| Policy Committee | |
|
Issues, input and comments can be sent to the Policy Committee or can be communicated to any
|
Minutes of the Policy Committee for 2001 - 2002May 8, 2002 | April 17, 2002 | April 10, 2002 | March 20, 2002 | March 6, 2002 Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan Bruce King opened the meeting by announcing that our proposal regarding the reconfiguring of the SPG will be discussed at the SPG meeting on May 30th. The committee then unanimously approved the Faculty Council committee nominations collected by Connie Phelps. Rus Trahan announced that CELT will be meeting to finalize the new evaluation form. He does not know yet whether the question regarding faculty attendance taking is on the form. King said that he had talked to Nancy Hunte, but she did not mention this issue. Trahan said that Hunte was looking for evidence linking attendance to learning, and King responded that he had provided her with it. Phelps observed that there may not be a connection between attendance and learning, but there certainly is one between attendance and grades. The committee then concluded its brief meeting and business for the year with talk of who would and would not be returning for 2002-2003. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan Also attending: Associate Provost Dennis McSeveney Bruce King announced that he had invited Associate Provost McSeveney to the meeting to discuss how the administration plans to enforce the new attendance policy passed unanimously by the Policy Committee and nearly unanimously by the Senate. King's concern was raised by the fact that the question regarding whether a faculty member has been taking attendance was removed from the new evaluation form developed by CELT and by the department chairs who had objected to required attendance taking, falsely claiming little correlation between attendance and retention. King's presumption was that any faculty members who oppose the idea of their students being questioned as to whether attendance was taken in a given course must not be taking it. If attendance taking is not enforced, then possible gains in retention will be lost and the work of the Policy Committee and others on this issue will all have been for naught. Russ Trahan, who also serves on the CELT Steering Committee, reported that the attendance question on the evaluation form had been unanimously approved, but that various chairs had objected and Nancy Hunt, the director of CELT was not in favor of including such a question. Later in the meeting he revealed that only two people attended a public discussion of the new evaluation forms. McSeveney assured the committee that Academic Affairs was solidly behind the new attendance policy and its enforcement. Academic Affairs does see a correlation between attendance and retention and knows that we will “get hammered” if we don't improve our retention rates. McSeveney believes that faculty recognition of the importance of attendance taking has already had a positive effect on retention at UNO. He pointed out that the catalogue is quite tough about attendance. He also expects Deans to be working with their Chairs to come up with ways to enforce attendance policies. A possible solution would be to have Provost Paradise mandate that the attendance question be included on the new evaluation form. Trahan and other members of the committee expressed their support for the idea of a Paradise mandate. McSeveney suggested that chairs could require that faculty members have an attendance policy listed on all syllabi, but the consensus of the committee was that this wouldn't necessarily affect whether faculty members took attendance or not. Trahan asked whether CELT could make a recommendation on evaluations to Academic Affairs and all agreed that this was a good idea. McSeveney said that CELT could send a letter to Academic Affairs and that Nancy Hunt should come up with suggestions for taking attendance. Trahan suggested that Provost Paradise could then write a letter that makes these suggestions. McSeveney said that he would let Paradise know to expect to be contacted. Trahan stated that the Policy Committee wants to urge the provost to promulgate the new attendance policy and that the evaluation form be used to insure that it is being followed. After McSeveney left the meeting, the committee worked on a letter concerning strategic planning drafted by King to be sent to the Chancellor and Academic Affairs The committee then agreed to meet in two weeks to discuss committee assignments. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan The meeting began with Connie Phelps distributing a list of nominees for the Hearings Committee Pool and a brief discussion of that list. Bruce King then announced that he wanted to write a letter from the Policy Committee to the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor recommending the proposals the Policy Committee came up with at its last meeting:
