| Policy Committee | |
|
Issues, input and comments can be sent to the Policy Committee or can be communicated to any
|
Minutes of the Policy Committee 2000 - 2001December 5, 2001 | November 28, 2001 | November 7, 2001 | October 31, 2001
Present: King, Knudsen, Phelps, Strong, Trahan Bruce King began the meeting by outlining the Policy Committee's previous deliberations concerning its proposed new attendance policy. He reviewed the various findings that led to the committee's decision to support a change in the faculty handbook that would require faculty members to take attendance in 1000 and 2000 level courses. Stephany Lyman asked why 3000 and 4000 level courses wouldn't be included, and Russ Trahan responded that it was a compromise that the committee had reached in hopes of gaining more faculty support particularly from those who feel that by taking attendance, we are not treating students like adults. Curtis Outlaw asked what the consequences would be for students who don't attend class, and King pointed out that the Policy Committee is not telling faculty members what consequences there should be or how to implement the policy. Research shows that taking attendance makes a difference even if there are no consequences. Lyman pointed out that if faculty members have an attendance policy with consequences on their syllabus, they can enforce it. She also said that if we don't expect our students to attend, it implies to students that they can get the same education from a book that they can get from a teacher. Bill Greene said that the poor results students receive by not attending class are a way of teaching them consequences. Denise Strong responded that students at UNO don't understand the causal chain implicit in such a view. Greene said that if that was true it's because the consequences are too mild, that you can't be an adult without learning that there are consequences. Strong observed that you need a support structure to teach consequences. Successful people have structures that support them until they internalize the message. Lyman said that it is better for students to be forewarned about the consequences of their actions. Strong said that too often students make decisions that make sense to them without the model of students who've already navigated the system. After some discussion of changes in our society since the late fifties, Outlaw observed that one consequence of requiring attendance is disruptive students. Greene observed that a class doesn't fall apart if 2 or 3 students don't show up and that students who miss class can simply get the notes from a classmate. Lyman responded that the majority of students are at UNO for a reason and if 3 people don't show up it affects her class. She also questioned whether it was fair for students to be put in the position of having to share their notes. Strong observed that professional socialization is part of what we do in some courses and that students need to be in class to experience it. James Knudsen stated that if a student misses a class, he or she has missed something important that can't be quantified or duplicated. Strong said that we must respect differences in faculty approaches to taking attendance, that we can't make people do it. Trahan responded that faculty must do it if it's required, just as they are required to do evaluations in every class. Outlaw contended that mathematics faculty won't want to take attendance beyond the 1000 level, that it is troublesome to keep such records. King reminded everyone of the fact that Title IV makes it necessary that we keep attendance records for every class. While the Policy Committee supports requiring attendance on pedagogical grounds, the bottom line is that we need to be doing it. King went on to talk about bringing the proposal to the Senate. He said that Jeffrey Ehrenreich had suggested to him that things will go more smoothly if we answer questions about implementation before the meeting. The committee generally concurred with this, and King said that he would ask Paradise to appoint the implementation committee right away so that we can answer any questions that come to the floor at the senate meeting. Having completed its discussion of the attendance policy for the time being, the committee then turned to new business. Following up on Trahan's report (11/14) on the meeting of the Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates where the Commissioner of Higher Education, T. Joe Savoie, made discouraging comments about the universities in the state ever reaching !00% formula funding, Strong asked what UNO could do as an institution to become fully funded. She pointed out that the end of “separate but equal” back in the 1950's was part of a 30 year strategy for demolishing segregation in this country. We need a long range plan to get this funding and be prepared to take it in small steps. Strong said that we have too much brain power at UNO to give up on this funding. King called our situation “learned helplessness” and stated that he is a firm believer that we are never going to be rewarded. Other regional schools in the state have voting blocks behind them whereas the legislators in our area have divided allegiances. Trahan agreed with Strong that it's time to do something and stated that something is already being done. BHEC members are going to visit other campuses in hopes of building up a constituency. We need to get the governor, his right hand man, college leaders, and business people to work on this and that it's a 10 year plan. King re-emphasized the need to get all of the local politicians together in support of UNO. The meeting adjourned with Trahan lamenting, to the general agreement of the committee, the fact that Louisiana “aspires to mediocracy.” Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan The committee met with Provost Paradise. Bruce King began the meeting by reviewing the Policy Committee's work so far this semester on prerequisites and the attendance policy. At the committee's request, departments across the university are now reviewing their prerequisites, and the committee plans to bring the proposal on taking attendance to the senate in January. The committee will be meeting with interested senate members next week in order to get their input on this issue. The committee then discussed the following issues with the provost: methods of taking attendance in large classes, what consequences, if any, faculty would face if a required attendance taking policy were implemented, and how faculty attendance taking could be verified. Diana Hulse-Killacky expressed her concern that our meeting with senate members will get bogged down with details of how to implement the policy. Denise Strong observed that the Policy Committee is presenting a recommendation. We're not saying how it should be implemented or what the consequences would be. Russell Trahan explained to Provost Paradise that what we are proposing is a change in the faculty handbook. Paradise concurred that this was the way to go, and King made the point that if the taking attendance policy is on the books, then it can be enforced. Provost Paradise said that if the handbook change is approved, he will name an implementation group of deans and senators to work out the details. Such a group would include faculty in 1000 and 2000 level courses. As the meeting ended (after half an hour due to a room scheduling conflict), Paradise endorsed the Policy Committee plan and Connie Phelps proposed and received approval for replacing Marjorie McKenzie, formerly of the library, on the Freshman Affairs and Remediation Committee with Lora Amsberryaugier of the library. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan The Policy Committee met with Chancellor O'Brien. We discussed the committee's work with prerequisites and faculty attendance taking, and the Chancellor announced coming changes in the university's logo and slogan. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan The meeting began with Bruce King's announcement that Chancellor O'Brien would be unable to meet with us due to an impending trip. Connie Phelps said that Sybil Boudreaux had asked her about electing Hearings Pool members and this raised the issue of other unfilled committee positions. Diana Hulse-Killacky stated that the Courses and Curriculum Committee needs a C and I representative and nominated Judith Kieff. The committee agreed to send her name forward. Phelps said that a librarian was needed on the Faculty Council Committee on the Library and that Marie Morgan will replace Selina Wang. King then distributed copies of the cover letter Provost Paradise wrote for the memo on prerequisites written by the Policy Committee. He mentioned that Carl Malmgren, chair of the Courses and Curriculum(?) Committee wanted February 1st to the be deadline for changes to the catalogue and that our deadline of February 15th for reports on prerequisites would be a problem. He said that he would call Malmgren and try to work something out. The committee then returned to its discussion of requiring that faculty take attendance. The committee once again unanimously agreed that taking attendance should be mandatory at the 1000-2000 level and recommended at the upper levels. The committee then turned to discussing the implementation of this policy. King referred the committee to the language about attendance in the Faculty Handbook that says, “Faculty members are urged to take attendance, especially in lower level courses and at the beginning of a semester.” The committee focused on the word “urged” and concluded that taking attendance needs to be “required.” This led to a discussion of how departments will monitory whether this policy is being carried out. Russ Trahan's suggestion from several meetings ago that students be asked whether their instructor took attendance as part of the end of semester evaluation forms was made again. Attendance taking itself, particularly in large sections, could be handled through seating charts are sign up sheets. Departments would have to find a way to confirm that attendance was being taken. Joe Razek wondered how we could tell department chairs what to do. Denise Strong recommended that we institute the policy with plans to do a two year study that looks at whether faculty complied and how departments determined if attendance was being taken. Certain 1000 and 2000 level classes could be tracked to evaluate the success of the policy change. We would first look for voluntary compliance. Hulse-Killacky noted that in the field of counseling where certification requires thorough documentation, the documentation is randomly checked. We could institute such a random method of checking for compliance with the attendance taking requirement. Trahan responded that in his experience self policing systems don't work. King clarified that it is not the Policy Committee's position to tell the departments how to implement the attendance policy or how to monitor it. We need to make a recommendation for what the consequences of not taking attendance will be. He suggested that unless faculty members can prove they've taken attendance they shouldn't be able to receive more than an average raise. Trahan pointed out that faculty are required to do evaluations and that if you don't you can be given a reprimand and if you receive a reprimand it will make you ineligible for raises. King said that he was “easily persuaded by this more hardline approach.” Strong stated that she'd rather have the policy be part of a description of the above average teaching required for pay raises, that there would be wording something along the lines of “above average teaching includes taking attendance, taking evaluations . . .” Trahan pointed out that it should be up to Academic Affairs that the policy is being followed. King said that we need to have the Senate pass this policy and we should make sure that it is not referred to another committee. Next the committee discussed various means that could be used to take attendance in large sections. The committee looked at using graduate assistants, seating charts, sign up sheets, a card swipe method, and a toll tag method involving a chip that could be embedded in students' i.d. cards. The “toll tag” method seemed the most promising of the lot. Trahan suggested that we recommend to Academic Affairs that they find some kind of electronic device. King made the point that regardless of the cost of the attendance keeping technology, increased retention will pay for it. The meeting ended with committee members in agreement that implementation of the attendance policy could be carried out. King requested that Knudsen draw up a proposal for changing the wording in the Faculty Handbook. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killackey, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan Bruce King began the meeting by announcing that the Policy Committee would meet with Chancellor O'Brien next week. After a brief discussion of several issues involving the Grievance Review Committee, the Policy Committee then turned its attention to discussing the possibility of establishing a university-wide attendance policy. King reminded the committee that in his research on the subject he'd discovered that every committee that has considered the attendance issue has come to the conclusion that taking attendance should be required. At the present time, it is only listed as a recommendation in the faculty handbook. King pointed out that in his own classes, the number one thing that correlated with grades was attendance. Other research has also supported this contention and it is clear that taking attendance can aid in retaining students. King asked the representatives of each college to report on their colleges' responses to the idea of required attendance taking. King reported that a majority of Science faculty, responding to a poll, said that they were opposed to the idea. Diana Hulse-Killackey noted that a majority of the Education faculty, responding to poll, said that they took attendance and favored that it be required. James Knudsen reported that faculty in the College of Liberal Arts are expected to take attendance and that faculty feel that regular attendance is crucial to the effectiveness of their teaching. Denise Strong stated that CUPA supports required attendance on the undergraduate level. Connie Phelps reported that attendance taking is not particularly an issue in the library. Russell Trahan said that faculty in the College of Engineering felt that attendance taking at the 1 and 2000 levels was appropriate but that there was some resistance at the 3000 and above levels where some faculty felt that to take attendance was to not treat students as adults. Knudsen asked whether we wouldn't be treating students like adults simply by establishing attendance rules and having consequences for violating them. King observed that while enrollment may be up overall, when you look at the number of students left in our classes at the end of the semester it closely corresponds to our funding level. If we require students to students attend, then the drop rate will decline. Trahan pointed out that in the future funding might be tied to retaining students. Joe Razek reported that over a third of the respondents to a survey he took in the College of Business Administration supported the idea of requiring attendance taking at the 1000-2000 level. Less than a third were opposed to the idea with the rest “indifferent” or not responding. He also reported receiving a variety of comments ranging from “it sends the wrong message, one that UNO students are not adult learners” to “If we feel we have anything to offer, we should want the students to absorb it. Anything that offers incentive for the student to attend would be a step in the right direction.” King said that there were three major issues:
Razek asked whether we are thinking about requiring that attendance be taken at all levels. King responded that he initially hadn't been thinking of it on the graduate level and that he's leaning toward requiring it on the 1000 or 2000 level. Ed Johnson observed that using the argument that “this isn't high school, let them fail” isn't helping with UNO's retention/graduation rate problems. We need to be asking ourselves whether we're providing students with the right kind of service in order to keep them. Everyone needs to assist in retention efforts. King then asked committee members to make recommendations. The committee unanimously endorsed the idea of making attendance taking mandatory at the 1000 and 2000 levels. Razek said he supported the move because the federal government is cracking down on students who have loans and require attendance reports. He also noted that attendance taking is one way of demonstrating to students that the faculty care whether or not they attend and will help them feel less alienated. Strong suggested that we need to provide faculty members with a convincing rationale for proposing required attendance. She wondered if we could find out why previous recommendations were never followed. Knudsen supported Strong's call for writing a rationale that would be presented to the faculty. Hulse-Killackey agreed with Strong's observation that attending class is a “life skill” that our students need, one they will certainly require in the work world. King closed the meeting by announcing that the committee would take up the subject of taking attendance again in two weeks. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killackey, King, Knudsen, Razek, Strong, Trahan Absent: Phelps Working from a draft composed at its meeting the previous week and then revised via e-mail, the committee continued its discussion of the letter it plans to send department chairs regarding evaluating pre-requisites. Bruce King asked whether the letter was likely to elicit the kind of serious reconsideration of prerequisites that the committee is after. He said that it was important that we define what a prerequisite is and should make sure that departments distinguish between prerequisites and recommendations. Diana Hulse-Killackey observed that the committee shouldn't be perceived as pushing the departments, but rather attempting gain their full participation in the evaluation process. Chris Flug proposed an addition to the letter that would make it clear that we were looking for new prerequisites in addition to dropping unnecessary ones. Some members expressed concern that we will end up