Related News Articles
The University of Chicago Maroon, 8/2/96
Letter to the Chicago Maroon, 8/16/96
Chicago Sun-Times, 8/23/96
Chicago Tribune, 8/24/96
Crain's Chicago Business, 8/26/96
Education Week, 9/18/96
The University of Chicago Free Press 9/24/96
The University of Chicago Free Press Interview with President Hugo
Sonnenschein 9/24/96
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/18/96
The University of Chicago Maroon, 8/2/96:
Education Department Faces Elimination; Following comprehensive review, dean
recommends department's close by 2001
David J. Bird, Managing Editor
Following an extensive review of the education department and its faculty, Richard Saller,
Dean of the Social Sciences Division, has recommended that the University Administration
eliminate the education department by the year 2001.
The education department was founded in 1895 by philosopher John Dewey.
The faculty of the Social Sciences Division will discuss and vote on Saller's recommendation
this fall; however thc ultimate decision will be made by Provost Stone and President
Sonnenschein.
Saller's recommendation is based upon a review of the education department and its faculty
that Saller commissioned last fall.
According to Saller, the review committee found that the education department faces several
significant problems which undermined the overall academic quality of the Department and its
ability to meet future educational and research goals.
The problems identified by the review committee include an aging faculty which has not been
renewed, uneven quality of faculty research, a weak faculty commitment to teaching, the
department's isolation from the rest of the Social Sciences Division, and low expectations for
faculty achievement.
Because of the committee's findings, Saller concluded that attempts to rebuild or restructure
the education department were not likely to solve these serious probblems. "On the whole, the
review committee produced a carefully balanced and persuasive report on the education
department. However, I think their report suggests that we should not have a lot of confidence in
future possibilities to rebuild the department," Saller said.
Saller said that his recommendation was not based upon fiscal concerns or the present budget
deficit facing the University. "Our primary criterion in making this recommendation was
academic excellence. If the department had been excellent, but costly, I certainly would not have
recommended closing the department. Resource constraints do force us to look at all of our
programs, but the standard must be academic excellence," Saller said.
The decision to close the department is not expected to have a serious impact on doctoral
students presently pursuing education degrees. "The University has agreed to meet all academic
and financial commitments and obligations to doctoral students, so there should not be any
short-term impact on the quality of education," said education department chair Robert
Dreeben.
According to Saller, the education department will remain open until 2001 in order to give
present doctoral students time to finish their degrees.
"I think the present crop of students will have a reasonable period of time to finish their
degrees," said Larry Hedges, a professor in the education department. However, as faculty begin
to find other positions here at the U of C or elsewhere, students may feel more of an impact.
"Surely, faculty will leave over time," said Hedges.
Education department faculty are upset and disappointed that Saller has recommended closing
the department. "I am profoundly opposed to this decision." said Dreeben. "The decision means
that the University won't have a voice in educational issues and will not be in a position to
influence or comment on one of the most important issues of the day," said Dreeben.
Other faculty members also questioned the future of education research at the U of
C.
"Education is one of the most important and pressing issues facing the nation today. After this
decision you have to wonder about the U of C's commitment to education research. I think it is
sad that the U of C would turn its back on one of society's most important issues," said
Hedges.
Despite the recommendation to close the education department, Saller believes that the
University will remain committed to education research. "We are determined to maintain research
into education and issues related to education," said Saller.
Saller hopes that the Social Sciences Division will be able to organize a new center to conduct
and coordinate research into education. Such a center would include not only dedicated experts
on education, but also scholars from other social sciences, such as sociology and economics,
whose work touched on education issues.
While most members of the education department feel that such a center would be better than
nothing, they doubt that it would replace the work being done by the education
department.
"I am concerned that involvement in the center would be episodic, at best," said Hedges. "I am
concerned that the research being done at the U of C would lack continuity," he
added.
While individual scholars in other departments, like sociology, have done very good work on
education, Dreeben warned that the University's overall program of research into education would
become "scattered and haphazard." "There would be no intellectual center of gravity," he
said.
Faculty members in the education department acknowledge that the department is facing a
number of difficulties and needs to rebuild and reorganize, but they disagree with the decision to
close the department.
"The department is facing a number of difficulties," said Dreeben, "but while the
generalizations of the report are partly justified, these generalizations are really rather broad."
