2017 Division A Program Planning Committee Report
by Scott Bauer, Chair
There are so many ways to summarize the Program Committee’s work. We could recount each deadline and set of steps, for instance. Lucky for you, it’s easier (and infinitely more interesting) to summarize the results of our work, though any member of the Program Committee would be happy to regale you with a detailed accounting of the various steps, deadlines, and dozens of e-mail messages accompanying each step throughout the process. Suffice it to say that going from submissions to reviews to a finished program requires the hard work and attention to detail of each of the Section Chairs and committee members listed above; volunteers who served as reviewers; and, of course, scholars whose work is represented on the program. Kudos to all.
For those of you who like such things (you know who you are), here are some stats to summarize this year’s Program Committee work:
The program includes the following mix of sessions:
For those of you pining for a more holistic, narrative accounting of the committee’s work (and you know who you are, too), the 2017 Program Committee is an incredibly bright, spirited, and hard-working group who did a brilliant job at every stage of the process to ensure that each submission was fairly and thoroughly vetted. Section chairs recruited and selected outstanding reviewers, organized their work carefully, met every deadline required of them (and there were many), and worked as a team to put together an amazing program.
There are many exceptional sessions worth highlighting, but for the sake of brevity, (and a little shameless self-promotion) the following Division-sponsored sessions are a must:
Finally, we would like to end with a challenge: This year, fewer than sixty graduate students volunteered as reviewers, which seems well out of kilter with the number of possible volunteers studying at our institutions. While time is a precious commodity, it is hard to understand why we do not have an abundance of our best and brightest electing to participate. Serving as a peer reviewer is a terrific and educative experience (not to mention a professional responsibility). While graduate student ratings are not included along with review panel data in final decisions, it is often helpful to the Program Committee to consult these insights. There are no restrictions on volunteering; graduate students need not be finishing their degree soon, for instance. They simply must be members of AERA. Why the dearth of volunteers? What can we do, as a Division, to encourage more graduate student participation?
- Michael Dantley, Division A Vice President
- Scott Bauer, chair
- Rosa Rivera-McCutchen, co-chair
- Section 1: Leadership – Daniel Reyes-Guerra & David Brazer
- Section 2: School Organization and Effects – Ebony Bridwell-Mitchell
- Section 3: School Improvement – Jessica Rigby
- Section 4: School Contexts and Communities – Terri Watson
- Section 5: Leadership Development – Cristobal Rodriguez
- Equity, Inclusion & Action Committee – Ann Ishimaru, chair, & Melissa Martinez, co-chair
- Senior graduate student representative – Emma Bullock
There are so many ways to summarize the Program Committee’s work. We could recount each deadline and set of steps, for instance. Lucky for you, it’s easier (and infinitely more interesting) to summarize the results of our work, though any member of the Program Committee would be happy to regale you with a detailed accounting of the various steps, deadlines, and dozens of e-mail messages accompanying each step throughout the process. Suffice it to say that going from submissions to reviews to a finished program requires the hard work and attention to detail of each of the Section Chairs and committee members listed above; volunteers who served as reviewers; and, of course, scholars whose work is represented on the program. Kudos to all.
For those of you who like such things (you know who you are), here are some stats to summarize this year’s Program Committee work:
- 154 scholars served on review panels, augmented by an additional 52 grad student reviewers, who conducted just over 1,500 reviews. Each paper was reviewed by a minimum of three review panel members.
- Of the 1,500+ reviews, only 3% were “delinquent” (AERA term). Thanks to all of you for making our work possible!
- Approximately 920 Division A members volunteered to serve as a reviewer, chair, or discussant.
- Overall, around 1,000 members are “participants” (i.e., serving as a presenter, chair, reviewer, and/or as authors of papers)
- We received 374 proposals for papers and 33 symposia proposals representing an additional 137 papers for a total of 511 submissions. Results of the review and decision process are as follows:
The program includes the following mix of sessions:
- 8 symposia
- 25 paper sessions
- 34 roundtable sessions
- 2 poster sessions
- 3 Division-level sessions (one invited, two Equity, Inclusion & Action Committee)
For those of you pining for a more holistic, narrative accounting of the committee’s work (and you know who you are, too), the 2017 Program Committee is an incredibly bright, spirited, and hard-working group who did a brilliant job at every stage of the process to ensure that each submission was fairly and thoroughly vetted. Section chairs recruited and selected outstanding reviewers, organized their work carefully, met every deadline required of them (and there were many), and worked as a team to put together an amazing program.
There are many exceptional sessions worth highlighting, but for the sake of brevity, (and a little shameless self-promotion) the following Division-sponsored sessions are a must:
- On Saturday April 29th [10:35am to 12:05pm, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, Meeting Room Level, Room 217 C], join us for a panel discussion and conversation on (Re)visioning the profession: What should professors of educational leadership be doing and how should we be supported?
- This session will form the basis for a continuing discussion at the Division A Business Meeting [Saturday, April 29, 6:30 to 8:30pm, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, Meeting Room Level, Room 217 A], when we will be summarizing the vision explored earlier in the day and asking the question: What should Division A be doing to make this vision a reality?
- The Equity, Inclusion & Action Committee is sponsoring two sessions: Building a wall of resistance through critical solidarities: Attending to our personal and professional needs and that of others in the current political climate [Saturday, April 29, 2:45 to 4:15pm, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, Meeting Room Level, Room 213 A] and Early- and Mid-Career Mentoring for Equity-Focused Faculty: Insights From Senior Scholars on Navigating the Pathways of Academia [Sunday, April 30, 12:25 to 1:55pm, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, River Level, Room 6B]
Finally, we would like to end with a challenge: This year, fewer than sixty graduate students volunteered as reviewers, which seems well out of kilter with the number of possible volunteers studying at our institutions. While time is a precious commodity, it is hard to understand why we do not have an abundance of our best and brightest electing to participate. Serving as a peer reviewer is a terrific and educative experience (not to mention a professional responsibility). While graduate student ratings are not included along with review panel data in final decisions, it is often helpful to the Program Committee to consult these insights. There are no restrictions on volunteering; graduate students need not be finishing their degree soon, for instance. They simply must be members of AERA. Why the dearth of volunteers? What can we do, as a Division, to encourage more graduate student participation?