Skip to Main Navigation | Skip to Content



Academic Affairs / Provost

Administration 203
Warrensburg, MO 64093
Phone: 660-543-4116





Academic Council Minutes

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

3:30 p.m.

U237A

 

 

I.               3:30 Department Chair and Provost Curtis Discussions

                                 

A. Signature programs

 

Rick Staisloff was here this week. (Consultant brought in for review.) Designating signature programs is something we need to do and move on. Wanting 2-3 programs we are known for to be designated. These probably provide more resources for the others. Signature programs are not going to receive more resources just because of their designations. If they are growing and need more faculty, we will not deny them those either. But they are separate issues. One is just a definition. Need to move on to the more challenging work.

signature, robust programs, and those no  longer viable are  the ones being looked at.

Need to identify the robust programs that need more resources to thrive.

Who is involved in the discussion? Dr. Curtis intends to get some clear voices not only on  criteria - large programs, known for. Will have an initial list of 5-6 and want to widdle down to 2-3. First will be all faculty, then chairs, deans and vice provosts. Likely the strategic team will make the final decision after all have come together and had their input. Teacher Education is an  obvious one, but will we break it into different areas. But just because a program has teacher education attached to it, doesn't automatically mean it is safe. It might be health related fields rather than nursing. Not necessarily a degree, most likely more general programs. Will use the mission statement for funding, using to uplift to a broader view.

 

Any timeline? When will areas need to provide information. This has gone to the BOG and will be requesting information this spring. Will ask AC in early January/Feb. Robust does not have a timeline yet. Depends on how well we gather data, which we have an issue with here. Want to know what data we have and how accurate.

 

When you  mention robust and big, does that take into account what we are  well known  for? Sitting through presentations for open option students. Signature programs are going to be what they are. There are some really unique programs that we need to create a term for. Those that have only 5 in the country, or the largest/best in the state. Need to focus funds on these jewels, look at how to uplift those.

 

Wanting to identify signature programs, but not too quickly without knowing the purpose. What purposes will the identification of sig programs? How will those designations be used? What's the long term short term basic purpose? Also interested in the robust programs.

 

Is this just for marketing? BOG believes that this will be taking place all over the state. Will this limit who is interested in us? Rolla stated as an example. You are welcome to speak with the BOG. “UCM is known for blah blah, but did you know we blah blah.”

 

Could push us over the competition.  We're not just _____, we're also _____!!

 

Jewel programs could be a possible classification.

 

Concerned about a trend to package diversity of education repeatedly. At what point do we look at a program, like Sociology. Only 50 majors, 8 faculty, and a ton of gen ed. At what point do we stop being  a comprehensive arts university? And  just a job prep factory.

 

Dollars aren't growing. State cuts in the future. Admin has already cut. Of course more students.

Do we raise tuition? Do we use more adjuncts? Hire more instructors? We had 10 retire and only get to hire 3 back. We would put more butts in the seat, but most labs are set at 15. The largest classroom I have now only seats 24.

 

There is no suggestion that signature programs will help any of this. It shouldn't hurt, as long as we have control over how it is marketed. This Governor will not increase funding, nor allow us to hurt our affordability. If we are going to grow enrollment, 3% growth over the next 3 years, what do you need? Socially serves more than just their majors. They will be around but possibly look different. There has got to be some flow thru of those tuition dollars that go to academic affairs.

 

Career Services is a big piece. Get more employers here letting students know that they do not have to have a specific degree for a job. That is the message you're seeing delivered to the open options students. It is not just about a job, it is about passion.

 

We have signature programs will be identified in early spring once metric are decided. Chairs, Deans, Provost, APRC (faculty) will decide.

 

B. Department websites

Tenbus - conversation that stemmed from the conversation with Robin Krause. Not pressing. Concerns about the dated look. Limited autonomy. Template that cannot be varied from until you get below department level. We are bound to a template. Discovered there is more flexibility that previously aware, but still frustrating that design oriented departments have limited design ability. Previous director of University Relations had built different college sites that were much more open, not so boxy. But they have been changed back to the old version now. Who maintains (an untrained faculty member). Why can't our dept sites be like our college site? Some don't want control over nor have any skills for it. Need more of the team over there to manage and update, a unified group of people who work with the department. Needed the simple template. Keeps it uniform with other sites for how HS students get info from the sites. Would like to see the whole template improve as far as aesthetics. It is improving. They have 3 people who try to do everything for all departments. Major resource issue.   

