ACT PLACEMENT-This proceeds as planned, despite a couple of delays. The procedure was sent to the campuses on October 8th, practice testing is underway, and ACT placement must be implemented before this semester's pre-registration, which I suppose means tomorrow for us.
ALTERNATE IDS-Social Security numbers will still be imbedded in SIS due to things like financial aide filing requirements, but on most campuses will be invisible to the SIS users. Among the options the campuses have, I understand from Peggy Wilson that we will be adopting a campus-wide photo ID which contains an ID number different from the SSN. This ID will be used by all members of the college community, including faculty and staff, so start losing weight now for the photo shoot next fall.
SEVIS (Student Exchange Visitor Information Service) The Immigration and Naturalization Service is instituting rigorous tracking programs for international students; guidelines and implementation are underway. TBR will participate system-wide; failure to do so would result in a loss of ability to enroll international students. Among the categories tracked are name, DOB, citizenship, grades, enrollment, failure to enroll, attendance tracking, disciplinary action, transfers, graduation, shift from fulltime to part-time status and vice versa, date leaving the institution, and others.
DR PAULA SHORT'S COMMENTS Dr Short talked mainly about deadlines for 60/120 and Gen ed initiatives. The campuses' lists of low-producing programs were due to TBR by October 25th; the chief academic officers requested system wide feedback before recommendations are made to the board. The Academic Offices move the deadline for the final version of guidelines for 60/120 back from April 1 to October 1 2003. The expectation is that this new initiative will be 50% implemented by 2005 (moved back from 2004), and 100% by 2006. The final document on Gen Ed (more on this later) will go to the board for the December meeting; the committee drafting the document will be meeting at least once more to consider the campuses' responses to the draft version, and will write a final draft in light of these deliberations. This document will then face the approval of the SubCouncils which will meet via TV hook-up and vote prior to the document's presentation to the full board.
GEN ED Dr Kay Clark laid out the timeline for this hot button issue. October 25th was the deadline for campus suggestions; the committee will be meeting on November 5th to make modifications based upon the comments from the schools.
The primary concerns to the Gen Ed document as written are concerns about Anatomy and Physiology (currently, the Gen Ed document doesn't allow it to count as a science requirement), drastic divisions on math revisions, serious concerns about the elimination of Health and PE from the Gen Ed core, and whether to allow a wellness course to count as one of the social sciences.
Motlow rep pointed out that PHEd was "executed without a trial", and that the Gen Ed core will be shameful if it does not include a PE/wellness component. APSU is actually asking for an 8th outcome under social sciences emphasizing physical activity and wellness; as it stands, PE is not even mentioned in the "possibilities" list. (Editorial comment; I don't know where this list resides, I have not seen it.) Memphis U is apparently addressing PE rather strongly in their response to the original Gen Ed document.
There was an ensuing free-wheeling discussion, out of which the following statements tumbled.
Dr Clark shocked a number of us by stating that "We don't expect every course to fulfill every outcome". Someone then asked that if that was true, why was A&P such a problem, since it clearly satisfied most of the outcomes? There didn't seem to be a good answer to this. A&P is unacceptable because it doesn't fulfill all of the outcomes, but then there is no requirement that all outcomes be met, so if this is true, why can't A&P be one of the exceptions?
The Jackson State rep said that her faculty didn't have any problem with the 41 hours requirement, and in fact, her faculty could not understand how anyone could have a problem with it.
The Austin Peay rep said that APSU still didn't feel like 41 was enough, and that they could go for 49 or 51.
I mentioned that this change could have a drastic effect on our graduation rate, which in turn could hurt our funding, since students who were serious about their major would be given more opportunity to get into pre-major courses if they could spread their Gen ed core over 4 years rather than being forced to complete them in only two years. I suggested Pellissippi's attempt to restore a bit of flexibility by requiring only 36 hours in the Gen Ed core, but then give the institutions the freedom to add courses to an institutional core. Dr Clark pointed out that was damaging to the "simplicity of the idea" of a more straightforward core.