3+3+3, since it contains three members of the Policy Committee, is the ideal means for the Policy Committee to become involved with strategic planning and the SPG is simply too large a group to do the job adequately. King pointed out that we must incorporate institutional effectiveness into strategic planning and that such strategic planning is crucial to SACS. Joe Razek reemphasized the fact that the SPG is too large to be effective, and Russ Trahan suggested that it be eliminated altogether. King asked whether the make up of 3+3+3 should be changed to represent the non-academic side, and members of the committee pointed out that Don Pekarek is already on it for that purpose. Denise Strong pointed out that the Policy Committee needed to examine the unintended consequences of eliminating the SPG. She was not opposed to the elimination necessarily but thought that it would be better to consider all the implications before coming to such a conclusion. Trahan proposed that the SPG might function better if it were given tasks. They could generate ideas that could then be given to the subcommittees for further study and possibly implementation. Strong pointed out that the budget was a crucial element of planning and asked where decisions about the allocation of funds at UNO are made. When there's no money, she noted, there's all the more reason to do strategic planning. We need to know what we are going to do with the money we have. Phelps asked whether the university couldn't get assistance with strategic planning from a CUPA design specialist. King responded that Tim Ryan has suggested in the past that we hire someone from business to examine our operation and propose ways to improve it. Strong supported the idea of bringing in someone to assist in examining our process and assisting the university with strategic planning. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong, Trahan Bruce King began the meeting by reminding the committee of Chancellor O'Brien's request that it play a role in strategic planning for the university. The committee briefly discussed the roles played by the SPG and 3+3+3 in the strategic planning process, and King pointed out that 3+3+3 had not been meeting. Russ Trahan observed that the SPG is too big to really be effective in strategic planning and that 3+3+3 would be a better forum and should be meeting. The name of the SPG should be changed to more accurately reflect what it does (serve as a forum for disseminating information). Trahan also observed that he couldn't imagine how we are supposed to do much planning without a firm budget. The university has always been run on a crisis management basis, and because of this all plans are always subject to change. King pointed out that this situation could cause problems with SACS who will want the university to follow through on changes that are proposed as a result of institutional effectiveness reports. Trahan recommended that we call the SPG an “administrative council” and make 3+3+3 the Strategic Planning Committee. Denise Strong recalled that 3+3+3 had talked about integrating the reports of various groups on campus into something that could be referred to for decision making. Trahan said that Joyce King, before she left, had done such tracking and passed out reports at SPG meetings. The committee then turned to a discussion of budget problems facing our university and the state's priorities (the Saints and the Hornets). Trahan pointed out that while Nick Sabin's salary has been increased, students are being required to buy their own scantron sheets at LSU for the first time. He also said that there isn't going to be any more general money for higher education in Louisiana–there will only be funding special initiatives. Strong returned the committee to its original topic of discussion by asking, “What can the Policy Committee do to get more involved in strategic planning?” Trahan reviewed the points we'd made: Strong asked what steps need to be taken in order to come up with a plan for the university. Joe Razek responded that we need to identify problems and do the necessary research. King observed that we can plan but whatever we plan will be affected by any financial crisis that comes up. Trahan responded that he and his colleagues have a rolling five year plan that they revisit every year in order to keep focussed. They assign names to individual plans, and that's how they get things done. Strong suggested that the Policy Committee could recommend that the university adopt such a rolling 5 year plan. The meeting ended with Connie Phelps' request for Hearings Committee Pool nominations. Policy Committee members agreed to supply her with nominees by April 3rd. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Razek, Trahan Absent: Phelps, Strong The meeting began with the committee congratulating Chancellor O'Brien on his appointment to Ray Nagin's transition team. The Chancellor said he would like to receive resumes from members of the UNO community who would like to help. Bruce King reported that the committee had seen two issues (required attendance and the reevaluation of prerequisites) through to completion and were now looking for new issues to pursue. Chancellor O'Brien said that the university is “at an important moment.” He and Provost Paradise are embarking on a series of meetings with department chairs to discuss future planning. With 2008, the university's 50th anniversary coming up, the administration wants all departments to go through a process of “goal setting and strategic thinking.” O'Brien would like to see the Policy Committee assist in this process. He