Draft Minutes 23 February 2010

| No Comments

I CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
3:30
In attendance:
Joel Alexander, Scott Beaver, Dean Braa, Susan Daniel, Sue Dauer, Cheryl Davis, Bryan Dutton, Camila Gabaldon, Mark Girod, Bob Hautala, Mark Perlman (for Henry Hughes), Elaina Jamieson, Pete Poston, Katherine Schmidt, Gay Timken, Jason Waite, Zenon Zygmont

Ex-Oficio:
John Minahan, Kent Neely, Evan Sorce

II CORRECTIONS AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 9 FEBRUARY 2010 (document A)
Approved

III PRESIDENTS' REPORTS
Katherine Schmidt, Faculty Senate (document B & C)
The executive committee approved 805 courses in ASL, Education, Interpreting, Math, Special Education Rehabilitation Counseling, and Teacher Preparation deaf education.
The Union executive board recommended postponing online course evaluations until spring to the Provost. He has agreed.
Arrangements can be made for evaluations to occur this term, if you prefer want to do it this term.

Updated and revised committee charges are due April 22, 2010.
The executive committee spent a significant amount of time discussing the Honors program curriculum change process. That committee should be commend for bringing this issue to the executive committee. After input from many committees, including the curriculum committee, graduate committee, academic requirements committee and committee on committees, it has been determined that the process for these proposals will be to go through the executive committee directly to senate. This will be included in their updated charge. Laurie Burton (curriculum committee chair) was present to answer any questions about the process from the curriculum perspective. There were none.

The executive committee will meet with the International Education Committee on 5 March.
We have a few positions that need to be filled:
Student Media board needs a new representative
We will also need a substitute secretary for at least the last two meetings of the year. We are hoping to hire a minute taker, so this position would primarily be serving as a member of the executive committee and editing the typed minutes.


John Minahan, Western Oregon University
Special legislative session likely to close without loss of fund balances.
We (WOU) will be looking at one-time funding opportunities for special projects.
University Advancement has been being re-organized. It really has two functions: growing endowment and annual giving/ alumni relations. Instead of having these under the same person, the duties have been split. Danielle Nelson is working on alumni relations and they have hired a part time person to grow board/endowment. The goal is to have 3-5 people on the ground fundraising.


Joe Hutchinson, Staff Senate
Not present.

Evan Sorce, ASWOU

Apologized for having missed meetings. He is starting two committees: one on catering (separate rate for campus community) and one on the bookstore. They are hoping to revamp the bookstore, making it more profitable and upgrade the online systems.
For any faculty that wanted them, he had tickets for a Friday night concert, including Root down (Reggae) and the Caleb Ray Band (alternative rock).

Kent Neely, Provosts' Council
Nothing from Provosts council; they will be meeting next week.
He attended a special workshop with NWCCU on Wednesday. A key point of our interim report to NWCCU was how we are becoming data driven.

The OUS system is going to be audited for financial efficiencies. One model they are working with is a recent audit at the University of Maryland system.
Some recommendations are:
• An individual is supported for only 120 credit hours, which is the minimum required for a major. Thereafter they would pay a higher rate based on the lack of state subsidy.
• All students would have part of their education from another institution.
WOU will be one of the first institutions to be audited. This fits with the NWCCU changed standards. A shift in the standards is to measuring outputs. If a university declares a mission they must demonstrate in a quantitative fashion that it has fulfilled it.

Last week's workshop was region-wide workshop. It was primarily on how to deal with first standard.
Today, we will be given a progress report about what has been done. The new standard allows the institutions to identify what realms it will be measured by. We will be expected to identify core themes.
Generally four will be:
1. Liberal arts learning environment for our students.
2. Diversified campus community
3. Represent that we are a stable and sustainable institution
4. Student readiness (have we done the work to prepare students for a profession - either through a LA base or through specific training e.g., teacher education)

He has assembled a university advisory council who will meet monthly beginning on Friday. They will be doing the next level of planning and information gathering.

Michael Ellis from university computing gave a demonstration of a key performance indicators (KPI) dynamic dashboard, which is in the portal. His caveat was that the data currently included is fake and is only meant to serve as a model.

The dashboard aligns data based on day of term, not date. Indicators may have one of three different colors of arrow: red, yellow, green. If arrow is pointing up, this year's number is greater than last year's. Hovering over the question mark gives a definition of what is being measured. For some of the data, you can drill down and you may be able to include multiple years.
Eventually the data will be automatically updated with data from banner.
Provost Neely noted that it will be determined who will have access to the data, but that at least division heads will have it available.


IV OLD BUSINESS
None

V NEW BUSINESS
President Schmidt introduced this set of proposals, noting that they are broad and far-reaching. She asked Laurie Burton to speak to the process that they had been through in the curriculum committee.
Summary from Laurie Burton:
These proposals came to curriculum committee in December, January and February. In December, they were new business and there was concern about a perceived lack of collaboration. Voting occurred in January. There was a feeling was that collaboration had not occurred and that vote failed.
After that Teacher Education did a great job of communicating with divisions and creating compromises.
All of the proposals passed unanimously in February.

Mark Girod presented background information for all of the proposals and handed out a packet to the senate (Document E):
This is likely the most widely vetted set of proposals to come before senate in a long time.
Four points driving this and four guiding principles are on cover page.
There have been major changes in field of education - it is a different place and university based teacher education has to respond to that.
With this change, they are hoping to create a sense of professional practice among their majors. Having majors with only courses at the 400 level does not make sense.
The reality of what is detailed on page 12 is that there is huge pressure is on certain areas and we need to train students to complete in this environment.
This would chance the program from 4 terms to 3. The admissions process would still be there, but would be changed to a 2-tiered process, with first tier much earlier on.