Dreeben said that while the review committee's report was critical of the education department, he
also thought that there was ample evidence to support keeping the department open.
Other faculty members acknowledged that the aging faculty needed to be rebuilt, but they
pointed out that education department appointees have often left the department to serve the
University in other capacities. "There is no doubt that many faculty members are nearing
retirement. However, that is not entirely because we have not made any new appointments. A
number of appointments made in the last fifteen years have gone on to serve the University in
several different areas, and often those projects have led them to join other departments or
schools," said Hedges.
"I don't think there is a lack of commitment. Faculty members teach fewer undergraduates, but
that is because we don't have an undergraduate concentration," Hedges
said.
Top of page
Letter to the Chicago Maroon, 8/16/96:
Saller's decision too hasty
To the Editors:
Dean Saller's recommendation to close the education department is more than troublesome, as
your editorial suggests. If accepted by the President, the closure of the department would raise
serious questions about this University's intellectual leadership. As graduate students in the social
sciences, we feel that closing the department would signal an abandonment by the University of its
role as a major force in shaping education, nationally and internationally.
The dean's recommendation comes at a time when education in this country increasingly serves
minority children. The University's relations with minority communities have been, at best,
checkered. The division 's proposed creation of a masters program to serve business professionals,
an elite clientele, at the same time it is committed to closing the education department only further
tarnishes these relations. Is the University, like so many other institutions in America, abandoning
any active leadership role it could and should take in confronting the challenges of poverty and
racial inequity in our country?
The recommendation to close the education department reflects poorly on the division and its
leadership. We are very troubled by the process of the dean's decision-making. It appears that the
dean had decided upon his recommendation even before the departmental review. In October, the
dean unilaterally decided to stop the recruitment of graduate students to the department. He did
this without consulting or informing the departmcnt's faculty, and months before the review
process even began. Secondly, Dean Saller has yet to allow faculty members to read the review.
Taken togcther, these actions raise serious questions about his recommendation. It does not bode
well for the other departments in the division which could face a similarly shrouded review
process.
Moreover, the dean's comments failed to include the exceptional scholars among the current
faculty who continue to influence the course of educational research and practice. Instead of
building on the strength of these scholars, Dean Saller focuses exclusively on the department's
problems. Where is the divisional leadership to create a vision and to marshal resources for
renewal that one would expect from this renowned division? Closing a department whose
commitment is to the study of one of the most crucial institutions in our nation speaks very poorly
of the division, as well as of the University' leadership.
We also think that money is a more important factor than Dean Saller admits. Closing one
department is the swiftest way to refocus resources. Again, the proposed expansion of a masters
program to serve business professionals, which would bring more money to the division, indicates
that decisions are most certainly being driven by a financial, rather than an intellectual, vision.
Allowing such a vision to undermine the historic intellectual leadership of the education
department compromises the University's commitment to intellectual diversity.
If the President decides to endorse Dean Saller's recommendation, he will signal a major
retreat by the University from its role as a national and international intellectual force. The
department of education has a tremendously rich tradition of educational leadership, from its
inception under the leadership of John Dewey to the fine quality of educational thought and
practice of many of its current faculty. Does the University intend to abandon this historic role?
Education is and will continue to be one of the most vital institutions of modern nations. The
dean's recommendation raises grave doubts about this University's intellectual
leadership.
Sincerely,
Graduate Student in the Social Sciences:
Kimberley Alkins, Education;
Dorothea
Anagnostopoulos, Education;
Kendra Sisserson, Education;
Gail Sunderman,
Political Science;
Marina Vasilyeva, Psychology
Top of page
Chicago Sun-Times, 8/23/96:
U. of C. may kill teachers school; Education program 'uneven,' officials
say
By Susan Dodge, Suburban reporter
The University of Chicago's education program, begun in 1895 by renowned philosopher John
Dewey to experiment with new teaching techniques, may be heading for dissolution.
The university is considering phasing out the department following a recent review that found
its faculty research, publication and commitment to teaching were "uneven," said Richard Saller,
dean of the university's social sciences division, which includes the education
department.
The median age of the department's 14 full-time faculty members is 64, and six have offered to
retire over the next five years to help the university rebuild the department by hiring younger
faculty members.