suggested the possibility of the committee meeting with deans and getting involved with “small group consensus building.” O'Brien would like to see the university pursue the establishment of a “real Honors College” and becoming a Carnegie Research I university by adding new doctoral programs among other things. Such ideas need to be planned and coordinated. O'Brien said that Johnson Controls have been looking into this issue and that a number of rooms on campus have mechanisms to turn off the lights when no one is present. Such lighting will be installed as we upgrade buildings around campus. Respectfully submitted, James Knuds Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Strong Absent: Trahan Bruce King began the meeting with a reminder that the Policy Committee's proposal on requiring attendance would be voted on at the Senate meeting that afternoon. He asked that if discussion points were raised that committee members actively participate. King said that he was now taking attendance in his large lecture class, and it was working well. He is convinced that there is way to take attendance no matter the size of the class. The fact that recording attendance is required under Title IV makes whether we should require faculty members to take attendance a moot point in any case. Connie Phelps then briefed the committee on what is happening with the election of the Hearings Committee Pool. Each of the smaller colleges will nominate two candidates for election to the Hearings Committee Pool and the larger colleges will nominate two. Then the faculty council will vote to select 11 members. Phelps told the committee members she would be e-mailing them soon concerning making nominations from their colleges. King, in the absence of pressing new business, announced that he would be inviting the chancellor to the Policy Committee's next meeting for consultation. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Trahan Absent: Strong Bruce King opened the meeting by reviewing the accomplishments of the Policy Committee this academic year for Provost Louis Paradise. He then distributed the results of Emad Wajeeh's study of the correlation between ACT scores and graduation rates at UNO. He immediately drew the attention of the committee to the fact that students who enter UNO with scores below 16 on the ACT don't end up graduating and are no longer trying after six years. This means that these students are pulling down the mean scores for the university and lowering our retention rate. He asked whether we should continue making exceptions for these students. Paradise acknowledged the inevitability of such a conclusion. Noting that some students are entering the university without ACT scores, which keeps us from having complete data, he pointed out that new entrance requirements will have all prospective students taking the ACT test in the future. He stated that the university's policy of making exceptions allows students an opportunity to come to UNO, and since our graduation rate is only 24% as it is, it doesn't make that much difference. The university's goal is to try to get qualified students and provide special training for those who need it. His concern is that many of the students at the low end of the spectrum who don't succeed also don't pay their bills. In this scenario, we lose in two ways. King pointed out that if the university didn't admit lower end students, we'd lose tuition, but we'd save money on New Vision and other remediation programs. Paradise said that LSU lets in lower end students, but then these students can't get into colleges. At UNO we have the authority to let in 15% who don't meet our requirements. Russ Trahan asked Paradise whether this whole situation couldn't be looked into more carefully, and Paradise agreed. He said he could have Ros Sheley look into it to see how many of the lower end students are true exceptions. He agreed that if we cut the people who score below 15 it will make a difference. “We might as well eliminate them,” he said, “since we aren't collecting tuition from them anyway.” Trahan asked if we “go after” these students who don't pay their tuition bills and Paradise responded, “yes, but we're not successful.” Trahan pointed out that if we take students in knowing that they will flunk out, it doesn't do the university any good. It only supports the perception that we are a university that tries to flunk students out. James Knudsen then asked what could be done to plan long range for increased enrollment. Paradise said that he would bring this issue to the Chair's Council. “Long range planning,” according to Paradise, “is difficult because the future is hard to predict. The administration tries to respond to needs as they arise.” Trahan asked whether it was actually true that we are “sch driven.” Paradise responded that we are, and Trahan said that the faculty needed to be convinced. If faculty believed that this was true, that they would “get more if they do more,” it would make a difference. Paradise and the committee agreed. Respectfully Submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Trahan Absent: Strong The meeting began with a rousing “Happy Birthday” sung to Russ Trahan by the Policy Committee Chorus. Before the planned discussion with Kathy Plante on plus and minus