adding prerequisites, but all agreed that some prerequisites are absolutely necessary and the committees goal is to insure that the right ones be in place, however many that might be. The discussion then turned to what will happen to department responses. The plan is for them to go to be reviewed by the deans and each college's courses and curriculum committees and then on to the university's courses and curricula committee. King pointed out that the Policy Committee is only initiating the process and will not be evaluating it. The committee discussed when the deadline for departments to turn in their responses should be and to accommodate for upcoming breaks, it selected February 15, 2002. Joe Razek proposed that we include a form to assist department's in reporting their justifications for their prerequisites. After some discussion, the committee decided that any form it could imagine would not provide the kind of justifications the committee is looking for. Razek wondered if the letter could include an example of a justification to assist departments in writing their own, but once again, the committee decided that it wanted departments to come up with their own ways of responding. Ed Johnson said that “it isn't whether they (the departments) can come up with a justification; it's whether it's a sufficient justification.” A general consensus agreed that the letter to the departments was ready to send. A revised version will be sent to committee members for their approval and additional discussion, if required, will take place at the next meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killackey, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan Also Attending: Chris Flug (Associate Chancellor for Enrollment Management), Ed Johnson (Director of Freshman Affairs), Kathy Plante (Registrar's Office) Bruce King opened the meeting by asking the committee to see if it could resolve the prerequisite issue. Prerequisites need to be reviewed because there are too many of them and it would help PeopleSoft if there were fewer to add. He suggested that we write a letter to departments requiring them to review their prerequisites and justify them in a report to their deans. Because entering freshmen were having trouble finding courses to take this fall, King said that he is particularly concerned about freshman prerequisites. Ed Johnson said that he'd thought that prerequisites were largely there for upper level courses, and King pointed out that they were used in a number of lower level courses. Johnson raised the idea that some departments might be using them as a means of getting students to take less popular courses. King said that prerequisites should only be listed when they are essential to a student's success in a given class. King went on to say that he had been through the catalogue and had come up with very few prerequisites to courses offered by the College of Liberal Arts on the freshman level. The same was true for Business Administration. He had some questions about prerequisites listed for the College of Sciences and wondered if they might be better handled as recommendations. Russell Trahan wondered what role the deans will play in this process. Can departments be forced by their deans to drop prerequisites? Johnson said that we must make clear that our interest in reviewing prerequisites has nothing to do with lowering standards. He suggested that the reports written by departments should be submitted to each college's Courses and Curriculum committee so that we are sensitive to this as a curriculum issue. Joe Razek observed that if we want to get the job done, we need to go through the deans. Chris Flug said we might be more effective if we approached departments with the idea that we are assessing prerequisites in general. Not only are we interested in identifying prerequisites that are no longer deemed necessary but in any prerequisites a department might wish to add. Our goal is to create a reliable system of prerequisites so students can be fully informed. The committee then discussed how some faculty members have their own prerequisites, telling students that if they are in a developmental class, for instance, they will not be able to handle the work in their current class. Kathy Plante said that departments should be asked to formalize such recommendations. Trahan pointed out that these recommendations wouldn't be in the system, they'd just be recommendations. Razek wondered what he would do if he were a student and saw a "recommendation" in a course description, and Flug replied that perhaps this would drive the student to an advisor. Johnson said that the downside of a recommendation is that there are different ways to interpret it. Razek said that a recommendation isn't final enough, that a misdirected student might base a grade dispute on one. King responded that dropping prerequisites in Psychology didn't affect the success of students. Present: Hulse-Killacky, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan Also Attending: Associate Provost McSeveney The Policy Committee met to discuss a memo that was sent by a faculty member to Provost Louis Paradise and then was forwarded to Policy Committee Chairman, Bruce King, at Paradise's suggestion. This memo questions the actions of the Grievance Review Committee, so King invited Associate Provost McSeveney to provide the Policy Committee with background on the procedures followed by the Grievance Review Committee. The memo alleges that procedures were not followed in two faculty grievance cases including one that is still being reviewed. McSeveney briefly recounted the history of the Grievance Review Committee and its procedures as outlined in the Grievance Review Committee guidelines. After some discussion regarding the allegations made in the memo and the various procedures required of the GRC, the Policy Committee, in its role as the Committee on Committees unanimously decided to contact the chair of the Grievance Review Committee and ask him to respond to the assertions of the memo if he so desires and to direct him to follow all of the procedures outlined in the Grievance Review Committee guidelines in the coming year. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killackky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Strong, Trahan, Razek Also Attending: Bobby Dupont (Dean of Metropolitan College), Chris Flug (Associate Bruce King opened the meeting by introducing the subject of prerequisites. Last spring the policy committee decided that prerequisites should be enforced because students who ignored them were setting themselves up for failure. Since it is impossible at this time for computers to check for pre-requisites in all courses, the committee decided to focus on selected courses. After a general sharing of anecdotes about the alarming number of students turning up in classes without the necessary pre-requisites, the committee and visitiors went on to discuss problems caused by the prerequisite check. The first problem was that many transfer students who actually had fulfilled necessary pre-requisites were told to drop or be dropped. These students were upset and let the departments know about it. Gabrielle Gautreaux suggested that the notification card be re-worded so that transfer students receiving the cards would know that the policy would not affect them if they actually had the prerequisites. She pointed out that the English Department has been checking for prerequisites for the past five years and ignores transfer students. Peter Joe King commented on the number of angry parents he'd spoken to and asked whether we couldn't do a better job. He suggested that we need a solid data base in order to discuss this matter. How many students who begin in remedial courses end up graduating? Can the Policy Committee get this information? Chuck Gifford stated that only 3 out of 33 students in his program didn't have the pre-requisites, that 30 were transfers or visiting and mistakes such as these, don't help us in our efforts to retain students. Ed Johnson asked why students would register for courses they don't have the prerequisites for and Bruce King replied that if the computer lets them in, they think they're okay. He suggested that we add a sign on the computer that says "you're responsible for having the prerequisites." Joe King observed that student often think they are better prepared than they are and don't understand why they need the prerequisites listed for certain courses. Bruce King said, "Our plan was to protect students from themselves." He went on to say that if we start enforcing pre-requisites university-wide, we'll need to get departments to do a re-evaluation of the ones they already have on the books. Gifford observed that on the second day of Phase II registration, it was hard to find schedules. His students were leaving schools where they'd had scheduling problems only to encounter more here. Bruce King replied that people who shouldn't be in classes due to lack of prerequisites were taking slots from those who should. Bobby Dupont suggested that students should be allowed to sign up for courses where they don't have pre-requisites if they have been advised and are willing to sign a statement that says they're aware of what they're doing and take responsibility. Chris Flug observed that the student grapevine does more damage than anything else. Students advise each other that they don't need pre-requisites. All the solid advising the student has received is lost. Matthew Stanford talked about the problems the psychology department has encountered at the 4000 level. When they checked prerequisites they found that 1/3 of their students did not have them. They notified these students and 70 to 80 percent dropped as they were told. Unfortunately, their slots in these classes were filled by another group of students who didn't have the prerequisites who the department knows will not do well. He pointed out that students think that if they've taken one 4000 level class they are then eligible to take any other 4000 level class (regardless of any prerequisites it might have). Russ Trahan noted that some students talk about prerequisites as being "recommendations" whereas departments see them as "mandatory." He wondered whether we are going to have prerequisites that really mean what they say. Bobby Dupont observed that part of the problem goes back to the source or lack of advising going on and the timing of registration. Chris Flug stated that there may not be adequate follow up for students who have flunked a course that is a prerequisite for a course they've signed up for. Because time was short, Bruce King asked for recommendations. Kathy Plante asked that colleges and departments look closely at their prerequisites because we need them to be fair and accurate for installation on PeopleSoft. Bruce King said that 301 students with below minimum ACT's aren't taking any math when they should be and that we need to find a way to get them into these classes. The committee will continue to discuss the enforcement of prerequisites at upcoming meetings, and Bruce King invited the visitors to attend as their schedules permitted. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Strong, Trahan, Razek Also Attending: Bobby Dupont (Dean of Metropolitan College), Chris Flug (Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management), Nancy Hunt (Director of the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching), Ed Johnson (Director of Freshman Affairs) Bruce King opened the meeting with several comments about UNO's historically low retention rate. He talked about the possible causes of this problem and praised the programs established by the University to deal with it. He said that he would like to believe that some of our higher enrollment this semester has come as a result of our retention efforts. King went on to say that he would like to see the university community do more about retention through faculty driven changes in policy that would address this issue. To this end he had selected attendance as one retention issue we ought to consider and set up this meeting with Dupont, Flug, Hunt and Johnson to consider establishing a university-wide attendance policy. He announced that at a future meeting we would discuss the enforcement of pre-requisites. Since