Provost Council Minutes (6/25/13)

Provost’s Council
June 25, 2013
2:00 pm.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

 

Members Present:     Dan Averette, Tim Bowen, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Robin McFall, Amoena Norcross

Members Absent:      Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Sarah Shumpert, Todd Crisp-Simons, Brian Swords

Others Present:          Deborah Brock, Sarah Dowd, Tom Lawrence, Karrie Moore, Gregg Stapleton

      

Length of Meeting:   2.0 hours

 

Topics Discussed:

 

The minutes of the June 7, 2013 meeting were approved as presented.  Galen mentioned the addition of the Key Talking Points to the agenda and the minutes.

 

Amoena Norcross led the discussion on the Financial Aid/Academic Affairs Workgroup Recommendations.  The members of the workgroup, several of whom were in attendance, were Amoena Norcross, Karrie Moore, Sarah Dowd, Scott Harvey, Todd Crisp-Simons, and Rob Massey.  Amoena reviewed each of the documents that were sent via e-mail to Provost’s Council prior to the meeting.  The document noting the FA/AA Workgroup’s deliverables and recommendations is attached.  The following were noted.

 

·         To create consistent communication, keep the FA and AA status letters separate.  The group approved of the FA and AA status letters with minor revisions.  Anne will work Scott Harvey to update some fields in the AA letters.

 

·         The Academic Improvement Plan must be in place in order for the student to appeal.  The advisor and student agree on the plan, and the advisor documents the agreement in DegreeWorks.  A Financial Aid committee reviews the appeal.  The student is on warning for one semester, and will have the entire semester to address any issues.  There are two points in the process where the student acknowledges and agrees with the plan.

 

·         There was discussion on advisors’ attendance at a joint FA/AA workshop.  The group agreed that the workshop will be mandatory for anyone with advising responsibilities, and agreed to change the wording of recommendation number three to “must.” 

 

·         Placing multiple workshop sessions, closer to the time when the information is used will be most beneficial, perhaps between the beginning of the semester and fall advising.  With so much information, the workshops will need to be outcome driven.  Deborah Brock will work with Rob Massey and Karrie Moore to facilitate these sessions.

 

·         The group agreed that a workgroup or project charter team should be created to investigate enrollment limits based on academic standing, to include a review of limits to summer credit hours.  Implementation may be a challenge, since students may have to be removed from courses for which they have already registered. 

 

There will be a grace period for fall semester 2013, as the college makes the change to the institutional GPA.  With this in mind, the group agreed to implement these changes in the spring for the next summer/fall registration.

 

Amoena commended the group for a lot of good work, done quickly.

 

Deborah Brock discussed Service Learning and distributed two handouts, New Service Learning Project Development and Implementation Opportunity and New Service Learning Project Faculty Availability Form.   In reviewing the handouts, Deborah noted the definition of service learning and how it ties into faculty development.  She also noted that Kate Williams helped with this project and developed a service learning data base, presented concepts, and hosted a webinar.  Based on the data collected, students overwhelmingly agreed that service learning was beneficial to them and that the college should have more of it.  In order to do that, Kate found that faculty needed time to develop and time to implement.  Funding from several sources may be available to help with these faculty needs.  The goal is to have funding for one faculty project from each of the four credit divisions.

 

The following were noted:

 

The group agreed that the July 26 proposal deadline would be enough time to find replacement faculty. 

 

The service learning must be embedded in the curriculum.  It would require the student to reflect, analyze, and produce some kind of product. 

 

If the instructor is implementing (teaching) the course, is spring released time necessary?  Review the proposal at the end of fall to determine if spring released time is necessary. 

 

Service learning classes will be given an attribute in Banner so that students and advisors know what they are signing up for and what is involved/required for the class.

 

The service learning evaluation can be whatever works best for the class. 

 

Consider a big project, such as a Habitat for Humanity build, in which a student could participate based on interest.  One concern would be that the activity would not be tied to a student learning outcome.

 

Taking these items into consideration, Deborah will move forward with this initiative.

 

The Student Retention agenda item was postponed and will be addressed at a later meeting.

 

Under Announcements, Scott Harvey mentioned the Strategic Scheduling tool.  This can be used as an audit to determine what students need to graduate and to project out the number of courses and sections needed.  He also noted that College Scheduler should be up in about three weeks.  College Scheduler is helpful because students can access it and it will show student interest. 

 

Lynn Lewis noted that she and her faculty are actively meeting to prepare for the LPN site visit in January.  For the first time, the site visit will not take place at the Pendleton campus.  They are intent on making resources available to students, and trying to teach students how to find them. 

 

Amoena noted that this was her last meeting as Faculty Senate President.  Todd Crisp-Simons will take over in July.  She appreciated the opportunity to represent Faculty Senate on the Provost’s Council. 

