Vol. 38, No. 9
January 29, 2004
I. Roll Call.
Present: Beck, Bigel, Brooks, Gendreau, Gibson, Gongaware, Heim, Hoar, Kernozek, Kraemer, Maher, Majak, Poulton, Ragan, B. Riley, D. Riley, Shanks, Shillinger, Sullivan, Taylor, Vandenberg-Daves, Wilson, Wingate.
II. Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the November 6, 2003, and the November 20, 2003, meetings were approved as distributed.
Chair Hoar brought the senate up to date on the following matters: Chancellor Hastad has approved the name change of the College of HPERTE to the College of EESHR, and has forwarded it to the Regents for final approval.
Several administrative searches are currently underway: Mandi Anderson is Chair of the search for the Dean of EESHR. She reports that the ad is out with a February 23rd deadline to apply – finalists to visit campus sometime in late March. The search for the Dean of CLS is a few weeks ahead of the other search with a February 2nd deadline to receive applications. Ronda Knox is Chairing the search committee and hopes to have everything wrapped up by the end of March. Rob Tyser is Chairing the search committee for the two associate dean positions in the College of SAH. The deadline for applying for both positions is March 1. The committee hopes for rapid progress once the applications are received.
Other committee reports: General Education Committee (chaired by Emily Johnson, General Education Director) received about 260 surveys from seniors on their views of the strengths/weaknesses of the general education program. The committee has approved a theme-based approach to general education which will run as a pilot project next year. The theme is human rights. The committee is also investigating the possibility of asking one or two faculty – say in the English department – to modify ENG 110 into a freshmen experience course. Surveys will be distributed to department chairs and colleges to gather feedback. In addition, it is likely that the committee will propose offering a first year experience like a learning community with set of core or foundational courses.
International Education Committee (chaired by Don Kuderer) spent a considerable amount of time last semester looking at the International Initiatives Menu which will detail ways students can take part in an international experience.
Undergraduate Research Committee (chaired by Jennifer Miskowski) is looking at best possible uses of differential tuition – looking at proposing 2nd funding cycle (fall as well) and perhaps increase dollars awarded on one or both.
The ad hoc committee on the Review of Program Array (chaired by Tom Gendreau) has met about six times. Charged to create a process to create criteria to review program array, the committee expects to have a report available by the end of the semester.
Chancellor Hastad shared comments on the BOR initiative called Charting a New Course, which consists of five different working groups that meet monthly on Thursday of the Regents meetings. He is a member of the Achieving Operating Efficiencies group (Joe Heim from this campus sits on Relationship with the State group). The task is to bring suggestions to the Regents for consideration at the March meeting. There is broad representation on each group including at least one of the Regents – it is an interesting exercise to educate Regents – very productive exercise and good initiatives will come forward. Senate Heim concurred and indicated that the groups are moving slowly which is good – bringing people in to educate – over half the BOR is relatively new. Operating Efficiencies group is looking at ways to save dollars, increase efficiencies.
As far as budget requests, Chancellor Hastad reported that we don’t know much more than last week. Believes Regents and System will go forward with requests for budget: financial aid and salaries; however it will be a lean biennial budget. $1M less than we would have had we met out of state student enrollment targets. We don’t expect a request from the Governor’s office to give back any money this spring.
Noel Levitz Consulting Group visited campus last week. They are here to help us understand what we need to do to recruit the students we want to recruit. A written report will be available within a matter of a week or two.
Admissions closed last year on January 2nd. Not closed yet this year. Want to provide for greater flexibility – holding waitlist. This is the most popular campus among comprehensives. We need to recruit the students we want.
There were no reports from the Provost or from the Chief Financial Officer who are both in Madison.
Senator Heim reported that the Faculty Representatives met early in December and will meet again tomorrow in Madison. The major item of discussion last month was the idea of credit transfer between UW System and the Wisconsin Technical College System. Other items of interest are the Open Meeting Laws – which are focused on the BOR, and the Concealed Gun Law, which was vetoed by the Governor. The matter of sabbatical funding is still on hold; of course it is a budget issue.