he is a "data driven individual," King next distributed a handout containing material that documents the university's continuing interest in attendance policies since at least as far back as 1992. Year after year, committees came to the same conclusion that keeping regular attendance is necessary. Members of the committee shared anecdotes supporting the idea that attendance and grades can be correlated. Part of King's handout contained academic studies that seem to show this connection, though Nancy Hunt questioned whether, overall, the research actually did support it. In response to concerns raised, Bobby Dupont talked about the various ways that attendance-taking might be handled in a large lecture section including distributing sheets that could be scanned and a card with a barcode that students could swipe. He encouraged those in the room not to get hung up on how we would do it because methods could be found. Ed Johnson suggested that one response to the problem of taking attendance in large sections would be to reduce the size of these sections so that it would be manageable. He wondered if smaller classes wouldn't aid as much or more in retention efforts. Russ Trahan raised the question of whether there was any reason why we shouldn't take King lamented the attitudes of some of our colleagues toward teaching and the fact that most college teachers have not had any training. Chris Flug stated her support for the idea of an attendance policy as a means of assisting students to make better choices. Jim Knudsen observed that an attendance policy might help some students to develop a needed discipline which could lead to more of them being retained. The committee discussed whether to poll the faculty as to whether they take attendance and find out how widespread it currently is on campus. Trahan pointed out that if faculty members were required to take attendance we could find out whether they actually were through a question on their evaluation forms. The meeting adjourned with Bruce King's announcement that the committee would be Respectfully submitted, Jim Knudsen The Policy Committee met with the Provost and discussed with him its concerns about current UNO procedures which allow students to register for courses without the prerequisites. Aware of the high estimated costs of reprogramming the system for multiple prerequisite checks, the committee asked the Provost to consider supporting a change limited to flagging English 1158 and Math 1111. Peter Schock reported on the magnitude of the problems encountered in English, where some 500 students register for 2000-level courses each semester without the prerequisite, 1158. The computer-generated list of these students does not arrive until the beginning of the semester, and therefore it is virtually too late, after removing these students, to replace them with others who are qualified. The problem is compounded by the students who wrongly register during late registration. Bruce King commented on the negative effect such procedures--which inevitably alienate students--must have on UNO's image. The provost responded by observing that every estimate of the costs involved in reprogramming the Legacy software he has heard runs to $120,000. But he offered to support programming changes if the cost could be limited to $10,000-15,000 and advised the committee to consult with Jim Burgard and others who understand the extent of the work involved and its costs. Eventually, the Provost said, Peoplesoft will allow UNO to run continuous degree checks. The committee agreed to pursue the matter in its next meeting. The committee met with Chris Flug, Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management, and Kathleen Plante, the University Registrar to discuss methods of enforcing prerequisites when students register for courses. The group began by agreeing that the bypassing of prerequisites is a longstanding and important issue, affecting retention at UNO: students who register for courses for which they are unprepared don't succeed, while at the same time they prevent other, qualified students from registering for these courses. If mistaken enrollment is identified after the semester has begun, it is too late to be effective. Bruce King added that the problem has saddled UNO with a reputation for problems in this area and continues to drive away students who are frustrated by their inability to register for the courses they need. In the past the position of the Registrar has been that addressing this problem is too complicated a matter of programming given the limited resources of his office; in addition, it would make operating the computerized registration system too cumbersome. Ms. Plante remarked that she is aware of the problem but noted that at present, exhaustive checking of each student who attempts to register would slow the computer system down intolerably. The committee then asked how long it would take to implement something through PeopleSoft, and Ms. Plante answered that it would take approximately two years; she also recommended against installing anything in the old software, observing that it would not be cost effective to make these changes in a system about to be retired. Bruce King suggested that "real time" computer checks be restricted to students registering for freshman and sophomore Math and English courses, as these are foundational, affecting student performance perhaps more than any other. Jeff Oescher agreed and suggested that prerequisites for other courses could be checked during the first week of the semester; at this time, as well, the background of transfer students and re-entries could be checked as well. The committee agreed to pursue this method, and decided to begin by determining the scope of the problem in English and Math. The committee concluded the meeting by discussing Russ Trahan's substitute for the motion introduced at the last Senate meeting supporting an evaluation procedure for campus heads that provides for full university community participation in writing. Concerns were raised: the problem of securing confidentiality, the potential problem of multiple responses from single, disgruntled