FRIDAY, SEPT. 30, 2009
263 Cartwright Center
Present: Cravins, Dickmeyer, Grunwald, Knowles, Kopp, Lieder, Longhurst, Mortell, Nelson, Tollefson, Thoune, Toribio
Absent: Devine, Rivera
Chair Sandy Grunwald called the meeting to order at 7:50 AM.
9-11 APR Minutes approved, with one addition: Mortell added to those present.
Grunwald announced that Eschenbaum and Iguchi were unable to remain on the committee, and that James Longhurst and Sherwin Toribio were added to the APR Committee.
Self-program Studies were assigned:
Environmental Studies: Dickmeyer and Mortell, Nelson
Community Health Ed: Cravins and Knowles, Lieder
Rec Management & Ther. Rec: Rivera and Longhurst.
Physical Therapy: Kopp and Sherwin
Phys. Ed. & Teacher Ed. Progress Rept: Thoune and Tollefson
3-year progress report
UG Sport Management & Grad Sport Admin: Toribio
Grunwald requested that the committee begin their reviews, and that we look to discuss the following reviews and report to Faculty Senate (or at least schedule the report) in the Fall Semester: Environmental Studies, Community Health Ed., Rec. Management & Ther. Recreation, and Physical Therapy.
Grunwald then opened discussion for the Committee Charge to examine the role of the Provost in Academic Program Review. Currently, the Provost does not review programs or departments until the APR Report is brought forth to Faculty Senate, which is at the end of the review process.
Within the discussion, some questions arose:
If a step was added, does it have to be an informal or formal review by the Provost?
Don’t the Deans and the Provost have other reviews or mechanisms for reports from Departments?
By adding a step of review with the Provost, are we changing the purpose and role of the Academic Program Review Committee?
It had been communicated to the Committee that the Provost might not review every Department, but would like the opportunity to review the report earlier than at the Faculty Senate meeting.
From the APR Committee’s discussion, there was concern from the members about the purpose of having a peer-review process in place if the Provost is planning to influence or control the process and/or report. This peer-review process is an ongoing process, and clearly does not prohibit the Provost from communication with departments, programs or the APR committee, and that maybe more open lines of communication would be helpful without actually adding a step to the process. With the history of the APR Committee, it was clear that the APR was to be a peer-review process and a mechanism to help every department and program self-assess and reflect on their current practices on a systematic basis.
Sandy will try to get a clearer question from the Faculty Senate Chair as to whether the APR Committee has to formally set forth a statement or motion to the Faculty Senate regarding this charge.
The Provost has informal opportunities to review any program already, but the APR committee could notify the Provost which programs are currently under review and could communicate with the reviews, then it is an open process. The APR committee felt very strongly that if a formal role would be added, then the Provost would have to review all programs for consistency and fairness.
However, it is clear that the APR is a peer-review process and should remain so.
Sandy will talk to Faculty Senate Chair to understand the question of why and to what extent the Provost wants a stronger role in a committee process.
Sandy also looked into the formats for Department and Program Reports that are sent to the APR Committee. In 2006, the Faculty Senate voted that all reports should be in pdf format. There’s not a formal place to do this yet, but we could do through D2L. Better communication is needed, and the consensus was that members would prefer that it is posted on the web.
Next meeting? In a month we are reviewing 1 or 2 reports.
Meeting adjourned: 8:32 AM.
Mary Tollefson, Secretary