteria are for success or failure?
Nick Burbules: Financial report. For Yearbook and Ed Theory. (See Business Meeting minutes)
Yearbook new site, everything on line back to 1996. What do we want to do with pre-1996 material? That’s available on the old site. Easy to convert those from HTML to PDF format. What do we want to do with proceedings that go back to 1966 and before? Does the society want them scanned and create a complete archive going back to 1966? Cost factor for doing this.
David: What are costs like? Nick, I don’t know. A lot done overseas.
Gert: I think it would be great to have it available if we can afford it.
Audrey: bothered by exploitation of foreign labor? Don’t think the Yearbook is as likely to be searched as Ed Theory. Nick, but it makes it more accessible.
David: good for the field and the Society.
Nick: Explore some different possibilities. Only have to do it once. Creates a historical archive.
Nick: The reason we are doing OJS this way is that we are anticipating moving to an online publication in a few years. This cuts our expense and subsidy to the Yearbook. The Society should investigate the costs.
David will ask their librarian about costs. 1976-1992.
Nick will see what it will cost to convert the four years from 1992-1996 to PDF. Or will it be cheaper to do all the years together?
Discussion of Membership Directory on website:
What do we want to do with the directory? Consensus is that it has been helpful. Explore technical solutions. Password protected? Visit with Craig Cunningham? Leave it off until we figure it out.
Eamonn Callan not here to report on next year’s conference.
Meeting adjourned 9:00 pm
Meeting resumed Monday, April 12, 7:30 am
Present: Audrey Thompson, Barbara Houston. Gert Biesta, Jeff Milligan, Barbara Stengel.
Absent: Eamonn Callan
A good time was had, we missed him Barbara Houston.
Barb S. remind him to solicit contributions. We need to ask early, ahead of budget times. Everyone on Executive Board. Stanford. Washington. Use it to promote universities, etc. Audrey says she might be able to retroactively get donation from Utah.
Jeff: Other sources of funds? Stengel: Does Kneller pay for Kneller?
Jeff: considering taking it out of the invested operational funds rather than Kneller and Legacy.
Barb: that may require Board approval. It is supposed to pay for Kneller.
Barb: move to use Operational Funds for Kneller and student rooms rather than Kneller and Legacy to pay for Kneller and student expenses because of downturn in market. Will return to using Kneller and Legacy next year as the market rebounds. Audrey second. Carried.
Spencer funds? Ed Theory? Gert and Audrey suggest we request donation from Educational Theory. Sponsor a reception?
Jeff: Spencer grant for support of special issue on educational policy? Support for next generation of philosophers of education? Support for student rooms? Supporting a mentoring process? Travel support? Internationalization?
Audrey: Straw vote on raising membership about half approved, a few against, many abstained.
Gert: budget for conferences rather than budgets for membership. So do we want to raise dues on students and lower them on faculty?
Barb S: Seems to me quite fair to raise it on higher paid members. Continue the scale past $85,000. What is the percentage that make over that? (Barb H.) When did we last raise dues? During Barb S’s tenure?
Barb H: we have a vote on raising $5, let’s do it.
Audrey: let’s add to that, paying membership for three years. Barb. S: what about grad students? Do they want to pay three years? Barb H: no.
Barb H: Moved that we raise $5 across the board. Audrey seconded. Unanimous.
Barb S: moved we extend the scale to $120,000. Audrey seconded. Unanimous.
Audrey moves we apply a 10% discount to those paying three years. Barb H. second. Unanimous.
Barb S: why are we paying Ed Theory for the new issues? The 5th and especially the 6th?
Gert: we need to look at the contract we have with Ed Theory. It’s peanuts for the publisher, but significant for us. Perhaps this can factor into request for support from Ed Theory?
Barb: We need to get this/share this with Eamonn.
Audrey moved we commit to three year experiment for the 6th issue with Ed Theory. Barb S seconded. Unanimous.
Barb S: Perhaps PES and Ed Theory go in together on Spencer grant for special issue?
Gert: Suggest to Eamonn that he discusses this further with Board. Wider discussion on how we’re going to actually run this theme issue. Who decides? Program Chair? Ultimate decision is Nick’s? Discussion of this.
Audrey: The decision on the theme needs to be made by PES, not Ed Theory. We need a short statement that we give to Ed Theory and membership delineating what the plan is here. Eamonn and Rob Kunzman need to decide/announce theme in next call for papers. Gert as outgoing program chair and president-elect will participate in decision on theme.
Gert: For Eamonn’s list: Is there protocol for committees and chairs of committees? Selection of committee chairs? Action in terms of membership? Suggest short survey on conference regarding the alternative sessions, etc. But attendance is good. Jeff: Do it on survey monkey.
Barb: e-mails may not be effective? Board members could contact their generation/acquaintances. Audrey: pursue this after putting up three year option.
Jeff: Do generic renewal in July Update, individual reminders in September, then send list to board members after then for follow ups from board members.
Audrey and all go ahead and put up three year option in July with discount.
Barb S: budget, expansion of good happened in Atlanta. Do we need to do this? Audrey: Can we cut? Barb S. Kneller was supposed to pay for the lecture and the reception. Sponsors for receptions? Will the health of the Kneller fund support this?
Barb S: should we cut out some things? Breakfasts? Need additional information. Put it in survey?
Barb Moved approval of 2011 budget. Audrey seconded. Unanimous.
CONTACT: PES Executive Director Kurt Stemhagen
804-827-8415; krstemhagen@vcu.edu