individuals distorting the total impression left by wider participation, the objection to endorsing a resolution authored by an alien group, and above all the following unanswered question: what actually was wrong with the process? Russ Trahan suggested that the only cause of discontent was the late release of the list of representatives on the faculty focus groups. Gerald Whitney suggested that one way of increasing participation may be simply to designate the Policy Committee as yet another focus group. At the beginning of the meeting the committee considered and recommended the nomination of Dr. Merritt C. Becker for an honorary doctorate to be awarded in the May 2001 commencement. The discussion then turned to matters related to the forthcoming merit increase. The question of including part-time instructors in the merit increase was taken up, and members of the committee registered a number of concerns about this: faculty employed less than 75% are not eligible; amounts of compensation for part-time instructors are determined by contract and can be handled only be renegotiating these contracts; any increase must be approved y the LSU System. An increase in the compensation per section was made university-wide a few years ago. Other observations on the subject included the following: part-time faculty have only teaching responsibilities, and their work does not include the research and service that must form the basis of a merit evaluation. Reservations were expressed as well about adjusting the salary of part-time instructors when the Metro compensation level for full-time faculty is as low as it is (it was noted that the likely recommendation from Committee Blue will be to let Metro College adjust pay levels for certain courses, but not to raise the overall level of pay, which would be extremely expensive. The committee next discussed addressing salary imbalances among the colleges, to which the Provost will commit some funds (not taken out of the merit pool) to selected departments. Jeff Oescher noted that the Office of Institutional Research should be able to relate salary levels in the various UNO colleges with SREB levels and use this data to address imbalances. The committee then returned to the issue of student registration (devising a method for preventing students from registering for courses without having taken the prerequisites). It was suggested that the Faculty Council Committee on Courses and Curricula might address this issue first--by evaluating the relative importance of prerequisites in various departments. Russ Trahan pointed out that this would not be appropriate--the importance of prerequisites is to be determined by departments. Respectfully submitted, Peter Schock The committee met to discuss merit pay guidelines in advance of the 3 + 3 + 3 committee meeting scheduled for February 9, subsequent discussion at the next SPG, and implementation in the forthcoming merit raise procedure. The committee reviewed the guidelines approved last year by the Senate and by SPG, noting two principal areas of concern:
Before the committee ended, Bruce King brought two matters to the attention of the committee. He recommended that the committee begin meeting with the Faculty Senators to keep lines of communication open, and he urged that the committee find out why UNO is still apparently unable to enforce prerequisites with blocks in its computerized registration system. Committee members agreed that the problem is serious enough to deserve attention and resolved to take the matter up. The committee met with Christine Flug (Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management) and Janice Lyn (Associate Dean of Student Life) to discuss the problem of cell phone use by students in classroom settings. Janice Lyn observed that a policy is currently under construction to be incorporated in the Student Judicial Code. The current code contains provisions for dealing with the problem (violation #19, citing "undue noise or behavior that results in unreasonable annoyance"). She noted that the use of high technology instruments for cheating is likewise a problem that needs to be addressed. Lyn advised against merely dismissing students from class for creating disturbances with cell phones. Instead, she recommended that faculty should put in writing (on the course syllabus) the policy n use of cell phones and other devices, calling attention to the judicial code. Members of the committee asked if our orientation program might be used to raise student awareness about the inappropriateness of cell phone use. Christine Flug agreed that it could, but noted that merely putting students on notice about the code would be unlikely to succeed, and instead recommended dramatizing the lesson with skits and role-playing. This could be worked into the UNIV course (University Success), despite the limited time available here. Flug suggested as well that a policy could be disseminated at a chairs forum, and various members of the committee recommended that English and Math, departments that make immediate contact with all incoming freshman, might also take on the responsibility of raising student awareness. Instructors might include the matter in first-day or first-week business each semester. The committee then discussed the forthcoming merit raise and the guidelines approved by the Senate and SPG last year. The committee agreed that though these guidelines are not necessarily binding, they must still be communicated. Jeff Oescher observed that the matter will have to be discussed at the next meeting of the SPG Steering Committee and said that he would prepare to present it. The Committee began its first meeting of the spring semester by discussing the performance based salary increase, which is to appear first in the February 15 paychecks, retroactive to January 1. The agenda for the semester was discussed next. The question of raising the pay ceiling for Metro courses was again raised; this issue is currently under consideration by Committee Blue; if a proposal is forthcoming it will be directed to SPG through the 3 + 3 +3 group. Russ Trahan brought up the growing problems associated with cellular phone