 

Dan Averette reported that the EIT division is in the process of closing the MTT program and implementing the new CNC program.  The CNC implementation target is fall.  Advisors are working with the MTT students to try to determine, based on time remaining in the MTT program, if a move to the CNC program would be beneficial to the student.  There may be a competency issue but that could be resolved with a bridge course. 

 

Key Talking Points:

 

1.      Service Learning Overview -  to provide faculty development to improve active and collaborative learning in the classroom.

 

2.      FA/AA Workgroup findings which addressed:

a.       Communication issues

b.      Level of faculty understanding of FA

c.       Action Item – Workgroup or project team to address enrollment limits based on academic standing.

 

3.      New tools – Strategic Scheduling and College Scheduler

 

4.      CHE – has approved the new CNC Programming & Operations Degree.  MTT is in the process of developing a sunset plan.  Tri-County is the only college in the state to offer this degree.

 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, July 9, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 245

 

FA/AA Workgroup Recommendations                                                     June 17, 2013

 

FINANCIAL AID/ACADEMIC AFFAIRS WORKGROUP

Deliverables:

 

1. Determine faculty’s responsibility to understand FA standing and determine depth of information to be communicated to advisees/students.

 

2. Determine role of advising to assist students in understanding FA (not training of advisors, only the advisor’s role).

 

3. Determine elements needed in advisor training for 2. above.

 

4. Create consistent communication to students from FA & AA.

 

5. Determine/review basics of FA appeals process.

 

6. Determine enrollment restrictions for students who fall below Standards of Academic Progress.

 

Workgroup Recommendations:

1. FA & AA should continue, independently of each other, to notify students falling below satisfactory academic standards.  Revised FA & AA letters are attached.  Our rationale for FA and AA independently notifying students of their status is as follows:

 

• In addition to the AA requirement that students maintain a minimum institutional 2.0 GPA, FA also requires an additional criterion pertaining to an institutional Pass Rate (Hours Passed/Hours Attempted).
• FA has 3 levels of standing (Good, Warning, and Suspension); AA has 4 levels of standing (Good, Warning, Probation, Suspension).

 

2. The Academic Improvement Plan referenced in the FA Warning letter should be documented by the student’s advisor in DegreeWorks. FA will then access this plan if the student is placed on FA Suspension and files an appeal.  If an Academic Improvement Plan is not documented in DegreeWorks (i.e., the student does not meet with his advisor and determine an Academic Improvement Plan or the advisor does not record the plan in DegreeWorks), the student will be unable to file an appeal if placed on FA Suspension.

 

3. Advisors should attend a workshop jointly developed and presented by FA and AA.  The workshop should address the following topics:

 

• AA vs. FA Student Academic Progress Levels
• AA vs. FA Communication of Academic Progress Levels to Students
• FA Federal Regulations vs. TCTC Policy
• Academic Improvement Plan Development and Documentation
• FA Appeal Process
• Web Snapshots

 

Workshop presentations will be held during the week of Aug. 12, 2013.

 

4. A workgroup/project charter should be created to further investigate enrollment limits based on academic standing.  See attached Enrollment Limit Data chart.  An additional charge for this team should include reviewing credit enrollment limits during summer terms. Currently, a student may enroll in 15 credit hours (AS and BPS students) or 18 hours (HE and EIT students) during any combination of summer terms without requiring an advisor and dean to approve a Request to Exceed Maximum Credit Hour Load form.

 

Provost Council Minutes (6/7/13)

Provost’s Council
June 7, 2013
10:00 a.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248
 

Members Present:     Dan Averette, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Robin McFall, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

Members Absent:      Amanda Blanton, Todd Crisp-Simons, Amoena Norcross

Others Present:          Gayle Arries

         
Length of Meeting:   2.25 hours

Topics Discussed:

The minutes of the May 28, 2013 meeting were approved.

Galen distributed and discussed the handout Ground Rules for an Effective Meeting.  One of the issues raised in the strategic plan group meetings was communicating more effectively, and this may be a way to help that happen with the Provost’s Council.

Galen discussed Building Safety Coordinators.  The names of the coordinators are due to Mike McComas on June 7.  Galen asked the members of the group to send the names to Anne.  Anne will compile the list and send it to Mike on June 7. 

The Pre-Requisite Workgroup has not had time to meet and will update Provost’s Council at a later meeting.

 

Under Academic Integrity, Galen reported that in order to provide consistent sanctions, the English Department prepared a rubric to address the different levels of plagiarism.  Tying this in with the Student Code of Conduct, and with the college values of integrity, ethical conduct, and community, Galen asked the members of the group for their thoughts on instituting an honor code.  As a whole, the group agreed with this idea noting that it would be in line with key insights from the strategic plan sessions by stressing student and employee responsibility and accountability.  As an action item, Dan Holland will convene a group to work on the concept of an honor code.  The workgroup will deal with such things as the criteria for the code, logistics, and how to educate students. 

