ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, January 6, 1996 TAG: 9601100002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN K. BURTON
THIS IS in response to the Dec. 21 editorial, "Teacher training at Tech."
Tech President Paul Torgersen's recent decision to close the College of Education and merge its programs into existing disciplines raises a number of issues. Two of them - the process by which the decision was made and the rationale behind it - were addressed in your editorial. The most important issue, however, was not addressed, nor has it been by the university administration. We in the College of Education are less concerned about our administrative structure than we are in ensuring that Virginia's largest land-grant university has a meaningful commitment to the commonwealth's most important function: educating its youth.
Simply stated, Torgersen's action sends the message that Virginia Tech does not value the education profession, that it does not consider education a priority and that it is unwilling to commit resources to the improvement of public schools. As Virginia's premier land-grant university, supported by taxpayer dollars, Tech has an obligation to help solve some of the commonwealth's most pressing problems. One who does not include education among those problems is uninformed, ill-advised and risks losing the confidence of the public.
Two years ago, when the College of Education was asked to cut its budget by 20 percent, we undertook a restructuring process not only to comply with the reduction, but to re-examine our programs, quality, values and beliefs. The mission statement that resulted is as follows:
"The College of Education at Virginia Tech is dedicated to the creation and application of knowledge of the improvement of educational policy and practice. Specifically, the college seeks to work with others to improve the quality of public elementary and secondary education in the Commonwealth."
No other college at Tech has a mission focused directly or indirectly on public schools. Since announcing the decision to close the College of Education, the university administration has made no public statement on the effect this change will have on Tech's commitment to public schools. As a consequence, no other college has any incentive to accept and fund programs that focus on collaboration with public schools and preparation of education professionals. Without encouragement from the top concerning the importance of public schools to Tech's land-grant mission, no other college is likely to look favorably on merging with the College of Education or accepting its orphan programs.
As the editorial points out, "the quality of change is influenced by the procedures for change." Though not happy about the mandated budget reduction, the College of Education fulfilled its commitment to university-wide budget constraints by accomplishing the downsizing in innovative ways. Equally as important as the content of the plan is the process by which it was developed. All meetings and discussions were open. All faculty, staff and students were invited and encouraged to participate. To ensure that the plan was responsive to public-school needs, members of the State Department of Education, education professionals, alumni, community leaders and other Tech faculty were invited to take part in the process. Faculty members from the College of Education and the College of Human Resources studied the possibility of a merger, documented considerable past and current collaborations, and concluded that education's status as a separate college was valid and should remain.
The college reviewed its programs and services for duplication at other state-supported colleges and universities. In fact, the College of Education at Tech is markedly different from traditional teacher-training programs. Though we do prepare teachers at the undergraduate level, most of our work is at the graduate level, preparing administrators, supervisors, counselors and teachers as innovative leaders in their field. The college is the state's major producer of education doctoral degrees, and one of only three programs in the state authorized to offer a doctorate in education. Since our founding in 1971, we have offered dozens of graduate programs at a variety of geographic locations throughout Virginia, including Abingdon, Martinsville, Danville, Roanoke, Tidewater, Richmond and Northern Virginia. Our offerings are unique and highly valued in the education community.
At each step in the restructuring process, the College of Education sought and received the approval of the established university-wide governance system. The plan was intensely scrutinized by five commissions, the budget-and-planning committee, the university council and an ad hoc committee of faculty appointed by Torgersen. All review bodies unanimously recommended approval. This culminated in approval, again unanimous, by the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors on Nov. 14, 1994.
President Torgersen's decision to suddenly, and without study, nullify this careful planning is a slap in the face not only to the College of Education, but to all of those who took part in the process - and to anyone concerned about the state of education in Virginia. Further, because our restructuring was scrutinized and lauded as an example of making difficult downsizing decisions, Torgersen's action undercuts any thoughtful, participatory restructuring activity at the university in the future.
In short, the present discussion about administrative structure at Virginia Tech will eventually be resolved. The main concern is not whether the College of Education will continue as an autonomous college. Instead, we should ask: What is the commitment of Virginia's largest state-supported university to education? And why is it so suddenly cast aside?
John K. Burton is a professor of instructional technology in the College of Education at Virginia Tech.
LENGTH: Medium: 96 linesby CNB