The UWL Student Association Liaison has not yet identified for the spring semester.
Peg Maher and Greg Wegner, senate-appointed representatives of the ad hoc committee on Advising, presented their reactions and recommendations to the Academic Initiatives Oversight Committee’s Proposal for Advising Allocation. In summary, the proposal includes creation of an easily accessible Campus Advising Center (a “HUB” for advising) staffed with one full-time director, four full-time professional advisors to represent each college and ten student peer advisors. The Taskforce Committee also proposed a new strategy for advising including: 1) all freshman and undecided students will be required to meet with an assigned center advisor at least 2 times to address initial needs, 2) once a major is chosen the student will be assigned an additional departmental or college advisor, 3) a future goal of somehow integrating departmental and college advisors at the center, and 4) professional advisors will continually communicate with assigned advisees on an annual or biannual basis.
The four faculty senate representatives (Maher, Wegner, Donna Anderson and Billy Clow) recommend rejecting the proposal for the following reasons: (1) there is no clearly defined scope of academic advising or distinction of who should/will define and implement various parts of that scope. (2) The current problems with academic advising are ill-defined and need further research and documentation before resources are allocated for brand new solutions, unless the current structure of advising is eliminated altogether. (3) There still seems to be a strong preference for a college-based system of advising as reported in the Blue Ribbon Committee on Academic Advising Report of 1995. (4) Coordination and authority among the proposed center, departmental, college and Academic Discovery Lab advisors is not defined in the proposal and must be a part of the proposal unless the current system of advising is replaced by central advising. (5) There is no clear plan/resources for training of proposed advising center personnel or those that are currently advising. (6) The Taskforce Committee has heard the multiple concerns of meeting participants but has not addressed them sufficiently with a revised proposal.
Julia McConnel, a graduate intern in the Provost’s Office and a member of the Academic Initiative Oversight Committee, reported that the students are meeting tomorrow to begin revising the draft proposal. Considerable discussion followed – brings up bigger issue of how advising is happening on campus – how is it valued? Agree that there is room for improvement on this campus. Eau Claire integrates advising as part of the promotion process. We need to continue dialogue with students, don’t want to give them the impression that we are rejecting their ideas.
Are there any insights into how the current proposal will be changed? Rumors are that some of the money will go back to departments. Maybe make UWL 100 a required seminar encouraging students to be proactive in their own advising. Look at specific
problems rather than global problems- 65% of students are satisfied with advising. There is strong sentiment that it should not take the place of department or program advising. The faculty need to assert that it is our rights to do academic advising. Before spending money determine what the problem is. Worried about the cultural change that is being proposed, and a longer time to graduation.
M/S/P the faculty senate supports the concerns and recommendations of the ad hoc advising committee as outlined in its January 29, 2004, report to the faculty senate, and recommends that the report be forwarded to the Student Senate, the Academic Initiatives Oversight Committee, Provost Hitch and Dean Roter with the goal of helping revise and improve on the current proposal. (unanimous show of hands)
IV. School of Education Reorganization Proposal.
Interim Director of Education, Dick Swantz, reviewed the proposal which has the unanimous support of the faculty in the department of Educational Studies, as well as departments in the college who house education programs within their departments. The proposal clarifies governance responsibilities, strengthens leadership roles and provides an unambiguous, practical structure in which to engage in the tasks at hand.
The senate discussed the proposed addition of the Teacher Education Governing Council to the faculty senate by-laws. Specific suggestions regarding wording and membership were made to Appendix I (which follows):
Recommended Addition to the UW-L Faculty By-Laws to Establish the Teacher Education Governing Council as a Standing Council of the Faculty Senate
Duties and Responsibilities of the Council shall include:
1. Reviewing, commenting, and rendering decisions on all items related
to teacher education policy including: admission and exit requirements, program enrollment management, curriculum and goals for teacher education.
2. Reviewing, commenting and rendering decisions on all programmatic
changes which alter academic major requirements in content fields, general education, and/or the professional sequence of studies for programs leading to certification to serve as a Birth to Twenty-one professional.
