PHILOSOPHY of EDUCATION SOCIETY
2011 Executive Board Minutes
Executive Board Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 23, 2011
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, St. Louis, MO
Present: Eamonn Callan, Chris Higgins, Rob Kunzman, Gert Biesta, Barbara Applebaum, Audrey Thompson
Absent: Barbara Stengel, Barbara Houston
Call to order 7:30 pm
Approval of 2010 minutes (Minutes approved)
President’s report
Eamonn discussed the survey proposed by Gert and carried out by Eamonn. There was a 50% response rate. 150 or so members responded. Most likely those that are more likely to show up at the conference. Being on the program appears to be important to receiving travel funding. Publication in the yearbook seems important to many. One person said that the commitment to publish the paper in the yearbook led them to prefer not to submit to the yearbook. 80% indicated publication in the yearbook is important.
Chris H. responded that the response about obligation to publish in the yearbook leading one respondent to prefer not to submit was unusual since people could republish longer versions.
Eamonn asked whether the work in progress sessions should just be for younger scholars or open to others. 35% favored returning to the practice of making it open only to younger members. Over 50% favor more inclusion beyond younger members. Audrey pointed out it would have been good to ask if they attended them. Eamonn noted it is a bare bones survey.
Eamonn noted that it is a reasonable inference from the survey that people are broadly satisfied with the current structure of the conference.
Barbara A. noted we may be getting responses from the people who come most often. Gert noted that that’s the people we do the conference for.
Eamonn asked Jeff M. whether we are losing members who are retiring? Younger members? What is the profile of those we are losing?
Jeff: I don’t notice a pattern, but we could look at that.
Audrey: Looking at pictures, there is not as much racial diversity as there seemed to be in the past. We seem to be a different group than we used to be.
Barbara A.: Is there a way to find out if the people who are not coming are also not renewing membership? What about paying for both at the same time. Jeff: I’m not sure some folks will want to pay for both in August.
Gert: Are people a member for the benefits of membership or the conference?
Audrey: It’s about being part of the intellectual community. Jeff: We need to portray it as supporting the society, not just attending the conference.
Eamonn: The pPesident could help members with academic positions promote PES, particularly to graduate students. Belonging is a great way of making professional contacts. It’s easier to network.
Audry: We need to emphasize a membership culture. Reach out to other graduate students. This is a unique society. Annual conference is a wonderful event. Even if the people we are losing are older, it makes more sense to target younger scholars.
Jeff: The competitiveness of getting on the program may dissuade some grad students.
Audrey: Perhaps we could make more committees that grad students could be on. Students might feel an investment.
Eamonn: Graduate student representation on the membership committee is particularly important.
Gert: We should make things more transparent about how the society works. We need to work on the way we represent the society.
Audrey: If we were to do another survey we should ask what works for graduate students? What doesn’t? The whole future of PES is in the hands of graduate students. People like me may be happy with PES, but maybe young people are not so much so.
Eamonn: The history of the membership is a roller coaster. , Jeff: We assumed for the past two years that it was caused by the recession, but was it really attributable to the economic downturn? From 1990 to 99 membership increased by more than 100%. Anything else about membership?
Eamonn: Another thing to discuss—I think it’s unfortunate in our by laws that program committee members are not eligible to present papers at the conference. I think that just because you’re on the program committee doesn’t mean the chair can’t ensure there’s double blind referee process. It can’t be justified by the requirements of an impartial referee process. It wasn’t a problem 15 years ago when the committee was three or four people, but if the committee is going to be 18 or so. There are good reasons for a large committee. The methodological diversity of the society suggests we need a big committee to reflect that. But I think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot by ruling out papers from 18 of the most productive scholars in the Society. I think this is an archaic requirement. It will make it easier to recruit a committee if you’re not ruling out presenting a paper.
Audrey: One year I was on the committee there were only four people. 2 or 3 of us were made respondents to general sessions. There was some resentment. Dewey would say we have these concepts that were articulated in the past for that time and place….so I agree with you. I think it makes sense. AESA doesn’t say program committee members can’t present. It’s less competitive, but still competitive.
