ASCRC Minutes 3/27/12 GBB 202, 2:10 Members Present: B. Borrie, G. Coon, D. Dalenberg, W. Davies, N. Greymorning, M. Grimes, C. Henderson, C. Knight, D. Molgaard, C. Springmeyer, L. Tangedahl Members Absent/Excused: B. Holzworth, S. O’Hare, Z. Patten, J. Staub, D. Stolle Ex-Officio Present: E. Johnson, A. Walker-Andrews Chair Tangedahl called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. The minutes from 3/20/12 were approved Communication Items: New Student member Dan Molgaard was welcomed to the Committee and members introduced themselves. Student member Gwen Coon introduced a resolution regarding degree audit that will be presented to ASUM. The resolution resulted from her serving on the Graduation Appeals Committee. It is apparent that students are not aware of requirements. A degree audit system would provide students with a better resource so fewer slip through the cracks. Gwen met with Associate Provost Walker Andrews to discuss the resolution. Associate Provost Walker-Andrews would like ASCRC to consider simplifying the current practice of allowing students to graduate under six different catalogs. This is very confusing for students and advisors and would be difficult to manage in a degree audit system. Registrar Johnson is supportive of the motion’s intent. It could also involve an increase in graduation fees to pay for the system. UM’s current fee is $33, Montana Tech’s is $70. The administration is looking into options. Purchasing a system or making modifications to current systems could cost between $300,000-500,000 plus maintenance. Academic Planner is releasing a new version that enhances the functionality for advisors, but it lacks the capability of Degree Works (24/7, 365 days – and “what if” scenarios). Implementation of a new or modified system would still take at least a year and a half. The process would involve an evaluation of current policies by ASCRC. Any system would not be perfect and would be tied to resources allocation. Added benefits could be a faster review of graduation materials by the Registrar’s Office and quicker inhouse printing of diplomas. There would be a shift of when the work occurs. ASCRC unanimously voted to sponsor the resolution (appended below). Business Items: Workgroup 2 presented the draft Common Course Numbering procedure. It recommends that unique courses be entered into the master matrix of courses without system-wide vetting and that an annual audit of courses be conduced to catch any courses that may have overlaping learning outcomes. This would involve follow-up only for courses where issues are found and not involve a system-level review of all unique courses. This seems like a more efficient self-correcting mechanism. The draft procedure will be sent to members for further consideration. ASCRC discussed the changes made to the Academic Oversight Working Paper. The language was again revised (appended below) and will be submitted to ECOS for consideration. Professors Dalenberg and Borrie met with the Chair of Modern and Classical Languages regarding the encentive approach to encouraging students to take a language. She thought language faculty would want the extended major status enforced to qualify for the symbolic systems exception. She was not opposed to encentives, but didn’t think it would be effective. She also thought there would be push back from departments that offer courses in the general education groups that a language would now satisfy. The department would also need more sections of 200 level courses so some resource reallocation would be necessary. ASCRC declined to approved the motion with a vote of six in favor and one abstention. It would like to see whether the incentive approach works. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The Associated Students of The University of Montana Resolution Regarding Degree Audit Program March 15, 2012 Senate Bill SB__-11/12 Authored by: Gwendolyn Coon, ASUM Senator Sponsored by: Whereas, The Associated Students of The University of Montana (ASUM) is representative of over 15,000 students at the University of Montana Campus; Whereas, the purpose of students at The University of Montana is to gain an education; Whereas, The University of Montana requires students to complete all degree and general education requirements prior to graduation; Whereas, The University of Montana provides students with numerous resources such as the Undergraduate Advising Center, Academic Planner, UMAdvising.com, and individual department advisors in order to encourage fulfillment of all degree and general education requirements, timely graduation, and a well-rounded education; Whereas, these resources, as well as policies currently in place may sometimes prove inefficient and/or ineffective in addressing student’s needs; Whereas, The Office of the Registrar and The Office of the Provost have expressed desire to acquire a Degree Audit program that would act as a provision to ensure degree acquisition for hard working students; Whereas, a Degree Audit program has the potential to help students find the best academic path to complete their degree, provides academic advice for choosing the most appropriate major as soon as possible, and provides feedback each semester on academic progress; Therefore, Let It Be Resolved that the Associated Students of The University of Montana strongly encourage and will seek ways to support the adoption of a Degree Audit program that benefits the students, faculty, and staff of The University of Montana. To: Academic Standards & Curriculum Review Committee From: ASCRC Working Group Date: 5/29/2016 Re: Academic Oversight Policy - DRAFT Discussion paper Introduction As a working group, we have diligently studied