But Saller concluded that the university still would have trouble hiring young faculty members,
so he recommended that the university eliminate the department by 2001. The faculty in the social
sciences division still must vote on his recommendation this fall. Their recommendation will then
by passed along to the university's president, Hugo F. Sonnenschein, and the provost, Geoffrey
Stone, for a final decision.
A group of education students is trying to rally alumni and private foundations to save the
program. They're hoping an infusion of donations might help the university rebuild and
reconfigure the department with new faculty members.
The group is concerned that professors and students will begin leaving for other universities
and the quality of their education will deteriorate over the next five years.
They also are worried that the university will no longer be able to help the Chicago public
schools.
"It's just another example of an elite institution turning its back on the disenfranchised," said
Kendra Sisserson, a doctoral student at the university. "This is a time when the public schools
need better teachers and they're looking for allies."
Saller, who said his sons attend the Chicago public schools, said the university has a strong
commitment to public schools and will continue to support them even if the department is
eliminated.
The university's Center for School Improvement, which works to improve elementary schools,
and the Consortium on Chicago School Research, which issues policy reports on the public
schools, will continue to operate, Saller said.
Tony Bryk, an education professor and director of the consortium, said the university seems
committed to his center, but he is concerned that there might not be enough graduate students and
faculty members in education to help the schools if the department is eliminated.
"Education is under assault," Bryk said. "When you think about education as an entity, it is
one of our country's most pressing issues. The university ought to pick education as one of its top
priorities."
Some students and faculty members say the university may want to eliminate the department
for financial reasons. The university had an operating deficit of about $12 million for the last two
years, but major cost-cutting measures, including cutbacks in faculty hiring, and the recently
completed $676 million fund drive have helped produce a balanced budget this year.
But Saller said finances have nothing to do with his recommendation.
"It's a question of quality," he said. "There are other departments at the university that are
much less profitable than the education department, and they're not being
cut."
Top of page
Chicago Tribune, 8/24/96:
Review puts U. of C. education department in peril
By Rogers Worthington, Tribune staff writer
A process has been set in motion that might lead to shutting down the University of Chicago's
education department, founded by John Dewey in 1895 and once ranked with Harvard, Stanford
and Columbia Universities as among the nation's top graduate schools of education.
A review committee found that the department has an aging faculty with a mean age of 64,
uneven vitality, low expectations, a weak commitment to teaching and a growing sense of
isolation, said Richard Saller, dean of the university's social sciences division, of which the
education department is a part.
"Many do little in the way of teaching or research. That's one of the reasons I'm asking that the
department be closed," said Saller, who initiated the review.
Faculty members will vote on Saller's recommendations Nov.. 13, and if they approve, the final
decision will rest with University President Hugo Sonnenschein.
Robert Dreeben, chairman of the education department, said its high median age is the result
of administration failure to support new and younger faculty appointments to compensate for
attrition. The department's faculty has declined from 30 in 1980 to its current level of 15 tenured
professors.
"What the university is essentially doing is getting out of the education business. That is what
this is about," Dreeben said. "The university is saying that research in education is
unimportant."
The situation has raised concerns about the future of the university's Center for School
Improvement, and the Consortium of Chicago School Research, both of which rely on graduate
students and, to a lesser degree, faculty members from the education department.
Some graduate students are seeking support from private foundations and alumni to save the
program. But Saller said money is not the problem.
His recommendation would shutter the department in 2001.
"I think symbolically it is a real shock that a university which calls itself a great university is
turning its back on the study of education," said Dean Karen Zumwalt of Columbia Teachers
College in New York City, who earned a doctorate in education from U of C in
1978.
Top of page
Crain's Chicago Business, 8/26/96
U of C Set to Dismiss Education Department
By Steven R. Strahler
The University of Chicago's trailblazing education department founded by
philosopher-educator John Dewey is facing the final bell, a likely cost-cutting victim on the Hyde
Park campus.
The century-old department, a resource for recent Chicago school reform but otherwise
described as underperforming, would be phased out within five years under a division dean's
recommendation.
Administrators denied the move was linked to President Hugo Sonnenschein's focus on
the university's bottom line (Crain's May 13). "It really had to do with the quality and intellectual
vision of the department," said Dean of Social Sciences Richard Saller. "It did not start with a
spread sheet."
