March 20, 2003
Members Present: Chen, Henriques, Naimpally, Novack, Saint-Germain, Santhieveeran, Wiley
-Agenda was approved.
-Henriques was the secretary of the day.
-Minutes from the 3/6/03 meeting were changed to reflect the meeting times and approved as changed.
-Campus Accountability Goals Survey 2002-03 Henriques submitted a draft version of a 2002-2003 Campus Accountability Goals survey. This was based on the 2001-2002 survey completed last year. It was decided that the departments and programs getting the survey would also receive a copy of what they submitted last year. This way they will know where they were a year ago and can more accurately report progress. Saint-Germain will work on the cover letter and Findlay, our student worker, will begin collating reports from last year.
-This survey will be a follow-up from a letter that was sent to Deans in the fall. Chen asked about the possibility of needing follow-up interviews. We have set a 4/30/03 return date to give us time for follow-up as needed.
-Policy for reviewing and responding to E3/Assessment Grant final reports
Wiley mentioned the requirements for E3/Assessment Grantees. Further discussion was postponed for the 12:15 time certain. We will revisit this topic at our next meeting.
-TIME CERTAIN: 12:45 Wayne Dick, Chair Academic Senate and Sim Crowther, Chair Program Review & Academic Planning Council
At the request of the committee, Wayne Dick was invited to attend our meeting to discuss the reorganization. Saint-Germain commended the Senate on its work thus far. The reorganization separates the evaluation and policy activities in a way that seems to make sense.
-The Senate has approved the linking of assessment and program review based on the strong belief that they belong together. Through this merging Assessment will become part of a council (higher status, larger role in governance and policy setting). There will be subcommittees of the newly formed council that address timely issues, assessment related subcommittees will likely exist. These sub-committees would be involved in implementing policy. The Councils are involved in setting policy.
-Questions raised:
1. Where does assessment of G.E. fit in?
2. How does a merged council encourage departments and programs to communicate findings and innovations?
3. What will be the membership of this merged council?
4. Will assessment outreach get lost in the reorganization? Dick pointed out that there are many examples of Councils being actively involved in creating and doing workshops and outreach for the campus community. The precedent is there, the Assessment arm of the newly formed committee/council could still act in that capacity.
5.Will there be any sort of qualitative analysis or oversight of the various assessment activities?
6.Should General Education have the same sort of division of efforts (approval and review) that are proposed for the other university programs?
7. Who would serve on the council? Since PRAP and Assessment Committee membership both have staggered term membership it is probable that the some of the membership will come from continuing membership. The subcommittees will have representation from the Council as well as the campus at large.
-The committee agreed that the merging of program review, academic planning and assessment was a good direction to move. It is hoped that the new program review process is a living document that looks forward (i.e. incorporates planning) at least as much as it looks back (simply review). The process needs to be based on sound assessment practices. The merging needs to be done in such a way that neither committee loses its identity OR its mission.
-Timeline for proposed reorganization:
· We are currently in the consultative process
· Fall ’03 the proposed changes will be brought to Senate for debate
· Spring ’04 implementation of changes - this will be evidenced in the new elections
· Fall ’04 implementation occurs at the campus level with the newly formed committee/council structure
-Novack pointed out that many of the committee members were missing from today’s discussion. It was requested that the minutes be circulated so that thoughtful input from all members could be collected. The committee will discuss this further at the next meeting. Saint-Germain asked what sort of input the Senate would like from us. It was requested that we submit a one-page response. The committee will draft the one-page response at our next meeting. Members are asked to think about this and make notes for the next meeting. Henriques will see that the schematics of the reorganization are sent to each member.
-After Crowther & Dick left the committee continued a discussion about program review, the Provost’s desire to see program review connected to resource allocation and what our role (or our newly configured role) might be in that process.
-Pre-proposal Review for E3 Awards Wiley brought copies of preproposal submissions for committee members to review. Each member present took 3 proposals to review with feedback due to Mark by 3/28.
-Next Meeting: 4/3, 12:15
-Please put together a list of advantages and disadvantages for the proposed reorganization as it relates to assessment.
These minutes have not been approved.
ACADEMIC SENATE REORGANIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE GOALS:
1) To strengthen governance for the future;
2) To provide faculty consultation with the administration;
3) To make Senate participation more meaningful;
4) To increase communication between the Academic Senate and its councils,
committees, and subcommittees;
5) To make the intent and actions of the Academic Senate Executive Committee clearer and more transparent to other councils and committees;
6) To provide for more enhanced Academic Senate orientations;
7) To make the governance process and its organization more understandable;
8) To make Academic Senate governance more responsive to faculty;
9) To improve the responsiveness of the entire governance process to
faculty in general.
Laura Henriques