Chris H: I think you’re right, but let’s press this. There’s no reason that a chair can’t ensure a fair review, but there might be more possibility of a favorable review. I wouldn’t submit to Ed Theory even though I know the review would be fair. It’s a little too close to home
Eamonn: On the other hand there are excellent journals where you will see papers published by people on the editorial board. Often they are the best people in the field, and the process is impartial. The uncharitable interpretation of course is that there is an inside track. There is no way to insulate yourself from distrustful interpretations of editorial decisions. I worry that a large number of the most creative members are ruled out from submission because they agree to a thankless task. Including them may make for a more exciting conference.
Audrey: With turnover of PES committee may not be the sense of this?
Chris H: Do tenure committees look at “contributing editor” and then see that the same person is published in it. What is the status of the yearbook? It should be a serial/journal.
Audrey: If you’re one of four it’s a contributing editor, but one of 18 is a program committee. We might have grad students serve on the program committee. But they’re likely to be unwilling if they can’t submit.
Gert: No one raised this issue that they couldn’t submit a paper last year. But there was an issue of not being able to get funding without being on the program.
Eamonn: Would the Constitution require doing this a year from now or can we vote on it at the business meeting? Jeff: I’ll check.
Chris H: You can’t guarantee against uncharitable interpretations and you couldn’t guarantee against an unethical program chair.
Rob: I don’t see what the downside is of a large group if the title of their role is changing. Asking people to do less and making it easier is not a downside.
Eamonn: Someone heard I wanted to talk about this and objected that it would be more difficult to get on the program. My answer to that is it’s going to be a better program. I don’t see a downside to that.
Chris H: How does this affect the status of the yearbook? It would only get better as a result of this proposal. Over the years there has tended to be more papers accepted.
Eamonn: Depending on what the Bylaws entail, I’m happy to raise it at the business meeting.
Audrey: Are we in agreement to do this? Audrey moved approval of the proposal.
Barbara A: I don’t see what’s wrong with it. Eamonn: The argument will be made that it makes it harder to get papers on the program. Perhaps there will be some concern about program committee impartiality.
Audrey: I moved that we send this as a seconded recommendation to the membership that the program committee not be restricted from submitting papers. Eamonn seconded. Passed unanimously.
Executive Director’s Report
Membership
2010-2011 Membership as of March 21, 2011: 233
Conference pre-registration as of March 21, 2011: 110
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
It is difficult to tell at this point what membership will be for 2010-2011. A fairly significant number of people renew their membership during on-site registration. However, I do not anticipate we will reach last year’s number. So we continue to see a decline in membership. We attributed the precipitous drop from 07-08 to 08-09 to the financial meltdown, but that was just a guess. Since then we’ve seen small declines. I lead every Update with a report from the Executive Director that includes a reminder to pay dues as well as a link to do so. Early in the fall, I sent personalized e-mails to those whose memberships had expired over the previous three years. The response was modest. We usually get a good number of people who renew in July, then there are modest responses to the Updates and individual reminders, but membership really rises just before the conference. We’ve had some technical glitches with the e-Register system, which may have dissuaded a few people from joining or renewing. The problems have been repaired.
The Executive Director could send out repeated individual reminders. Perhaps that would boost numbers a bit, but if people are not renewing after four reminders, then I wonder how effective that would be. In might be possible to involve the Membership Committee more actively in this effort. I would welcome suggestions.
Finances
Funds |
April 06 |
April 07 |
March 08 |
April 09 |
April 10 |
March 11 |
Kneller |
$77,353 |
$80,811 |
$84,425 |
$56,364 |
$79,480 |
$83,520 |
Legacy |
$21,079 |
$21,059 |
$21,614 |
$17,576 |
$22,153 |
$23,555 |
Operational |
$48,063 |
$53,704 |
$73,908 |
$61,958 |
$61,571 |
$46,359 |
Total |
$146,496 |
$155,574 |
$179,942 |
$135,898 |
$163,214 |
$153,434 |
The on-going recovery in the financial markets has helped our investments back to the point they were at in March 2008, just before the crash. We haven’t gained as much as the markets have in general because our portfolio is conservative/moderately conservative. We have 31% in equity (stocks) and 51% in fixed income investments in the Kneller Fund. The Legacy fund is 12% equity, 82% fixed income. The remainder is in cash (mostly the operational fund). We gained 7.84% last year, and have gained 1.5% from January to March 2011. We don’t make as much on the up side, but hopefully we won’t lose as much on any down side in the future. The level of our operational fund reflects the decline in membership, increases in expenditures (two new numbers of Educational Theory each year), and loses from last year’s conference. However, we are in satisfactory shape there. For several years we brought in more revenue than we were spending. Sasha Sidorkin invested what we didn’t need for operating expenses. So, despite losses last year, we still have some of that excess.