3. Monitor the Teacher Education Unit Strategic Plan
4. Serving as an advocate for teacher education, on and off campus.
5. Providing advice to the Director of the Teacher Education as requested.
6. Reviewing accreditation and program approval reports.
Membership of the Teacher Education Governing Council shall consist of 17 voting members, 12 appointed by the Faculty Senate, 1 appointed by the Student Senate, and 3 appointed by the Director of the Teacher Education Unit. Three consultants will also be appointed by the Director of Teacher Education Unit. Members will serve three year terms. Terms will be staggered so that 5 to 6 new members will be appointed each year.
Ø One faculty member from each of the following professional education programs within the College of Education, Exercise Science, Health and Recreation: Early Childhood/Elementary/Middle Level Education, Middle Level/Secondary Education, Physical Education, and School Health. (appointed by Faculty Senate)
Ø Two faculty members with direct experience and responsibility (teaching and/or advising) for teacher education in his/her disciplinary area from each of the three other academic colleges. (appointed by Faculty Senate)
Ø Two faculty member representing graduate teacher education programs, with membership rotating between the MEPD, School Psychology, Special Education, and Reading programs. (appointed by Faculty Senate)
Ø Three education representatives external to the University. (appointed by the Director of Teacher Education)
Ø One teacher education student. (appointed by the Director of the Teacher Education in consultation with the Student Senate).
Ø The Director of Teacher Education, who will serve as chair of the Council.
Ø Consultants (ex-officio) to include staff members with the following responsibilities: (1) assessment, (2) certification, and (3) clinicals/student teaching. (appointed by the Director of Teacher Education)
Chair Hoar reminded the senate that specific action will not be taken at today’s meeting, rather this is an opportunity to discuss the proposal, ask questions and solicit feedback.
V. Committee on Academic Policies & Standards Report on Summer School/May Term Scheduling.
Jac Bulk and Adrian Loh, members of CAPS presented the following report from the committee. All student members on CAPS approved and only two faculty dissented on proposal.
Summer School/May Term Scheduling
Late in September of 2003 the Provost requested that the CAPS consider a proposal to modify the academic calendar to reflect a “4 + 4 + 4” summer school schedule containing a four-week block of classes in what is currently the three-week May-term session. The goal of the proposed modification is to increase student enrollments by preventing overlapping sessions while at the same time maintaining high academic standards. Implementation was proposed for the 2005-6 academic year.
In deliberating on this issue, the CAPS received input from college representatives and the Provost, Registrar, and Vice Chancellor for Administration & Finance. We have also relied on the input of our three student CAPS members and a student senator from HPERTE.
As changes, if any, are implemented the CAPS requests that the effects on enrollments be closely monitored to determine if the goal of increasing total enrollment without compromising academic standards is being realized.
The CAPS recommends the following:
· No post-Spring (May, Summer I, Summer II) classes should start earlier than their official start date, which should follow the official end of the spring semester.
· The academic calendar should allow a 4-week period for "May" term pushing the entire remaining summer session further into the summer by one week. Each session should then be allocated one 4-week “box” of time that does not overlap with other sessions. The three 4-week terms should subsequently be referred to as "Summer I", "Summer II", and "Summer III".
· Summer session courses should be allowed to run for any length, as long as the start date coincides with an official start date of a session.
· Courses should be allowed to run over multiple sessions (boxes) only if they are longer than four weeks in duration.
· The maximum allowable number of total credits for summer session should be increased to 12 (following the standard of 1 credit/week of class instruction). Registration for >12 credits for the entire summer session should require the signature of the Dean.
· Standardization of daily class times should be addressed at a later date to minimize class period overlap.
Brings up variety of issues: Starting May session where May session starts would mean ending one week later. Plan allows for faculty to teach 3-weeks within a four week and also to run over multiple sessions if longer than four weeks. The plan, if adopted, would begin in 2005.
Senator Beck stated that the Library, which currently only provides services for eight weeks of summer school, has concerns. They would need more money for staffing; there would be increased demands for resources; quality of services and summer compensation are big issues.
The SEC will seek answers to the financial issues raised and report back at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Eric R. Kraemer, Secretary