APPROVED
ACADEMIC PLANNING COUNCIL
Minutes of September 29, 2003
3 p.m., Holmes Student Center Ė HSC 505


Present:     Aase, Bose, Cassidy, Deskis, Dillman, House, Isabel, Jeris, Legg, Miller, Munroe, Musial, Prawitz, Reynolds, Schoenbachler, Seaver, Thompson

Guests:      Donna Askins, Research Associate, Office of the Provost; Craig Barnard, Coordinator, Assessment Services; Greg Paveza, American Council of
                 Education Fellow

The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m., and Legg announced that Payvar agreed to serve as the appointed representative of the APC to the University Assessment Panel.

It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of September 15, 2003, as distributed, and the motion passed unanimously.

Deskis announced that her subcommittee would be meeting on Monday October 13 at 3:00 in Graham 423.

Legg turned to the next agenda item: the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association self-study.  Cassidy informed the APC that there is a draft of the self-study out for review by various campus constituencies. Askins set up a search engine on the web site to enable searches for key words in the self-study.  There is also a comments link that will put you into an email message to Jan Rintala to provide her with input from individual council members.  The Introduction, History and Mission, and Governance and Planning chapters have been assigned specifically for the APCís input.  The floor was opened up for comments on the self-study. Legg noted that it would be helpful even if you only read the sections that are of interest to you, and send us your comments.

Thompson said that in the Introduction chapter in response to item number 4 we talk about the opportunities that we are taking advantage of, and asked if this really answered the question that was asked.  Legg asked if she was asking about how we got the information.  Thompson replied that it seems like the accrediting board is asking what are the mechanisms used, and our answer is about the opportunities we have taken advantage of.  Cassidy added that this is a description of actions taken, but it doesnít talk about processes.  Thompson said that it seems that they were asking more about the process. Cassidy said that item number 5 talks about quality control in off-campus programs, and the APC will be talking about this later in the meeting in terms of the interim reports.  Thompson asked if there was any history to item number 5.  Cassidy replied that she didnít know what the history was, and we have spent time attempting to find out what this means.  There is no reference anywhere else in the report to central oversight of graduate programs.  Legg added that we do offer off-campus programs.  Thompson stated that this seems like a process, and it is a centralized process.  Cassidy said she would argue the other way.  The quality control lies within departments.  There are expectations for monitoring the quality of the programs delivered off campus and there is reporting to the provostís office.  Legg said that you may have another faculty at an off-campus site, and this is how I interpreted this.  Thompson added that it seems like they were complaining that we were centralized.  Bose added that his initial reading was that this was decentralized graduate education, but decentralized means we are offering some graduate programs off-campus.  This is not the case here.  There is centralized administration; the Graduate Council makes all the decisions.  Thompson said that somehow the previous site visit committee got this idea.  Cassidy stated that the delivery of programs and courses off-campus is very parochial.  Seaver added that he canít think of a change that has occurred since the last visit.  Cassidy asked if there were any other comments or observations on the Introduction chapter.

Cassidy asked if there were any suggestions for the Mission chapter.  Bose stated that in many institutions their mission statement is one paragraph in length.  Do we have that kind of statement some place?  Cassidy replied that we are working on the development of a concise mission statement.  Last year this council and the University Assessment Panel reviewed the mission statement and made recommendations to the president.  Many comments addressing the mission statement indicated that it did not reflect what a mission statement should be.  Legg added that part of the issue is that several years ago we obtained an outside firm to help us promote who we are as an institution.  I hope we have something before we have to submit this document.  Cassidy said that we are not at that point in the process, but the self-study can make a statement about where we are in revising the mission statement.

Prawitz asked about a seventh goal being developed for the Illinois Commitment.  Legg asked by whom?  Prawitz said it was being developed by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the IBHE board.  Cassidy replied that this is true, but this is only an advisory committee and a decision about a seventh goal has not yet been approved.  The IBHE agenda contains an item on the Illinois Commitment indicating the board will act as a committee to review the plan and to consider revisions or additions to it.  I doubt we will know anything to address this in the self-study.

Cassidy asked if there were any other suggestions.  You can go to the web site and send Jan Rintala your recommendations, and we will get you that hot link electronically.

The APC turned to the review of the IBHE interim reports.  Cassidy said that this process is new.  When the IBHE revised its program review process and guidelines for new program and center approvals in 1999, new procedures were put in place.  One requirement is to submit an interim report three years after receiving approval for a new program (on or off campus) and a new center.  We wanted a university committee to review these reports before they are sent to the IBHE.

The Audiology program is eligible for accreditation and must submit a report every year until accreditation is received.  The information you have indicates the status of accreditation for the Au.D. program.  Legg said that this was a necessary change; the program has gone from a masterís program to a doctoral program due to new accrediting standards for practice.  Cassidy added that there are no students in the program yet.  The department is working on recruitment.

Musial said that the reports are interesting, but what are the criteria.  What are the expectations for the status reports?  Cassidy replied that for programs that are seeking accreditation, the IBHE wants to know where the program is in that process.  For centers the question is to what extent is the center fulfilling its mission or goals.  We have designed a format to report on the accomplishments that have been achieved.  For degree programs we need to report on program outcomes (enrollment, degree completion, retention) and learning outcomes.  There is no format that we have been given, but in the directions these are the general areas that we need to report.

Deskis asked if the OMIS program is meeting its enrollment goals.  Cassidy replied that they have some problems with their data.  When you make these projections, you try to present a case that there is demand for the program that is realistic and manageable.  In three years going from 2 to 20 students is progress.  We can say that they have a critical mass of students now.  Deskis said that in paragraph three on resources, the information could be played as a plus.  Legg said that when this was started, the economy was going very well, and now we have had an economic turndown.  Aase said that slots were not filled in 2001.  Now the resources have been redistributed.  Cassidy said that the application includes information about who will be teaching at the off-campus sites.  One requirement is that regular, full-time faculty teach in the program.  Bose noted that the table on page 2 under the current year heading lists full time as 0 and in fiscal year 2002 reports 6.  I am not following this data at all.  Cassidy responded that they are not clear about calculating FTE.  We will clarify FTE and get the correct data before this report is submitted.  Prawitz asked what the FTE calculation was.  House said that for some it is 12 hours and for others it is 15 hours.  Deskis added that the FTE would be 255 divided by 30.  House said that for graduate programs it would be 9 hours.  Legg asked if there was anything else in the reports that the council wanted to discuss.  Cassidy asked if there were any questions about the instructional technology report.  Last year this program was able to begin a new cohort.

The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn A. Cradduck