But faculty members disagreed.
"The administration just didn't see it as something they wanted to invest in," said Carl
Kaestle, a professor of education recruited just 18 months ago.
The proposal will be submitted to a division faculty vote this fall, with Mr. Sonnenschein
and Provost Geoffrey Stone having the final say.
The department, whose 15 faculty members represent about 3% of the university's total,
was a product of Mr. Dewey's pioneering work to instill more pragmatism into American
elementary and secondary education.
He downplayed rote learning and advocated standardized tests and laboratory schools
(like the U of C's) to measure results.
Ironically, the department since 1990 has been attempting to introduce such precepts to
Chicago Public Schools through the Consortium on School Research.
Anthony Bryk, the consortium's senior director, said the university would continue to
support the work.
"I actually agree with the review - that the department had grown weak, that there was
some question about whether that faculty could regenerate itself," he said, citing an average
faculty age of 63 and no hires for 10 years. "It had been starved."
Except for a small master's program, the university hasn't trained teachers since 1975, said
a university spokesman. Department functions could be reconfigured under a committee or
research-center structure; regardless, he added, "We will honor tenure."
Sighed Mr. Kaestle: "I thought we had the potential to become a first-rate department....
There's enough blame to go around here, and the department was quite willing to shoulder it."
Top of page
Education Week, 9/18/96:
U of Chicago Mulls Axing Ed. Department
By Jeanne Ponessa
Despite protests from students and alumni, the University of Chicago is considering
eliminating its venerable department of education.
The dean of the university's social sciences division recommended closing the century-old
department after a review raised questions about the quality of its research and its commitment to
teaching.
But the recommendation this summer has prompted fierce opposition from many students
and graduates. They say the proposal stems from a lukewarm commitment to educational
leadership on the part of the university.
The department, founded in 1985 by renowned philosopher and educator John Dewey, has
a primary focus on education research rather than teacher training. It comprises 15 professors and
about 160 students.
Richard Saller, the dean of the social sciences division, which includes the education
department, last fall requested a review by two professors outside the department and two
education experts from outside the university.
The review, Mr. Saller said, found low morale, varying commitments to research and
teaching, and a faculty whose median age is 62 and whose members teach fewer courses than
their counterparts in any other department in the division.
"In 94-'95 the median courseload taught by the department was less than what I taught as
dean," Mr. Saller said last week in an interview.
After reading the review, he decided to recommend that the department by shut down by
2001. He said his decision was not prompted by financial concerns.
The dean plans to meet with students on Oct. 10, and his recommendation is scheduled for
a vote before the division faculty on Nov. 13. If it is approved, the recommendation will go to the
university president and provost for final approval.
But Mr. Saller said that if the roughly 170 faculty members in the social sciences division
rejected the proposal, he would not pursue it any further.
Although the department has stopped accepting applications for doctoral students based
on the possibility that the recommendation will be approved, the school will continue to support
its current students.
Uncertain future
Mr. Saller's recommendation has sparked a flurry of electronic-mail messages and news releases
from current and former students.
"As education becomes increasingly important to our societal and economic well-being,
the university's decision to close the department of education signals its abandonment of the
historic leadership role it could and should play in addressing these challenges," said a statement
from a group of students who oppose the move.
"It behooves everybody to keep educational research at the University of Chicago,"
Kendra Sisserson, a group leader, said in an interview.
Robert Dreeben, the chairman of the education department, said last week that he was
skeptical about the department's future. "I'm not sure that the issue is one of keeping the
department intact," he said. "The university has done a great deal to make that
impossible."
The university, for example, "has been extremely stingy" with the hiring of new faculty for
the department over the past 10 years, he said.
But what administrators have failed to address with their proposal, Mr. Dreeben added, is
whether and how education research will continue at the University of Chicago.
"There are other ways of doing that besides a department as it's currently constituted, but
the university has been essentially silent about that," he said. "It has acted in a fairly summary
way."
Mr. Saller, the social sciences dean, said the university should look at education as a
university-wide committment, and he suggested that the department might be replaced by an
"interdivisional committee on pedagogy." The university may consider a new focus on teacher
training programs, he added.
One prominent alumnus dismissed the idea of an interdivisional committee as "window
dressing."