 

II.             4:00 Associate Provosts and Deans Join AC

                                 

A. Approval of Minutes from 10/09/2012

Approved as distributed

 

III.            4:05 Questions on Written Reports

                                  Provosts, Deans, Faculty Senate President, and others

 

No questions

 

IV.            4:15 Information Items

None

V.             4:15 Discussion Items

      • Motion 2012-2013-1 (see pages below)

By Christine Wright - Often times there can be accrediting bodies that accredit the information although based in a department. Sometimes a program can spill over in an area that affects accreditation review. How do we use institutional resources and where do we house them? Nice to have a clear delineation between an accreditation issue and turf. Sports PR and Sports Communication is a good example. They needed their own class and were covering different items. Understand when  it steps on accreditation is one thing, but just the terms used should not prohibit one department over another from utilizing that term. Communication, Management, etc. There needs to be somewhere we can go to see if duplicate courses are  being proposed. This is a resource issue. Faculty senate has an almost identical motion on the agenda for this Thursday. Statistics comes to mind. More efficient use of resources and cooperation. Need a process for people to have early input into the situation. This is a pretty frequent problem. Need to cooperate early, and will be able to make stronger programs.. Going forward we need to look back. Research Methods is a good example. This course is the same across areas. Then we could share credit hours. Assignments tailored for specific disciplines. Still meets the needs of he students without retrofitting everything. What point do we look at the body of courses that are offered in comparison to the new course being proposed. Not a good use of time as chairs to go onto the curriculum website everyday to see what is being offered. What if we created a shared drive where people who were proposing a new program put it up with a message sent out where everyone could look at it. At the program or course level? If all of it is on a shared drive with a description of the courses. Faculty does not have access to the curriculum website. It would need to be more formal and automated part of the curriculum process. May be during the 30 review process, after it has gone through most of the process. Faculty need in the loop as they are the area experts.

Where do we start the process? Who has the authority? APRC? For developing the process? University curriculum is a faculty senate committee. Need an opportunity where issues are raised. May  be that's where you start the process. Once the program is put together, send it out to all the faculty for 30 days and then it is kicked into the formal review process. Do it at the beginning while it is still being proposed, then you do not go through the whole process and  have to start over. Step 1 shop out your program to all faculty with an email. The timing would delay the process for another month. Would there be a way to eliminate if courses meet a  certain criteria they can ask for an expedited review for 1 week. Have the formal process 2 weeks. Better than browsing through the catalog when going to create a new program/course.

Make a recommendation to the university curriculum committee. What if there are concerns and how are they addressed? When we are at an impasse unwilling to compromise, who makes a decision?

Program part is less problematic. The best we can do is try and meet and decide  what is the best curriculum to meet the needs of the students and the most efficient way to deliver. If there is a conflict that cannot be resolved, then it can be kicked up to the FS Curriculum.

Recommendation to UCC to review the process? Vote - Favor 17 Against 0

 

Discussion Question - Apparently the University's policy is if a student is ill they can miss class and only have to inform the instructor. They do not have to provide any additional proof. What should it be to facilitate student accountability? Do we have different requirements for the different types of students? The policy is the same for all. Students need to tell faculty in advance or their first day back to classes. Include your requirements in your syllabus. Cory Bowman has sent the 2009-2010 policy to the instructor for appeals when a student is ill and did not provide documentation. Confusing policy. In the catalog it states you must have a doctor's note that say they cannot attend class on a specific dates. How much latitude do you give faculty?

There is  a policy committee that should be reviewing this but they are also charged with a review of faculty load. Faculty all approach this differently, so a student could have a different policy in each course. Personnel policies committee will be getting back after they deal with faculty load.

VI.            5:00 Adjourn

 

MOTION

 

Motion 2012-2013-1

Maker:    Christine Wright   Second: Odin Jurkowski

Date: 11.11.2012

Program and Course Duplication

Introduction

Currently, the university lacks transparent processes for the institution to ensure that new programs and courses do not replicate programs, courses and significant portions of courses which already exist at the institution. Transparent processes are essential to

·        accreditation

·        institutional planning

·        managing growth and quality of programs

Further, the institution needs to show support for interdisciplinary cooperation while simultaneously acknowledging that each department has a traditional ownership of content areas especially at the introductory and theory level .

Background:

If a program at another institution is proposed, MDHE has a formalized process by which we can object and/or state our concerns. However, UCM has no such internal process.  UCM does have a process to use if a department wants to include another department’s course in a major program of study. This process requires that the written consent from the offering department be included with program proposals from a department in which the course does not reside.

Motion:

The Academic Council proposes the following:

1)    Departments shall identify content which is currently being taught as part of a course or program at UCM and list the courses which already exist in part (or in whole) that already have similar/same content and/or outcomes.

2)    Departments shall justify why the content in the new course (program) cannot be provided by an existing course (program). If there is no existing course but the content would traditionally reside in a department beyond the proposing department, documentation should be provided to show that the department which would traditionally teach the content has been asked to add the course, revise an existing course to fit the needs of the proposing department or modularize an existing course so that the content needed is available.

3)    Departments shall document the qualifications of existing faculty in the proposing department to teach the proposed new classes or program content (or if such expertise does not exist, document how such expertise will be gained via new faculty, adjunct or additional training).

4)    The UCM Curriculum System shall be modified to allow any departments that might be impacted by the new classes/programs to attach comments, concerns, support or objections to the new course/program.

 

 

For:__17___                          Against:_0____                     Abstain:__0___

Result: Passed__X___  Defeated_____