Membership dues appear to be adequate to cover expenses per member. Expenses per member include the Yearbook ($19.11), Educational Theory ($35), and incidentals (Executive Director travel/room, Program Chair room $8 based on last year’s expenses) for a total of around $62 per member based on last year’s membership. The average dues paid per member last year was $71. With the $5/member increase in membership approved last year and scheduled to go into effect with the 2011-2012 membership year, dues should be sufficient to cover member-related expenses and perhaps generate a small excess. I think it is important that we maintain a modest financial cushion to protect ourselves in the event of unforeseen expenses.
Conference expenses need to be watched carefully. We lost $7250 last year. This was due to the lack of anticipated sponsorships (we received no donations at all) and higher than budgeted food and beverage expenses in San Francisco. F&B is our largest expense, more than $21,000 in San Francisco, or $118 per person who attended last year. Our average conference registration paid last year was about $95/person. We can save money by choosing cheaper cities (Our F&B in St. Louis should be about $4000 less than San Francisco) and perhaps by cutting back on what we provide. Continental breakfasts in St. Louis will cost us from $19-$23/person. Cutting that expense and allowing people to get their own breakfasts would save us about $9,000 from this year’s conference expenses. Any hotel, however, will demand a guaranteed minimum for F&B. We could cut breakfasts and increase slightly our expenditures on receptions to meet the minimum. We should consider raising conference registration costs in the future. I know of no other conference that provides so much in F&B and where registration rates are so low. We cannot afford to continue this.
Lonna Smith once again assisted us in negotiating the contract for the St. Louis conference and has already assisted us with the Pittsburgh conference as well. We pay her a token $500 for her services and half of whatever points/rewards plan the hotel has. This is far below what a professional conference planner would charge.
Discussion:
Eamonn committed members as recruiters. Audrey: That’s good advice. Get input from past presidents about raising membership.
Gert: I’ll work with the membership committee. Meeting with Paul to see if he has the fire to do this. Jeff: Maybe past executive directors could help.
Eamonn: We may want to consider a membership task force to try to staunch the hemorrhage before it undermines us. A membership committee plus. It could facilitate consultations between the committee and former executive directors.
Gert: We should mention that at the business meeting.
Eamonn: A modest increase in registration fees would not stop people from coming, but it would be nice to keep graduate student registration where it is.
Barbara: The issue of food should be made based on where the lodging is and the availability of nearby restaurants.
Eamonn: The quality of the contract is contingent on food and beverage minimums. We should urge future presidents to keep an eye on food costs and availability of nearby restaurants.
Audrey: Should the Board project conference sites over three years out? It’s hard to get a good contract if you are doing it just the year before. The trouble for PES is that the president is always brand new at this. Lonna Smith is helping but we’re hobbling her by waiting for a new president to be named.
Eamonn: This makes sense. It seemed preposterous that I had all this discretion to make this choice for PES. It’s autocracy run amok.
Audrey: You’re (the president) trying to project what people would like.
Eamonn: I don’t think any president is going to be disappointed that they can’t choose.
Barbara A: This is my third conference in St. Louis. To be in a hotel like this for the price we’re paying is unbelievable.
Gert: We should go ahead and do this. Audrey: There are no complaints at AESA.
Eamonn: We’re less likely to make mistakes with the group involved in the decision. But, if the board is going to make decisions about this we need to wait until after Barbara’s (Stengel) presidency.
Chris: So the proposal is that each year the board will ask Lonna to suggest two cities. And the decision we would make now would be effective for after Barbara’s presidency.
Eamonn called the question .Passed unanimously. Shall we identify cities for 2014 and after on Monday? We should inform members at the business meeting. We can do this with Barbara on Monday. She picks her city, but Lonna can make suggestions that the board can vote on via e-mail.
Eamonn: We are trying to make prudent decisions a little further out. I’m not going to second guess the sitting president unless they do something outlandish. So we work a little further out to get better deals and we have something in place as a safeguard against poor decisions.
Barabara A: We should try to stay away from expensive cities.
Chris: What about non-hotel venues? More communal feel? Cheaper.