use on campus, particularly the distraction created by their use in the classroom. The committee agreed that some policy should be devised governing the use of cell phones and decided to consult with Janice Lyn and Chris Flug before making a recommendation. It was suggested that faculty teaching the University Success course might inform their students of the policy in the context of learning the academic ropes. The meeting concluded with a discussion of the forthcoming SACS review. Bruce King will take over from Tom Schlunz too coordinate our participation in the self-study, scheduled for completion in 2004. King urged that the importance of participating in the self-study must be impressed on faculty. The committee agreed that whatever disaffection has colored faculty attitudes in the past (some perceive self-assessments to be lacking in follow-up efforts) must be overcome in advance of the next self-study. Before its meeting with the Provost, the Committee briefly discussed the Proposed new Committee on Courses and Curricula and agreed that the the existing committee should continue with its current charge (reviewing general degree requirements) until the end of the year; the Policy Committee will continue to consider solutions to long-term curriculum problems. The Provost then joined the committee and discussed the following matters:
The Policy Committee met with the Provost and Vice Chancellor Don Pekarek to discuss two issues 1) the current management review of the Office of Financial Aid and 2) the means of evaluating university "support services." Pekarek briefly described the conduct of the review, which involved interviewing some 100 students and 34 UNO personnel whose work is directly connected to the Office of Financial Aid. The first objective of the review has been to determine those solutions that can be implemented immediately, he said. Among these are the new automated phone system and the revision of the timeline for processing the financial aid needs of the 13,000 UNO students who receive financial aid, so that this work is done in phases instead of compressing it into one relatively brief period of time. To improve the transmission of information about financial aid to high school students applying to UNO, recruiting personnel from the Office of Admissions will be cross-trained to deliver this information. In addition, by January the UNO Webpage will carry all of the necessary material, so that one may complete an application for financial aid online. Denise Strong asked about staffing levels in the office, and Pekarek replied that staffing levels at similar universities have been examined, and the conclusion has been that our staff needs to be increased. The Provost pointed out, however, that in the recent past our central problem has not been the number of staff members available, but the inattention to quality of service. Pekarek concluded his remarks by emphasizing the importance of better communication and coordination on campus: between the Office of Financial Aid and Admissions and between Financial Aid and the various colleges (so that the requirements of the latter are communicated and understood). The Provost added that the final solution may be the privatizing of the operation, a possibility currently being studied. The discussion then turned to the evaluation of support services. Russ Trahan framed the issue by noting that virtually every group of personnel on campus is evaluated, but that the procedures for evaluating the performance of support services are not visible to faculty, who are a major constituency of the various support operations on campus. An evaluation can and should be conducted, Don Pekarek answered. He added that he already conducts continuous reviews of the performance of the various head of support service units. Jeff Oescher clarified the request of the committee by emphasizing that there should be an instrument for faculty input into the performance of these units; Trahan agreed but noted that it need not be an exhaustive survey. The possibility of a survey on the Webpage was discussed, but Bruce King discouraged the idea, suggesting that negative responses would dominate in such a survey. The Chancellor then joined the committee to discuss the proposed performance based salary increase; he expressed his support for the proposal and noted that the modest increase it represents will be all the more essential when health insurance premiums for UNO employees are increased January 1. The committee discussed the potential problems involved in the long-term financing of the increase, and the Chancellor suggested that the program be reviewed after 5 years. The program will be funded out of salary lines vacated by retirement and resignation, the Chancellor suggested. When Peter Schock asked if other funding sources might be found in the future (e.g., excess revenue from increases in tuition, success in retention and recruitment), the Chancellor replied that these forms of revenue should fund merit increases. Other elements of the proposal were discussed and confirmed with the Chancellor: that the program be performance-based (with a review) and that the annual increase not stand in the place of merit raises. After this discussion, the committee concluded by discussing the review of the Provost. Oescher pointed out that the LSU System guidelines offer no instructions for this review other than noting that a periodic review of the provost is reasonable. He asked the committee to review the draft memo informing UNO faculty of the review and explaining its mechanism for faculty input. The committee examined and approved the draft with minor changes and agreed that the portion of the review involving the discussion groups would be scheduled for November 30, 12:30-1:30.
|
 |
|||||
|
 |
Hurricane Plan | Prospective Students | Current Students | Parents | Faculty & Staff | Alumni & Visitor News | University Alert System | Calendar | E-Mail | Phone Book | Blackboard | Contribute to UNO |
|||
|
A-Z Index | | ||||
|
The University of New Orleans • 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70148 (504) 280-6000 • Toll-Free at (888) 514-4275 |
||||