Lee S. Shulman, a professor of education and psychology at Stanford University, and a
former president of the American Educational Research Association. said in a statement released
by students that without graduate students and faculty members, "the university cannot continue
to make contributions to education as a field of study.
Top of page
The University of Chicago Free Press, 9/24/96
A Learning Experience: Will the University of Chicago Destroy the Department of
Education?
By John K. Wilson
In 1895, philosopher John Dewey established a department of pedagogy at the University
of Chicago, making it into the nation's first research laboratory for the study of education. A year
after the department celebrated its centennial, a decision by Social Sciences Dean Richard Saller
may destroy one of the most famous institutions at the University of Chicago.
The elimination of the Department of Education is a story about the overwhelming
importance of money - and prestige - to today's top universities. In an age when elite universities
are remaking themselves in the image of corporations, an unprofitable, undistinguished field like
education falls by the wayside.
If all goes according to plan - and at the moment, few people expect otherwise - the
Department of Education will be a dying species awaiting official extinction in 2001. A handful of
old students may remain, along with a few tenured faculty members too stubborn to
leave.
The final decision will be made by President Hugo Sonnenschein and Provost Geoffrey
Stone, but they will not determine the fate of the Department of Education until after a November
13 vote of the entire Social Sciences faculty.
This vote takes on particular importance because Saller says he will not pursue the matter
further if the faculty vote goes against his recommendation; however, he notes that the president
and provost might still act on his recommendation and close the department anyway: "legally, they
would have the opportunity to review it."
Marked for Elimination
Robert Dreeben, chair of the Department of Education, knew something was wrong last
October, when a prospective student told him that the Dean of Students wasn't sending out
applications to people who asked for them. This came at the same time that Saller told him that
the department would be subject to a full-scale review - an act akin to a Godfather giving the kiss
of death to a member of the family.
Dean Saller and Dean of Students Lois Stein had decided, without informing the
department, to stop sending out application forms. The decision was quickly reversed, but the fact
it ever occurred was a bad sign. "That put the thought in my head that closing down the
department was a real alternative," says Dreeben. "It was hard not to judge, despite statements to
the contrary, that the decision was already made."
When Dean Saller recommended that the Department of Education should be closed,
Dreeben wasn't surprised. Although Saller made the recommendation alone, Dreeben says that
President Sonnenschein and Provost Stone "must have been involved in some way," and he
doesn't expect them to reverse Saller's decision.
Today, Dreeben is pessimistic. He has discouraged student efforts to save the education
department: "that's not going to happen." Even if the social science faculty reject Saller's
recommendation, Dreeben says "the department will go down no matter what the vote
is."
His only worry now is that publicity about the decision will lower the reputation of the
department and have a "devastating effect on students." He reports that after stories appeared in
the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune, one student was told by a potential employer,
"oh, I see you come from a lousy school." According to Dreeben, "they don't need to have their
department gratuitously castigated."
Although Dreeben has given up, the decision is still being fought by a group of graduate
students from education and other social sciences, led by second-year education Ph.D. student
Kendra Sisserson. They are organizing students and alumni nationwide, sending out press releases
to the media, and questioning Dean Saller's reasoning. "I don't think it's over until it's over," says
Sisserson.
Education's Problems
Dean Saller argues that an aging faculty (the average age is 62, and seven faculty are over
64), uneven quality of research, and a lack of commitment to teaching are severe problems that
justify eliminating the department. Saller claims that "the difficulties...would not be easy to
overcome."
However, the Review Committee which evaluated the Department of Education found no
reason why its rebuilding plan could not succeed. Psychology professor Lawrence Barsalou, who
was one of the evaluators, admits that "it would be possible to rebuild the department" but adds
that it is "at least as likely that rebuilding efforts would fail."
No one disputes that the Department of Education has problems. Education professor
Larry Hedges notes that the high average age of the faculty is "not a healthy state for a
department." Sisserson says, "I agree with all the critiques of the department." But Sisserson says
the problems were "created by the University and allowed to happen" - and could be fixed if the
University was merely willing to maintain the same level of resources by appointing new faculty to
replace those who retire.
The beginning of the end of education at the University of Chicago came in 1975, when
the University ended the autonomous School of Education and merged it with the Department of
Education located within the Division of Social Sciences. From that point, the University of
Chicago has virtually starved the Department of Education to death.