Jeff: Some people see the conference as an opportunity to visit someplace attractive.
Eamonn: Perhaps we should survey members? Finding a college campus that could host us might be difficult.
Discussion of conference centers. Pros and cons of universities.
Gert: We need to find out if there are such places and where they are , etc. Perhaps we can ask Lonna to look into this?
Jeff: Perhaps Eamonn should ask for volunteers at the business meeting for an ad hoc committee on non-hotel alternatives.
Audrey: The minutes should reflect that Jeff Milligan has been a fabulous executive director
Audrey: I move that we accept and thank Cris Mayo for accepting the position of executive director. Unanimously approved.
Audrey: We should also thank Rob Kunzman for a terrific job as program chair. Eamonn: Everything he knows he learned from me. (laughter)
Program Committee Chair Report:
Rob: In regards to alternative sessions, across the board they were rated more highly than the papers. Reviewers were more enthusiastic about them. Perhaps there is less opportunity to be critical with a 300 word proposal. We have some good alternative sessions, but should have a more substantive proposal process.
Eamon: Should we have a 900 word requirement? 1000? Rob: Something like that.
Chris H: What was the acceptance rate for alternative sessions? Rob: High.
Barbara A: SIG meetings are always scheduled at the same time. It’s a dilemma of which to attend. Scheduling concern.
Chris: Perhaps we need to ask for individual abstracts as well.
Jeff: We need to appoint members of the Committee on Race and Ethnicity.
Barbara A: The different committees met at the same time so we couldn’t determine members.
Rob: Works in progress sessions have two people responding.
Audrey: What about involving a graduate student? It would be more inclusive, get more students on the program.
Hospitality Committee (Anne not here)
Elections Committee: Michael Katz not here.
Eamonn: It’s the first year since Boston for a president’s reception. How much should we spend?
Educational Theory/Yearbook:
Chris: We just produce. The society is in charge. Our recommendation is that it is time to go to on line entirely. Value is decreasing of hard copy, Should do it on line.
PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION SOCIETY
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
JANUARY - DECEMBER 2010
Account Balance as of January 1, 2010 $4,388.87
Expenses
Salary for grad assistant $ 6,645.42 w/ benefits
Postage $ 253.26
Office Expenses (copy chrgs & labels) $ 78.24
Total Expenses $ 6,976.92
Income
Received payments for PES $8,057.31
Account balance as of December 31, 2010 $5,469.26
Revenue to Executive Director for the 2010 issue as of March 18, 2011* $3,971.25
2010 Yearbook Total Expenses through March 2011
683 copies at 432 pp each, Cushing-Malloy printing $ 5 ,558.20
Packaging/handling for copies shipped direct from Printer $ 6 73.70
*Shipping (of books only, by Cushing-Malloy and through UIUC) (estimated) $ 2 ,500.00
Graduate Assistantship $ 6 ,645.42
Joyce Atkinson 110 hours @ $20.00/hr $ 2 ,200.00
TOTAL (printing, shipping, and labor) $ 17,577.32
Approximate per book cost $ 25.74
Comparison of Printing/Shipping/Labor Costs
Less Approx. Library Revenues for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Yearbooks
2007 2008 2009 2010
GA Salary $ 4,966.17 $ 5,114.40 $ 5,314.93 $ 6,645.42
Project Management $ 2,160.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,200.00
Printing & Packaging $ 7,559.48 $ 7 ,062.94 $ 6,613.50 $ 6,231.90
*Postage & C-M mailing (2010 is estimated) $ 2,523.75 $ 2 ,853.29 $ 2,644.29 $ 2,500.00
**Revenue for PES Yearbook $ (5,789.50) $ ( 5,676.00) $ (5,277.50) $ (4,873.25)
Office Expenses $ 41.24 $ 4 .40 $ 72.00 $ 78.24
Totals $ 11,461.14 $ 11,359.03 $ 11,367.22 $ 12,782.31
*This includes payments already received (by check and credit card). There are also 12 Pending Invoices (totaling $499.00),
and 6 Prepaid Invoices (totaling $403.00), and we expect these orders to be renewed. Our total anticipated revenue at this
point is $4873.25.
** Over the past 2 years, library and agent orders have declined by about 10-15 books per year. An increase in shipping
charges in 2008 (from $8 to $10 to Canada, and from $8 to $18 for all other international) likely masked some revenue
decline between 2007 and 2008, but you can see the trend is in declining Yearbook revenues annually.
