Provost's Council Minutes (1/22/13)

Provost’s Council
January 22, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Tim Bowen, Scott Britten, Scott Harvey, Lynn Lewis, Amoena Norcross, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

Members Absent:      Dan Holland
Others Present:         
Length of Meeting:   2.5 hours
Topics Discussed:

The Minutes of the January 8, 2013 meeting were approved, as presented.

 

Reporting for the matriculation group, Brian Swords briefly discussed Program Fit.  He mentioned that having criteria for programs in place on the front end would help counselors identify in which programs students may be the most successful.  Brian alerted the deans that they would be receiving forms for input on identifying the program criteria.  The program fit criteria would be another component of a more realistic assessment model being developed.  The group has contacted Stephanie Winkler to be certain that we are ADA compliant. 

A revised admissions process would assign a generalist counselor to a student for the entire admissions process, which could include registration.  The student would have only one contact throughout the process.  The student will choose a major on the application, and the generalist will investigate the student’s fit for the program as part of a meeting with the student.  Brian noted that this is still a work in progress, and needs input from the program level.  The request for input will be sent to the deans in the next few weeks.

 

The Curriculum Committee Charter was discussed.  Issues included the following.

·         To what purpose is the Curriculum Committee reviewing a change?

·         The Committee must be aware of how a proposal may impact other areas. 

·         What do we want the Curriculum Committee to do? For SACS, all we need is a process to review curriculum.  It does not have to be this process. 

·         WIDS to Web can take care of many issues associated with communication and process flow.

·         The originator of the proposal needs to be able to attend the meeting.

·         Accrediting review should be done by the deans.

 

After the discussion, it was agreed that a subgroup would be formed to redress the charter and bring it back to Provost’s Council.  Lynn, Scott H. and Sarah are the group’s members.

 

Tim Bowen led the discussion on Weekend College proposal, and distributed a handout to the group.  He is bringing the work of the Project Charter Team and Project Board to the Provost’s Council for discussion before moving forward.  After review and research, the Team saw the need for expanded weekend scheduling, but not a stand-alone program.  CRJ and ECD were suggested as pilot programs because of the courses that are common to both programs.  The proposal suggests offering all courses in a hybrid format to reduce seat time and to build a Saturday schedule.  Points from the discussion include:

·         ENG 155, PSY 120 and SOC 101 are in online format, but not hybrid format.

·         Is this too aggressive for fall?
·         General education courses could be offered as a block.
·         Is it better to identify student who express a need or desire to attend in the proposed format and restrict it to a cohort?
·         We can hold seats based on major, and then allow to fill with other students. 
·         Start smaller and end the day by 2:30.

 

It was noted that weekend college would be beneficial for students who work full time and do not have access to current formats.  Few services would be available for weekend students, and we may need to address that issue later.  Hopefully a cohort would develop, but, as proposed, weekend college is not cohort specific.  Being open to all students creates fewer SACS issues. 

Other considerations include:

·         How should the courses be offered – 14 or 7 weeks? Hybrid?

·         What populations are we targeting and what are their characteristics?
·         Seven week courses may be more attractive to faculty. 

Tim will take these questions back to the Project Team and Project Board for review and consideration.

Galen led the group in a strategic plan activity. The group discussed the definition of “institutionalized” and agreed that the focus should be on activities; not institutionalizing plans.  The group discussed most activities and suggested revised completion dates for the 2013 – 2014 plan.  Galen will present the plan at the February 4 Commission meeting.

 

1.       Retention Plan Institutionalized

 

Noting that a plan cannot be institutionalized, the group decided to import year 1 activities from the Retention Plan the PAC vetted late last year.

 

2.       Matriculation Plan Institutionalized

 

Noting the intent to implement particular activities/initiatives, the group recommended to add the initiatives to be completed by the end of FY 14.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Thursday, February 7, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 245