The gradual destruction of the department has been going on for a long time, largely
through the central administration's decision to reject nearly all appointments of new faculty for
the past decade. The number of faculty dropped from 30 in 1980 to 15 today. When a faculty
member retired, the Department of Education was only rarely allowed to appoint a replacement.
Education professor Susan Stodolsky observes, "we've had very few new appointments in the past
decade."
Since 1988, only two new faculty members have been added. ZalmanUsiskin notes, "For a
number of years, education appointments have not been approved in the university." The old age
of the department is not a choice by the Department of Education, but a decision by the several
administrations to refuse to allow the department to renew itself.
As the department's self-study observed, "In a time of fiscal stringency for the University,
these losses were generally not replaced; the rebuilding of some other social science departments
enjoyed a higher priority." The University of Chicago's administration weakened the department
of education and prevented it from remaking itself - and now wants to get rid of it, using the
excuse that it is too old and has failed to revitalize itself.
A Question of Rankings
Dean Saller justifies his decision by claiming that the Department of Education did not
"match the level of other departments in the division." He noted that it is ranked 18th by the U.S.
News & World Report rankings (actually, it's tied for 17th). According to Saller, all other social
science departments are ranked better, and only Psychology is not in the top eight.
However, Saller is mixing apples and oranges, since none of the other social science
departments have been evaluated by the U.S. News rankings empire. Nor does Saller mention the
serious flaws in the U.S. News methodology, which strongly favor large teacher training schools.
The key reason why the University of Chicago is so low on the list is because it's ranked 37th in
research activity and 74th in faculty resources. But a careful look at the U.S. News methodology
shows many flaws. In research activity, 75% of the score comes from the total value of research
money received; only 25% is the average amount per faculty member. Thus, the University of
Chicago's $4.4 million places it far behind the top-ranked Teacher's College at Columbia, which
earned three times as much money - but has an enrollment thirty times the size of Chicago's, and
an enormous faculty to match. If the size bias in research activity was removed, the University of
Chicago would easily rank in the top four, not 37th.
The faculty resources rank is also distorted by size, since 25% of the score comes from the
absolute number of degrees granted. Since Chicago is less than half the size of any other top 25
school, its loses points for being small. The University of Chicago also falls in the rankings
because 25% of the score is based on the ratio of doctoral students to faculty, an area where
Chicago has the 4th-highest ratio (7.57) in the top 50, behind only Harvard, Berkeley, and USC.
This number hardly indicates an underworked faculty.
If the two size-biased criteria were removed from the U.S. News calculations, the
University of Chicago would be ranked 5th in the country, not 17th. By that measure, Education
is not the weakest department in the Social Sciences, and certainly better than the average
department at the University of Chicago.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, one of the highly respected scholars with a joint appointment in
education, observes that "our department has been among the top three or five most scholarly
among the many hundreds of education departments nationwide, by any measure one wants to
use." The Department of Education was one of six top departments nationwide to receive
research training grants from the Spencer Foundation. Five of the 15 faculty members belong to
the prestigious National Academy of Education, ranking the University of Chicago third behind
only Stanford and Harvard, which have much larger faculties. The average number of social
science citations of work by Chicago faculty members in the scholarly literature is higher than any
other school of education in the country.
The performance of Chicago's graduates is also extraordinary. Despite having far fewer
students than other schools of education, the Department of Education ranks third in the number
of graduates who earn postdoctoral fellowships from the Spencer Foundation. Of the 64
graduates who earned Ph.D.s from 1990-1995, 41 are employed as college faculty, and 12 are
professional researchers. The University of Chicago is one of the nation's top producers of
education professors. Although the University of Chicago's education department is no longer the
teacher of teachers, it is the teacher of teachers of teachers, providing education professors for
most of the top universities. More education professors at Illinois colleges come from the
University of Chicago's program than any other institution, and its absence would have a
destructive effect on the training of future teachers.
This is a particularly unfortunate time for the University of Chicago to abandon education.
On September 12, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, nonpartisan
group of teachers, governors, and business executives, issued a report pronouncing a crisis in
teacher training. Over 50,000 unqualified teachers are in schools, half of America's teacher
colleges fail to meet accredidation standards, 12% of new teachers begin with no training, and
25% of high school teachers did not even minor in the subjects they are teaching. The
Commission, which included Illinois governor Jim Edgar, recommended spending $5 billion on
improved teacher recruitment and training. Even if the University of Chicago does not produce
many teachers, it is an essential part of educating the education professors who will teach these
teachers.