SubCouncil president asked "Why are we doing this while UT isn't?" Dr Clark responded that talks were underway with UT, and that while they certainly would not lock into our idea of what Gen ed core is, they might be open to the idea of saying any student transferring into the UT system who can demonstrate having completed TBR's Gen ed core might have their UT core requirements waived or replaced. Dr Clark also reiterated that Crabtree & Levy in UT's Academic Affairs department are concerned/aware/eager and willing to maintain PSTCC/UT articulation requirements.
It was pointed out that at MTSU, foreign language can be used to meet a communications request, and that the status of this arrangement might be in doubt.
At this point I thought I would go out on a limb and make the following motion: This SubCouncil recommends to the Gen Ed Committee that the Gen Ed core requirements not exceed 36 hours.
I figured, you know, go for broke, see who's really for this idea and really against it. My thinking is that the appeals coming from the individual schools might carry more weight if they were accompanied by a consensus opinion from the SubCouncil. Alas!
Dr Clark immediately commented that this motion put us right back where we are at present, and doesn't address the current concerns with the status quo (in a nutshell, TBR is concerned that public outcry about transfer problems will provoke the legislature to enact some harmful laws about what can and cannot transfer.)
Chattanooga St rep argued against this, noting that the confusion comes from problems with the transferability of individual courses, not from any transfership problems with entire Gen Ed cores, and that this is like using an elephant gun to stop a marauding fly (he didn't actually use that analogy, but it's close enough.)
The Vol State rep said that the motion would address many of the problems his faculty had with the Gen Ed initiative.
ETSU rep commented that some of his faculty would be more comfortable with 35-36 hours, particularly in the sciences.
Roane State rep stated that we should be trying to expand humanities, and this motion could only limit them, and that she was against it. Jackson St agreed.
Northeast St rep argued that the Gen Ed proposal as written was biased against math, requiring 9 hours of humanities but only 3 of math, and that was every bit as egregious as "limiting" humanities.
Much harrumphing ensued.
Dr Clark said that most students need only an exposure to math, but math students are certainly free to take more.
MTSU rep read from an open letter from some journal article (sorry, I don't have the citation) about the dangers of centralizing Gen ed requirements, that it eliminates the individuality that college campuses should have, and that the authority for curricular decisions shifts from the campuses to the central office, which seems counter to the missions of most schools, which tout the need to address community concerns and needs.
There was a call for the question. The motion failed. The vote was 5 for, 5 against, and 8 abstaining, those abstentions explaining that they just couldn't make such a vote without first consulting their faculties. I confess to not understanding how much of this conversation had taken place on the SubCouncil list serve for weeks prior to the meeting without the members taking the time to determine how their faculty felt on this issue, but it was moot at that point.
OTHER STUFF
Some schools discussed the changes to their developmental programs. There's a variety of diverse stuff, including cutting of hours and shifting to computer instruction. There is some suggestion that a few schools may benefit from a one-time funding windfall, because post-cut programs will be funded according to the pre-cut formula for one year according to the principle of "held harmless", but this was going to vary from school to school.
Jackson State rep mentioned that her school's Director of Institutional Effectiveness was pushing for Faculty Council to be evaluated by the school's administration, which would effectively destroy any sort of autonomy that body currently has. TBR staff agreed that this was a horrible idea, and that they would work to assure it does not happen. Evaluation of Faculty Council should come from the Faculty it serves, not from the administration it occasionally butts heads with.
There were some procedural items. Changes to Program Review policy were approved, as were changes to the DSP Operational Guidelines.
The moratorium on new programs has been lifted by the board, though new programs are apparently going to be rarer than hen's teeth, to use an old country colloquialism.
TBR staff continues to investigate a group bid for adjunct insurance.
Disruptive students were discussed. At current, while a student can be asked to leave the classroom due to disruptive behavior (as defined by the instructor), they do have to honor that request, but are fully entitled to return to class the next day, and can only be removed for a longer term through "due process". The goal then is for the schools the streamline their "due process" procedures to arrive at an appropriate conclusion as soon as possible.
There is a going to be a new overload compensation committee, and I have been asked to serve. I will let you know how it goes.
As always, my apologies for any horrendous grammar problems, but ask me to add some numbers for you and let's just see how well I do.
dave vinson