and discussed this issue and from our various campus conversations it is apparent that there is a uniform concern about Academic Oversight. We hope to initiate a campus discussion that will involve more faculty, campus leadership, and senior administration. It is not clear whether an Academic Oversight policy would come from ASCRC, ECOS, or the Provosts Office, but we wanted to provide a starting point. The goal of this discussion paper, therefore, is to generate initial discussion within ASCRC. It is worth noting that we are talking about academic programs (degrees, minors, certificates) and not oversight of individual courses. We also wish to point out a somewhat natural evolution of academic programs which may be to begin in, or be adopted by, an existing academic home and then sometimes progress to their own department or unit, along with the development of attendant unit standards. Background The need for this policy grew out of various discussions in Fall 2011 (and previous semesters) around proposals from the Mansfield Center, the Defense Critical Language Program, Freshman Seminars, MLEA/Police Sciences, and proposals from administrators or non-tenurable faculty. There are three inter-related items under the Academic Oversight banner: Standalone minors/certificates, Interdisciplinary programs, & Non-academic units offering courses. Our task could be summarized as developing a policy that ensures all academic offerings (minors, certificates, degrees) are housed within an academic unit, thus allowing faculty oversight of the academic programs of the University. There are several academic foundations to such a policy. Firstly, that it is regular faculty who maintain the prerogative to develop, establish, or reorganize curriculum, as well as requirements for, and the granting of, degrees. These regular faculty engage in the full range of traditional teaching, research and creative activities and service. (Non-tenurable appointments are used only for special or specialized purposes and/or limited periods.) (UM Policy 101.2) Secondly, it is the unit standards of each academic unit which, in conjunction with the collective bargaining agreement, provide necessary standards and expectations upon the faculty. These unit standards specify regular channels for the appointment, evaluation and promotion of faculty. (CBA Section 10) Thirdly, that the various university institutes, bureaus, centers, stations, and labs can either exist to focus attention on a particular area of strength or critical issue or to facilitate collaborative, multi-disciplinary endeavors to combine resources and expertise from several programs. These institutes and centers must be related to the overall institutional mission, including the Departments involved, and must show a contribution to the academic programs of the University with respect to teaching, research and service. (UM Policy 103) Program review exists in order to ensure program quality, foster academic excellence at all levels, and effective stewardship of resources. Those reviews shall include all programs listed in the “degree and program inventory” maintained by the office of the commissioner of higher education of the Montana University System (MUS), and shall include options, minors not associated with a major, and certificates of more than 30 credits listed in the inventory. (Board of Regents Policy 303.3) An Academic Oversight policy would help bring all academic offerings within a strong system of shared governance, long-term commitment to institutional activities, as well as open communication and collaboration between academic units. Some notable interdisciplinary or standalone academic programs on the University of Montana campus: African American Studies Climate Change Studies Central and Southwest Asian Studies East Asian Studies Gerontology Global Public Health International Development Studies Military Studies Nonprofit Administration Resource Conservation South and Southeast Asian Studies Wilderness Studies Wildlife Biology Women’s and Gender Studies Proposal All educational programs (i.e. degrees, majors, minors, options, and certificates) must be subject, on a seven-year cycle, to University program review. The program leadership should have an appointment in an academic unit for which unit standards for faculty evaluation are in place. Pro’s Continuity of regular faculty to establish, evolve and ensure standards of academic programs. Ties expectations and responsibilities of faculty to evaluation of faculty. o Unit standards are the norm on this campus, protecting reasonable expectations & workloads. Keeps academic programs within usual faculty governance & communication channels. Clear administrative ownership and commitment, from departments through Dean’s office, to Provost’s office. Protects programs, students, and faculty from short-term enthusiasms and funding cycles. o Including when faculty leadership retires or moves to other campus. Advisory boards sometimes reflect external rather than university priorities. Assures that all academic programs will fall under regular program review. Con’s Difficulty of interdisciplinary programs, which have shared oversight, rotating leadership & governance. o Both within a particular College/School, or between several Colleges and Schools. May be desirable to have short-term academic programs, responsive to short-term external funding. Difficulty of defining what is an academic unit. Tensions sometimes exist between a program’s steering committee and home academic unit. Faculty teaching in 2+ programs need clarity as to which unit standards predominate. The CBA appears to control the list of units with unit standards which could slow the process.