* This is a projection of the shipping costs for the 2010 Yearbook. The final cost for shipping by the printer is $2,062.42. We
have not yet completed shipping books from our office. We expect the total shipping cost to be under $2,500.
5/7/117:31 AMGroups:EdTheory:PES YEARBOOK:PES Reports:Manuscript Reports:2010 ET Review Analysis.XLS
Educational Theory
Review Analysis 2010
Conditional
Accept Accept Reject Total
Status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Pending 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Open Submissions - Reviewed 13 11.50% 19 16.81% 53 46.90% 85 75.22%
Open Submissions - Not Reviewed 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13 11.50% 13 11.50%
*Symposia Manuscripts - Solicited 15 13.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15 13.27%
Totals 13 11.50% 19 16.81% 66 58.41% 113 100.00%
* The manuscripts solicited for symposium sets are not factored into the totals for the acceptance and rejection rates.
Average Time to Decision: 58 days
Educational Theory
Review Analysis 2009
Conditional
Accept Accept Reject Total
Status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Pending 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Open Submissions - Reviewed 21 19.44% 2 1.85% 64 59.26% 87 80.56%
Open Submissions - Not Reviewed 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 5.56% 6 5.56%
*Symposia Manuscripts - Solicited 15 13.89% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15 13.89%
Totals 21 19.44% 2 1.85% 70 64.82% 108 100.00%
* The manuscripts solicited for symposium sets are not factored into the totals for the acceptance and rejection rates.
Average Time to Decision: 56 days
2009* 2008 2007 2006
VOLUME 59 VOLUME 58 VOLUME 57 VOLUME 56
INCOME:
Subscription $ 131,125.00 $ 182,449.00 $ 158,543.00 $ 129,704.00
Consortia Revenue $ 6 ,469.00 $ 7,131.00 $ 8,738.00 $ 6,895.00
Member Revenue $ 8 ,384.00 $ 9,840.00 $ 1 0,960.00 $ 1 1,165.00
Other:
Back Issue/Single Issue $ 317.00 $ 595.00 $ 99.00 $ 587.00
Offprints $ - $ - $ 325.00 $ -
Advertising $ 250.00 $ - $ - $ 100.00
Rights & Permissions $ 7 ,033.00 $ 6,254.00 $ 8,763.00 $ 5,520.00
Total Income: $ 153,578.00 $ 206,269.00 $ 187,428.00 $ 153,971.00
EXPENSES:
Production $ 1 6,393.00 $ 1 6,303.00 $ 1 8,010.00 $ 1 8,317.00
Distribution & Fulfillment $ 7 ,808.00 $ 8,856.00 $ 8,907.00 $ 9,258.00
Marketing $ 2 ,596.00 $ 3,584.00 $ 3,393.00 $ 3,903.00
Electronic Deliverables $ 3 ,247.00 $ 3,157.00 $ 3,104.00 $ 2,862.00
Total Expenses: $ 3 0,044.00 $ 3 1,900.00 $ 3 3,414.00 $ 3 4,340.00
NET INCOME: $ 123,124.00 $ 174,369.00 $ 154,014.00 $ 119,631.00
AMOUNT DUE TO EDTH
$ 5 7,375.00 $ 8 2,265.00 $ 7 1,527.00 $ 5 4,233.00
Less excess page charges $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 5 7,375.00 $ 82,265.00 $ 71,527.00 $ 54,233.00
Educational Theory
Statement of Income from Wiley-Blackwell
Total amount
due to EDTH:
*We do not yet have the Wiley-Blackwell income breakdown for 2010 (volume 60).
Representatives have indicated that the amount to Ed Theory for 2010 will be
approximately $73,478.
50% of Surplus excluding
member revenue
DISCUSSION
Chris: We’re losing money. Libraries are unsubscribing at a rate of 10-15 per year. The issues are on line, on line automatically. There is no financial reason to continue the paper publication. No reason for members. People search look for it, etc. on line. We need to further differentiate it from a proceedings. It is an outstanding once a year refereed publication.
Audrey: Let’s frame it in a positive way, rather than negative, loses, etc.
Barbara A: We should ensure that what we do doesn’t jeopardize its value for promotion and tenure. Is there a credibility issue on this for junior people?