The Department of Education also has a substantial role to play in providing important
research and educational reforms. The University of Chicago Math and Science Project, led by
Zalman Usiskin, has been an important force in improving science and mathematics education by
producing an influential set of textbooks. Usiskin observes that the loss of education graduate
students "will not help" the project. The Center for School Improvement, established in 1989 to
help Chicago school reform, will also suffer in the future, even though it received a $200,000
grant from the Annenberg Foundation this year. Education professor Bertram Cohler says, "the
Chicago School System is in crisis, and the University should be in a position to study this
issue."
Larry Hedges says, "It would be impossible for me to continue my research without any
graduate students," and he wouldn't want to give up teaching education students. Hedges says
that if the department is shut down, "I would definitely go elsewhere." The most productive and
prestigious education faculty (who generate the most research grants) are already seeking jobs
elsewhere, where education is still considered worthy enough to be a department.
The problem is not really the national ranking of the Department of Education, but the low
status of education within the mainstream of academia. As Sisserson says, "it's about education
not being viewed as a social science." While all the other social science departments are
located in the main quadrangle, the education department is housed two blocks away, in the
University's lab school. The gap is philosophical as well as geographical: a department devoted to
training people to solve real-life problems is at odds with a division focused mainly on academic
studies.
An Aging Faculty
The age of faculty is cited by Dean Saller as one of the most serious problems facing the
Department of Education, a consequence of the fact that few joined the early retirement plans.
"Our record on this was not as good as other departments," admits Dreeben. With seven faculty
over the age of 64, many of them beyond their productive years, the department presented a big
target. One of the biggest problems faced by the University of Chicago and similar elite
universities is convincing their elderly faculty to retire so that younger professors on the cutting
edge of research can be hired to fill their places.
However, this is one area where the education department was willing to compromise.
After learning of the review, Dreeben was able to get six of the older faculty (including himself) to
promise to retire within the next five years in order to save the department. The department could
have had a remarkable growth in young, ambitious professors attracted to the prestige and history
of the University of Chicago.
But it is precisely because of these retiring faculty that the University of Chicago must act
quickly to shut down the department. If the University allows a new generation of professors to
get jobs and earn tenure in the education department, they will never be able to destroy it. It is
only now, at this critical juncture, that the education department is so vulnerable to
attack.
Will the Department of Education be able to rebuild its faculty? The question remains
completely hypothetical, since no one knows what new professors might join the department.
Given the prestige of the department and of the University of Chicago, and the quality of the
students, it is hard to imagine that good faculty could not be found. But if the plan for the future
is to continue eviscerating the department by refusing to allow new faculty slots to replace retiring
professors, then there is clearly no way to revitalize the department with a smaller number of
faculty.
However, the University of Chicago does not want to maintain the current number of
faculty and students because of the low teaching load it currently creates. Some of the harshest
words from the Review Committee are reserved for the Department of Education's commitment
to teaching.
John Mearshimer, a political science professor who served on the Review Committee, says
there were "serious problem with teaching in the department" and "professors did not carry their
fair share." Barsalou calls the education department "absolutely pathetic" and the "worst teaching
citizens" in the social sciences division, teaching far fewer classes and students than other
departments.
Dreeben admits that there are some faculty "who, quite frankly, just haven't pulled their
weight." But he added, "there are people all over the university who don't pull their weight in
teaching. That's not peculiar to us." Hedges adds, "We were not told in the past that we were
expected to teach students in the College."
It is difficult for a department without an undergraduate concentration to be compared
with other departments with majors in the College, or for an equal amount of undergraduate
teaching to be expected. Still, in the Fall 1996 timetable, the Department of Education offers eight
college courses, while a department with an undergraduate concentration like philosophy teaches
the same number, and sociology teaches only one more.
The only other graduate department in the Social Sciences is the Committee on Social
Thought, but no one is demanding for it to increase the amount of undergraduate teaching it does.