 

Galen discussed the strategic initiative to define the transformative student experience, and noted that he would like to commission a project team to work on this initiative.  Using various tools, including the college values, collaborative input, and student input, the team would determine a key set of elements to help with this definition.  The group brainstormed on the makeup of the team, and suggested that the following areas/individuals be considered:

 

·         Learning Communities

·         Transition to College

·         Student Development

·         Credit Deans

·         Intake and Success Coach

·         Community Campuses

·         CCE  (stackable credentials)

·         Kevin Steele (interaction with students and co-curricular activities)

·         Butch Merritt

·         Rob Massey or Caroline Williams.

 

Galen will convene the group.  By October, using consensus workshops, he hopes that the elements will be defined and in place. 

 

Galen mentioned a letter from the Department of Natural Resources that mentioned the DNR sites, its resources and its outdoor programs, and encouraged institutions to work with the DNR.  Anne will scan the letter and send it to the members of the group. 

 

Galen noted that the Early Alert/Measure of Student Progress meeting on June 13 will be an overview of individuals’ responsibilities, how the process will work, and what we need to do to achieve this outcome. 

 

Galen reported that the Commission approved the budget at its June 4 meeting.  The budget should be loaded into Banner by the third week of June. 

 

Under Announcements, Scott Harvey noted that, while he has not had any requests for changes from faculty, the college continues to look for ways to improve the attendance process.  A workgroup will convene to investigate any issues.  Since we have determined that attendance is crucial for student success, the college needs to determine how the procedure translates into our practices. 

 

Scott distributed a comparative summary of course projections and noted that it could be used to strategically recruit students.  He will send out another summary in July.  Scott also reported that currently, we have 97 Bridge students who have graduated with the University Studies certificate.  We may have over 200 by the end of the summer. 

 

Galen reviewed a PowerPoint presentation of key performance indicators.   The presentation, prepared by Chris Marino, gives a picture of what the indicators look like based on cohort and snap shot metrics. This important data allows the college to ask questions about improvements, while showing the progress its making in other areas.

 

Dan Holland noted that there seems to be confusion about the way faculty handle a student absence because of a college-sanctioned activity.  It was noted that with the new attendance policy, the absence may not matter if it does not constitute missing two weeks.  The attendance system cannot designate a “no class” day.  The default is absent, which will count against the student.  The college may need to review the process and the definitions, consider a better communication plan, and provide a resource center with frequently asked questions. 

 

Dan expressed the concern that the college needs a process to communicate and to deal with students who are a threat to self and others.  Dan, Croslena Johnson, and Mike McComas will work on this procedure and bring it to a Deans’ meeting. 

 

Lynn was pleased to announce that the Easley Campus and Easley Baptist Hospital are looking for ways to be more collaborative.  Sharing strategic planning initiatives and agency resources would be beneficial to both institutions.

 

Brian Swords discussed the in-take process and noted that he has been very pleased with the implementation.  Because of the advising process, about 70% of students’ majors have been changed.  This is sometimes a difficult discussion to have with students, but feedback from them has been overwhelmingly positive. 

 

Gayle Arries noted that TV commercials will start next week on WYFF and WSPA.  The big market push has not started yet, so it will be interesting to see how this affects enrollment.

 

Key Talking Points:

 

1.      Transformative Student Experience Project Team to determine focus and goal.

 

2.      Academic Integrity Incident Report workgroup to address how to teach students about the Student Code.

 

3.      Attendance workgroup to address procedural issues.

 

4.      Retention efforts – pay attention to student learning in the classroom.

 

5.      Budget update.

 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, June 25, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 248

Provost Council Minutes (5/28/13)

Provost’s Council
May 28, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

 

Members Present:     Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Tim Bowen, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Robin McFall, Amoena Norcross, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

 

Members Absent:      Doug Allen

Others Present:          Todd Crisp-Simons, Stan Compton, Cara Hamilton, Chris Marino, Mike McComas, Sandra McGee

           

Length of Meeting:   2.25 hours

 

Topics Discussed:

The minutes of the May 14 meeting were approved.

Galen introduced the additional attendees and welcomed them to the meeting.

Mike McComas gave Campus Safety overview.  His first weeks at the college have been spent identifying gaps and needs in our safety plan.  He noted the following:

 

·         Lack of an emergency alert system

·         Possibly arming our security personnel

·         Lack of communication between buildings

·         Antiquated procedures and response plans.

 

Mike is beginning to address these issues with these intiatives.