Chris: We don’t think it’s as much of an issue any more. Discussion of value of making it online. Problem with perception that it’s just a proceedings rather than a refereed publication. ISSN serial rather than an ISBN book number. Keep thinking about how to keep making it a competitive, first rate journal. Perhaps change the name? Journal of Philosophy of Education Society. Discussion of keeping the word limit. Time to read and have a discussion.
Chris: Part of the reason they’re not counted as articles is that they’re shorter.
Jeff: On line publication makes it more accessible and more people are familiar with it. Do we want to try to restrict access to it to get subscriptions?
Audrey: I think we want people to read it, make it accessible.
Chris H: Do we want to get it picked up by a publisher like Wiley and restrict it so we make money but also make it more accessible?
Eamonn: At Stanford faculty have made a commitment to make scholarship available prepublication to democratize access to scholarship. We might want to make our scholarship accessible, but I wouldn’t want to undermine benefits for membership.
Chris H: It’s not clear that anyone really looks forward to getting the paper volume. Can go all the way back to earliest issues and put them online. We can do it, but we need to give the Society a quote.
Rob: This makes it sound like a good idea rather than just saving money.
Audrey: I recommend that we implement this after Barbara’s presidency.
Gert: Suggests the opposite. Let’s go ahead now.
Eamonn: Let’s bring a recommendation to members at the business meeting that we immediately discontinue the hard copy of the Yearbook and go entirely on line.
Rob: For 2011 or 2012? When members pay dues there is an expectation that we’re going to get a book. So we do need to print next year, but after that we will go to online exclusively.
Chris H: We should stress that we’re creating an archive gong all the way back.
Audrey: I second Gert’s motion. Passed unanimously.
Gert: What’s the state of the 6th issue?
Chris H: Five submissions, five rejections. They were the weakest. Why? Discussion of possibilities.
Eamonn: Perhaps we pushed people to write outside their comfort zone? We need to pick topics that are more mainstream? More in their comfort zone?
Chris H: Nick’s idea was that we’d push people to write about issues relevant to policy.
Eamonn: Perhaps Ed Theory should have a sixth issue specifically on policy but not tied to a specific topic like school finance. Frame the parameters of the special issue that is more inclusive.
Gert: Linking this to a conference this small was my worry. Maybe we can pursue this idea as linked to the members of the PES rather than just the conference. Make the society more visible. Conference publication is visibility and the 6th issue is another form of visibility but not linked to the conference.
Audrey: AESA is also a supporter of Ed Theory. Why isn’t AESA getting it’s own special issue? AESA also speaks to policy issues. It includes philosophers and other foundations scholars in discussion on the policy issue. You have to change who is in the conversation, not just philosophers.
Chris H: You like the idea of building bridges to policy but not just for philosophers.
Audrey: Yes.
Eamonn: This initiative is likely to be successful the more discretion we give to the editor of Ed Theory. I think the chances of reaching a wider audience are modest when it’s just tagged as philosophy of education. A special issue with prominent philosophers of education on a topic of broad interest is likely to attract a wider audience. I like the idea of a special issue of Ed Theory at this specifically a matter of public intellectual import.
Chris H: We could move backwards from that to the conference and schedule a conversation at the conference. What about the theme issue for now? We’ve agreed to try this out for several years so shouldn’t we go forward and see how it works next year?
Eamonn: Perhaps we should have a more broadly defined theme, like school equity.
Chris H: Could be not a themed issue but a general emphasis on policy, top articles on policy. No problem filling a sixth issue, but we were going to make space for first PES issue, but now we’re not.
Discussion of how to best do this.
Chris H: So we’re going to say too bad this year and we’re going to try next year with a broader theme.
Old Business (none)
New Business:
Gert: What about COPA? Ron has been trying to figure out what the society wants from COPA. Should COPA have a representative to the board?
Eamonn: What do they do?
Rob: Is there a reason that it continues to exist?
Audrey: I’m not sure any committee serves any particular function.
Eamonn: My inclination is to defer to the members of COPA about the future of the committee. Do they think they should exist?
Gert: We need to clarify to ourselves how the society works.
Discussion.
Adjourned 10:30 pm.
CONTACT: PES Executive Director Jeffrey Ayala Milligan
850-644-8171; milligan@coe.fsu.edu