Although several Social Thought faculty have joint appointments in the College and teach in the
Core, the department itself does not offer any courses for undergraduates, and only a few
cross-listed courses are allowed for students in the College.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, when the Department of Education was being
destroyed by attrition, the Committee on Social Thought underwent a dramatic renewal, greatly
increasing the number of students admitted (to about a dozen each year) and receiving new
faculty appointments. The question is, if the Social Sciences Division could afford to renew a
department with a prestigious history like Social Thought, why can't it do the same for another
department with a similar tradition of greatness?
But remaking a department requires resources and a long-term commitment. According to
Usiskin, "the financial issue was very much paramount," and education faculty were told "the
University is in a period where it's going cut the size of the faculty."
Dreeben still agrees with Dean Saller's claim that money wasn't a factor behind the
decision, and calls the university's financial troubles "irrelevant" to the question: "It's about
priorities." Dreeben says that "there are no great savings" from closing the education department -
whatever the university saves in paying faculty, it will lose in research grants and tuition from
education students.
However, the University apparently hopes to only get rid of the expensive deadwood
faculty, while preserving the research programs which generate grants - a dubious proposition
when few of the top researchers would be willing to work at an institution without a department
or plentiful graduate students.
Barsalou, who served on the Review Committee, also says the key factor is money:
"resources are getting tight and hard decisions are being made." Barsalou does not dispute Saller's
decision: "if he had the resources, he wouldn't get rid of education." But "he has to make some
very hard decisions about where resources are going to go."
When Dean Saller "briefly paused" admissions in October 1995, he foreshadowed the
inevitable. Admissions have been stopped again this year, and not briefly. Until a positive decision
by President Sonnenschein is made to save the department, no applications will be sent out to or
accepted from potential students.
If Sonnenschein delays his decision on the department until 1997, it will probably be
impossible to recruit an adequate number of graduate students, and current faculty will begin
taking offers from other institutions. The longer he waits, the more weakened the department will
be if he decides to let it survive.
Top of page
The University of Chicago Free Press, 9/24/96:
Excerpt from
Sonnenschein Speaks His Mind...
Interview with Free Press writers Sarah F. Rose and John K. Wilson
fp: Right now there are plans afoot to eliminate the Department of Education, which
is in part
devoted to studying what creates barriers for poor students [reference to one of the
president's
earlier answers about enrollment]. The chair of the department told me, "I think there's a view
on
the part of the administration that education is peripheral." Is he right? Do you think that a
Department of Education is an essential part of a world-class university?
Sonnenschein: Understanding what great education is, understanding what it takes to
provide an
educated citizenry, is one of the important challenges for society. That's an easy statement. The
history of this university with respect to education is quite grand, starting with John Dewey. It's a
remarkable heritage.
Approximately 20 years ago, this university made a decision to step away from having a
school of education. I believe that essentially led to our stepping away from being a teacher of
elementary and high school teachers. At this point, we're turning out perhaps 12-15 people a year
with Master's degrees in elementary and high school education.
It's also interesting that many of our college students, at least for some time, go into high
school and elementary education. The question at issue, therefore, is not whether we support
teacher training at the elementary and high school level, because we don't do that. The question is
really the extent to which we support the study of education. And that's a complex issue.
Much of the great work historically has been done at this University concerning what
makes for good education has been done beyond the boundaries of the Department of Education
and the School of Education.
There's a great deal of interest in these matters. I don't know precisely what
recommendation will come to me. I know that Dean Saller, after very thoughtful consideration,
after a good deal of discussion with people at the University and other universities, came to the
decision that he would recommend to his divisional faculty that the department should be phased
out over time.
That discussion hasn't taken place; I don't know what will come to my desk. Whatever
comes to my desk, I am confident that because of the scholarly interests of our faculty, and
because of the importance of understanding the process of education, that we will really forever
have a substantial interest as an institution and capacity to study what makes a good education, in
our number one sociology department in the country, in our number one anthropology department
in the country, in our number one economics department in the country. There's a significant
amount of interest in this subject.
Top of page
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/18/96:
When Doctoral Programs Are Eliminated, Everybody Faces Difficult Choices
This article unavailable on line at this time. Please consult The Chronicle of Higher
Education
Top of page
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/orgs/eduscholarship/articles.htm -- Revised: October 25,
1996
Copyright & copy 1996 Society for Educational Scholarship
Comments on this site