grading, James Knudsen asked the committee, at the request of the Liberal Arts Chair's Council, to put a discussion of the problems created by enrollment growth on its agenda. A brief discussion of some of these problems followed which Bruce King concluded by stating that he would ask Lou Paradise to meet with the committee in order to discuss the university's long range plans for dealing with problems caused by enrollment increases. King then turned the discussion to pluses and minuses. Plante began by saying that the issue had been brought up 4 or 5 years ago; students and faculty studied it and decided not to move to such a system. According go Plante, pluses and minuses are mainly used by professional schools. Students don't like the system because someone with an A- will never have a 4.0 average, and such a system forces faculty members to keep more “minute and defined” records. Diana Hulse-Killacky stated that everyone she'd talked to had opposed the plan. Plante pointed out that she, herself, wouldn't want to argue the difference between a B and a B-, but Russ Trahan said he'd “do it in a heartbeat,” citing the wide range between a very high B and a very low one. King said that it was clear that we had concerns and that he, himself, wasn't anxious for UNO to be the only university around using such a system. He then asked Plante to talk about the effects such a system would have on her office. Plante replied that a tremendous amount of paperwork would be involved including transcript changes that would have to be made to explain the numerical value of the pluses and minuses. She suggested that faculty members could simply make pluses and minuses on their grade sheets, but agreed with Trahan that such grade sheet pluses and minuses have no real value. Hulse-Killacky observed that the students won't like a plus and minus system and that it might not be fair. Knudsen made the point that the grade range for graduate students, in practice, contains fewer options since a C suggests unacceptable work. Pluses and minuses would allow graduate grading to be more precise. The committee asked Plante whether pluses and minuses could actually be implemented in the Peoplesoft system, and she replied that though it could be done she'd rather not do it for the reasons she'd mentioned earlier. King said that he wasn't enthusiastic about changing to pluses and minuses but thought it would be great if we could recognize the truly superior A. Trahan observed that the A+ can be a very effective motivational tool and wondered if it would be possible to institute its use on the graduate level. After some discussion about the previous attempt to add pluses and minuses and the resistance it met from students and faculty and current feelings, the Policy Committee decided to end discussion of the matter at this time without surveying the faculty or making a recommendation. King then asked for new business from the committee. Knudsen brought up a negative response on the new stationery he'd received from a member of the college of Liberal Arts. Members of the committee responded that the faculty had been surveyed, invited to focus groups and last year's Policy Committee had reviewed it. Though objections were made, a process to gain faculty input had already taken place, so it wouldn't be worthwhile to discuss the issue further. King asked for other new business and reported that in his position as SACS liaison, he had visited the various departments on campus and heard complaints from many of them concerning students at UNO who are not qualified to be in college. Though the number of these students has decreased, it is still a problem. He wondered whether we could be taking advantage of increased enrollment by tightening entrance requirements. If the university is taking in students who have no hope of graduating, then it is wasting resources. Efforts to retain them will not result in increased graduation rates. The committee considered the idea of asking Emad Wajeeh to analyze ACT scores and report on the scores of the students who graduate. The meeting ended with King promising to contact Provost Paradise about attending our next meeting to talk about planning for increased enrollment. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Razek, Trahan The meeting began with Bruce King nominating Kevin Stokes from Sciences to the Academic Computing Committee. The nomination was approved unanimously. King commented that with the prerequisites reevaluation well underway and the committee's proposal to change the faculty handbook to require attendance taking in 1000 and 2000 level classes to be voted on at the next Senate meeting, the Policy Committee could now turn its attention to other issues. Russ Trahan reported that Carl Drichta, working with the task force to review the exam schedule, had come up with a schedule that eliminates Saturday exams by moving the start time on other exam days to 7:30. This will allow faculty more time for grading. King then introduced the topic of student grade appeals and raised his concern that they are heavily weighted against students due to the fact that “personal discrimination” is the only grounds allowed. He went on to describe various examples of poor teaching practice where students should have recourse. After some