 

·         Training and exercises with the Anderson Emergency Response office.  College employees will be identified to participate in this training.  Training would be ongoing, most likely once a month for two hours.  He stressed that everyone on every campus is responsible for safety.

·         Mike would like for buildings to require card key access for entry.  We need locks on all doors in case a lock down is necessary. 

 

·         He suggested using a flip chart type format for the Emergency Response Plan and have one in every classroom. 

 

To address building needs, Mike is revising evacuation plans, which will include plans for  inclement weather evacuation, shelter-in-place and lock down plans.  He would like to create a safety team for each building to include a Safety Coordinator for each building and a Team Leader for each floor.  Once these individuals are identified, they will undergo training.  The community campuses will need a building coordinator, but, based on the nature of the community campuses, the training may be somewhat different.  It was noted that faculty have safety procedures in their syllabi and review them at the beginning of each semester, but it was suggested that they be placed on Blackboard as well.

 

Mike noted that campus safety is a never-ending process.  It will never be perfect.  He stressed the need for continuous training and the ability to adjust according to each situation.  He welcomes ideas and suggestions and asked the group to send any thoughts to him.

 

To conclude this agenda item, Galen recommended the following.
 

·         To stress the importance of campus safety, include Safety under the Performance Characteristics of the EPMS and FPMS documents.  Have a conversation with direct reports about safety during the Planning Stage document process

 

·         Identify Safety Coordinators and Team/Floor Leaders by next Tuesday, June 4.  Mike will send a description of the duties for each so that employees are aware of the responsibilities. 

·         Lynn noted the available resources, both equipment and personnel, in the Health Education Division.

 

·         Mike will work to create partnerships and mutual aid agreements with counties and agencies so that the nearest agency can respond to a situation.

 

Chris Marino discussed Academic Program Review and reminded that group that this is a work in progress.  Galen provided an overview and the background for the review.  He noted that Institutional Effectiveness created the process using best practices, and faculty created the elements comprising the content.  Chris noted that the college needs to consider its product (education) and deliver the best product possible.  Academic Program Review provides the feedback necessary to position the college for success in the future. 

 

Chris reviewed the approach with the group.  The credit deans look at the quality of the program review.  Individually and as a group, Provost’s Council members review at the next level and, with the use of a rubric, assess the Academic Program Review Action Plan.   At the next level, the three Provost’s Council teams and program coordinators will report on the Action Plan component.   

Chris asked the group to make notes about the process as well, and welcomed insights to issues that may need to be addressed.  As a work in progress, we will learn from the process, and he stressed that the goal of the process is to improve the program to better the product. 

 

After a brief discussion, Galen will consider alternate dates for the three teams to report, and confirm with the members of the group. 

 

Galen noted that this process allows faculty to drive continuous improvement institution-wide.  Since all areas are working together it sends a strong institutional message. 

 

The group agreed to have Debbie Thrasher, from the Health Education Division, serve as the additional Academic Affairs representative on the Staff Advisory Board. 

 

Robin McFall and Scott Harvey discussed pre-requisites.  They reported that determining which students do not have the necessary pre-requisite and dropping them from class is a very time consuming, manual process.  The manual process creates financial aid issues for students, as well as a backlog of waitlisted student.  After further discussion, Tim Bowen moved that the process for dropping students who do not have the appropriate pre-requisites be automated.  Lynn Lewis seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.  Scott and Robin will move forward as appropriate. 

 

Robin and Scott next discussed pre-requisites for transient students.  Currently, we have an inconsistent process that may not provide proof that the student completed the pre-requisite.  After a brief discussion, it was agreed that a workgroup comprised of Scott, Robin, and Jackie Blakley will develop a college procedure.  They will present it for approval at a later meeting.

 

Galen noted the need for a Distance Education Peer Group member.  The group’s focus and functionality were discussed.  The members of the Provost Council wanted to know if a college representative to this group is mandatory.  Galen will research that question.  If so, Brian Swords has agreed to be the college’s representative. 

 

Under Announcements, Dan Holland mentioned the 20/20 mentoring program.  T-shirts announcing the program were being distributed and employees were encouraged to wear them on Friday, May 31.

 

Sandra McGee thanked the group for her welcome to the college and the help and support she has received as she makes this transition.

 

Brian reported that the matriculation pilot is going well.  Based on discussions about program fit, about 50% of students in the pilot have changed majors.  This can be a difficult discussion to have with students, but the feedback from students has been very positive. 

 

Scott announced that he has gotten approval to purchase College Scheduler, which will be a huge benefit for the college, and a significant improvement in scheduling.

 

Lynn Lewis asked Cara Hamilton to look into the possibility of the college having an affiliation with a travel agency to help with travel needs, at the discretion of the employee. 

 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Friday, June 7, at 10:00 a.m., in RH 245