Present: Aase, Bose, Cassidy, Deskis, Dillman, House,
Legg, Isabel, Jeris, Miller, Munroe, Musial, Payvar, Prawitz, Reynolds,
Guests: Donna Askins, Research Associate, Office of the Provost
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m., and Legg announced that the APC has an American Council of Education fellow with us this year, Greg Paveza. This is a very distinctive fellowship that has a strong interest in learning more about leadership. Paveza comes from South Florida, and we are pleased to have him here.
Legg welcomed the members for the 2003–2004 academic year. There was an introduction of each member of the council. Legg stated that this year there were two subcommittees, and he introduced the chairs of the subcommittees: Susan Deskis and Jeanne Isabel.
It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of April 28, 2003, as distributed, and the motion passed unanimously.
Legg asked for nominations for assistant chair of the APC. The assistant chair conducts the APC meetings in the absence of the provost and serves as the APC liaison to the University Council. The council voted unanimously to have Aimee Prawitz serve in this role.
Legg indicated that the election of the APC Agenda Committee was the next item of business. He stated that in past years the provost, associate vice provost for academic planning and development, the APC subcommittee chairs, and the APC assistant chair have served as the agenda committee. The APC voted to continue this practice for 2003-2004. The committee will meet at the beginning of the spring semester to set the agenda for the spring semester.
Legg stated that the APC needed to elect a representative to the University Assessment Panel (UAP). Carol Thompson was the APC elected representative to the UAP last year, and she will continue in that role if there are no objections.
Cassidy distributed updated membership and subcommittee membership lists. The schedule of planned meetings is listed for the fall, but council members were asked to hold all Mondays between 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. in case additional meetings need to be scheduled. Members will receive an agenda prior to each scheduled meeting.
Cassidy noted that there were two new things this year that the council will discuss. The APC will discuss the self-study being prepared for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association and the changes that occurred with the programmatic approval process. Cassidy stated that at the end of September we should have an electronic web site for the Higher Learning Commission self-study. The APC will be asked to look at the chapters on mission and planning, undergraduate programs, and graduate and professional programs. The chapters will be discussed at a future meeting. Also new this fall is the review of interim reports that will be submitted to the IBHE. Continuing members will recall that in the past the APC took up follow-up reports in the spring semester that were requested as part of a previous program review. The interim reports that we are taking up this fall are requested by the IBHE. Requests for a new program, off-campus program, and research centers are required to submit an interim report to the IBHE three years after receiving approval. The interim report should state how the program/center is moving toward the outcomes specified in the original request. The council will look over these reports before they are sent to the IBHE. The new requests were previously approved by the APC.
Some Mondays will be used to meet with chairs and deans undergoing program review. Please hold all Mondays in case we need to call a special meeting.
Cassidy stated in the spring we will be able to discuss items of import to the APC, and those items will be placed on the agenda by the agenda committee. This year the APC will not be reviewing follow-up reports from previous program reviews because there were not any requested.
Cassidy said that the background information section of the notebook contains reference materials that should be reviewed prior to reading the program review documents. This section also contains the responses to the FY03 APC members’ review of council responsibilities. This information could be discussed in the spring. The Annual Report of the University Assessment Panel is in this section, and the work of the UAP and APC interdigitate. The UAP provides feedback and funding to implement assessment programs to departments. The annual Results Report reports on initiatives accomplished last year and plans for next year. There were two new sections in this report this year. They were common institutional indicators and a set of mission specific indicators. Both the UAP and APC gave feedback on these issues. We are now required to provide three years of data in the Results Report. The APC will discuss this in the spring. Legg said that we are being measured by numbers, and this is like being graded. Cassidy stated that there is one article that talks about the characteristics of students. There is also a report entitled “Building a Nation of Learners” that talks about changes proposed for higher education, engaging students in learning, student responsibilities, and practices of institutions. It identifies some policy recommendations on how higher education should reshape itself to meet these needs.
Cassidy turned to the guidelines section that contains the program review format. Last year we went to a two part program review format. The format now contains a department context section upfront, followed by a program specific context. One of the goals for the changes was to eliminate redundancies and shorten the reviews. Some minor changes were done this year in the benchmarking and program quality section. The center/office format remains essentially the same.
The APC’s major responsibility during the fall semester is the review of academic programs and public service and research centers. This year there are no centers/offices to be reviewed. The individuals who are not on the subcommittee reviewing the full program review documents will receive a summary of the reviews and the subcommittee report prior to the APC meeting where the reviews are discussed.
Musial asked about follow-up on the program review documents. After the subcommittee reviews the documents, is there another version of the documents reviewed by the Provost Office? Cassidy replied that if there are things that the subcommittee asks to be added to the review, then the Provost Office checks this when the final versions are submitted. These documents are used to prepare the reports for the Board of Trustees and the IBHE. Musial stated that the program is asked to rewrite the reviews again. Cassidy responded that this is correct, but generally these are minor rewrites. Musial asked if all comments and reviews are kept in a single file. Cassidy replied that the final version is what is kept permanently. Our goal is to prepare a document that represents the program well.
Payvar asked if we could be brought up-to-date on the work that was
done on the mission statement last year. Cassidy replied that last
year both the APC and UAP, who are changed with reviewing the mission statement,
did that. All the comments were gathered under four broad headings.
These were compiled and sent to the committees, the president, and the
provost. The university is having discussions about setting an agenda
for the future to create an identify for the university. I think
we are getting fairly close to where the president has a good sense of
what alumni and university committees think about the university.
Payvar asked if eventually the mission statement would appear in the catalog.
Cassidy responded yes, and it has to be approved by the Board of Trustees
and the IBHE. The Faculty Senate is also required to endorse the
mission statement. Payvar asked when it would appear. Cassidy
replied that she could not answer this question. The budget issues
have been taking up a lot of the president’s time at the moment.
Legg added that he did not know when this would appear.
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Carolyn A. Cradduck