discussion, committee members agreed that the grade appeal wasn't meant to deal with the kind of situations involving inadequate teaching that concerned King and that such grievances should be brought to the department chair. The committee turned to Diana Hulse-Killacky's proposal that we consider adding pluses and minuses to faculty grading options. Such pluses and minuses would have a mathematical value (e.g., A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.2). Joe Razek wondered whether instituting such a change wouldn't incur a “huge cost.” King suggested that in order to approach this question we need data about other universities who use pluses and minuses and why and how much such a system would cost. Razek asked whether the registrar would have such information. King said that we could invite the registrar to our meeting to discuss the problems and costs involved. James Knudsen suggested that the committee poll the faculty concerning their interest in adding pluses and minuses to their grading options, and the committee agreed. The committee then began working on a series of survey questions. King ended the meeting saying that he would ask Kathy Plante to attend the committee's next meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen Present: Hulse-Killacky, King, Knudsen, Phelps, Razek, Trahan Absent: Strong The meeting began with a brief discussion of the possibility of adding pluses and minuses to faculty grading options. Since Diana Hulse-Killacky introduced the topic, Bruce King encouraged her to bring a proposal to the Policy Committee for further discussion when its agenda clears. Hulse-Killacky then proposed that Richard Speaker of the College of Education and Human Development be appointed to the Committee on Academic Computing, and the Policy Committee unanimously approved. Members of the committee then responded to a memo sent by James Knudsen encouraging their careful consideration of Committee B's motion to reduce the size of freshman composition classes. Though there was general support for the motion, committee members raised several points. Russ Trahan questioned Dean Barton's contention that lower class sizes could pay for their additional costs through increased retention. He wondered whether there is “a realistic drop rate that we just aren't going to get below.” Joe Razek suggested that the English Department find outside funding for a pilot program to establish whether reducing composition class sizes would make a difference. King pointed out that in a meeting earlier that day Dean Barton had said that if the class size reductions didn't make a difference, they could always be rescinded. King then updated the committee on the prerequisite review process stating that Provost Paradise was sending a reminder concerning the upcoming deadline. Razek observed that the process had brought about an increase in prerequisites in the College of Business. King turned to the upcoming Senate discussion of the Policy Committee's proposal on requiring that faculty take attendance on the 1000 and 2000 levels. A meeting of administrators and faculty members to discuss its implementation had been set for the following day with the purpose of finding answers for any questions that might come up at the meeting. Connie Phelps asked the Policy Committee to rule on whether it was appropriate for an adjunct faculty member to serve on the Student Publications Committee, and the Policy Committee decided that it was acceptable in this situation and in isolated instances where the adjunct faculty member's expertise suited the committee's needs. Phelps also asked for committee members to supply nominations for various vacated committee positions. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen 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. 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. Plante pointed out that sometimes the number of hours is an effective prerequisite for upper level courses. We need to be careful about how much we're doing and at what level. Once we put prerequisites in PeopleSoft they will be set in stone. The committee then returned to a discussion of the role the deans would play in the process of evaluating prerequisites with the general conclusion that the deans would insure that the review was completed. The committee then began the task of composing the letter to the department chairs. Diana Hulse-Killacky proposed that we take off from Flug's suggestion and be sure to ask for what departments would add or subtract in the way of prerequisites and what, if any, recommendations, they might want to make. The committee agreed that this would be the most effective direction to take and began drafting. James Knudsen said he would work on the draft and send it to those present for further suggestions via e-mail. The committee will do a final revision at its next meeting. Denise Strong expressed her concern that the committee's request will get lost. We need a mechanism and a process if we want results. We need to consult with the Courses and Curricula committee. King said that he already had plans to do just that. Respectfully submitted, James Knudsen 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
|
 |
|||||
|
 |
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 |
||||