The report contains policy papers stating need for this change. Among them are: enrollment management (major attrition),
increased competition in Oregon, data from the Oregon mentor project, and data from graduates.

I looking at a credit hour analysis, the current model is 75% LAS. The proposal would change that to 63%, which is still high compared to other institutions. SOU, for example, is 55% LAS and Michigan state (# 1 ranked) is 57% LAS.
Will still have more credit hours than most of these other institutions

He is pleased to have the unanimous support of curriculum committee.

Laurie Burton added that all of the information is available on the archives linked from curriculum pages.

Gay Timken commend the teacher education faculty. It is timely and, while we may not like everything about it, doing good teacher education is not easy and it is good to be examining how we can get it done
Bob Hautala asked when Education would begin advising pre-education students.
Mark Girod responded that they have already began transferring the advising pre-education students from the advising center.
Students have to meet certain indicators (4 of 5) then are transferred to an education advisor.

Pete Poston inquired about the decrease in credits in science.
Mark Girod explained that with the ability to double-dip with the LACCs, it is essentially a wash.

Dean Braa asked if implementing lower level courses and advising will help with the pipeline attrition.
Mark responded that, yes, that is the hope.

Program Proposal: Early Childhood Only Education, Mark Girod (document D, E, & F)
Early childhood only had 6 majors last year. Teacher education is trying to encourage these students to move toward the early childhood/elementary degree.


Program Proposal: Early Childhood/Elementary Education, Mark Girod (document D, E, & G)
This represents 80% of their students. To earn this degree, they currently have to complete 194-99 credits with no electives.
The proposal will change this to 187-190 credit hours, including some elective credits built in.
Most of the students (98%) earn BS degrees. This change allows a little room for language credits in hopes of promoting more bilingualism in our emerging teachers.

Details are on page 55. Course proposals and syllabi are not included in packet.

Program Proposal: Elementary/Middle Education, Mark Girod (document D, E, & H)

Program Proposal: Honors Program, Bob Hautala & Gavin Keulks (document I & J)
This proposal is redistributing credits. Six credits are being moved around to create an honors elective category.
The process began in 2008 and the proposal has been distributed widely.
They are trying to make curriculum a little more flexible for students and to allow programs that are not part of the established curriculum to offer courses within the program.
The six credits are a result of a reduction of 3 credits in philosophy and reflect a change in credit hours (5 to 4) in the sciences.

Mark Perlman
Objects to the fact that it is being dealt with today. Thinks it should have gone through the normal curriculum process.

Gavin Keulks responded that this has been through a process. The result of which determined that all senate committees are on the same level. All curricular experts have been in favor of treating them as a parallel committee to graduate committee.

Also, the curriculum committee voted unanimously that this was the correct process.

Mark Perlman argued that the idea that this was presented to the divisions, is false, saying that the idea was floated, but never revisited.

Bob Hautala reminded him of an email sent to all faculty containing the proposals.
Gavin Keulks also commented that after this meeting, divisions would have the opportunity to discuss the proposal.

Susan Daniel indicated that she feels that [the philosophy faculty] have not had the opportunity to present their viewpoint, despite requesting it. She feels as though this is parallel to the education proposals, where decisions were made without collaboration.

Gavin responded that Carol Harding put the honors program on the [humanities division meeting] agenda several times last fall and that the Humanities comments were delivered by a Philosophy faculty member.

Bob also pointed that move from 9 to 6 is a return to what the philosophy credit hours were in 1995.

Gavin added that faculty senate voted on the change to six credits and that, without faculty senate approval, it has moved back up.

He continued that philosophy is virtually absent from other honors programs in the state. It is a point of distinction in our program.

Susan said that she still doesn't feel as though she is being heard and would like it to be discussed in an open forum. Her opposition is not to this proposal, it is to the fact that it was not discussed.

President Schmidt reminded the senate that there are 2 weeks until this comes back as old business. She recommends that Carol Harding be contacted about discussing this between now and then.

She also informed the senate Robert's Rules will be followed for the discussion of this when this appears in old business and asked senators to prepare a statement if they plan to say something on the topic.

Gavin recommended reading supporting materials, which contains rationales for decisions. He does not feel that the identity of the honors program is changed with this. Honors programs are unique in that they are not a program with regular faculty.

At this point there was one more item of new business, which needed to be introduced. President Schmidt asked for a motion to extend the meeting.
Joel Alexander moved to extend the meeting. Scott Beaver seconded.

Motion passes unanimously.

Linda Stonecipher presented a memo requesting a change in the graduate program admission policy.
Currently our policy says to be admitted a student must have a 4-year baccalaureate.
Most European students complete a 3 year degree, which is agreed upon under the Bologna accord.
This means that right now students from Europe and African can't enroll in our programs.
The graduate committee voted to approve 3 year degrees from countries that align with the Bologna Accord and is asking the senate to do the same.
The institute for international education did a survey of graduate schools in 2008. Only 15% of respondents don't accept bologna degrees.
Bologna students are the 3rd most important source of students to the US and we are currently losing out on those.

VI COMMITTEE REPORTS
none

VII INTERINSTITUTIONAL FACULTY SENATE REPORT
none

VIII SUSTAINABILITY THEME
none

IX ADJOURNMENT
5:04pm

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Camila published on March 4, 2010 1:55 PM.

Minutes 9 February 2010 was the previous entry in this blog.

Draft Minutes 9 March 2010 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.