Provost’s Assessment Advisory Committee
Minutes of the Meeting
February 9, 2005
Present: Jeryl Mumpower, Theresa Walker, Sue Faerman, Greg Stevens, Ricky Fortune,
Brianne Myers, Marjorie Pryse, Julia Filippone, Meredith Butler, Julie Horney, David
McCaffrey, Mickey Kavanaugh, Susan Phillips, Gwen Moore, Malcolm Sherman, Bruce
Szelest, Catherine Herman, Steve Beditz, Sheila Mahan, Pradeep Haldar, Hassa Bakhru,
David Wagner, Nancy Persily
Provost Mumpower briefly addressed the Advisory Committee: Thanked the committee
for their time, effort and hard work in preparing this important campus document. He
noted that President Hall could not be here, but supports the committee’s efforts. In both
Utah and North Carolina, President Hall has been a professional leader in using
assessment for the management of institutions. Sherman and Mumpower clarified that
this included academic and administrative units. Mumpower called the document an
impressive piece of work, particularly because of the emphasis on continuous
improvement. He looks forward to receiving the final document. After the Advisory
Committee recommends it to the Provost, it will go to the Senate, and the President
during this semester.
Szelest addressed item #1 on the agenda, update on General Education FOIL. SUNY
rolled out the summary information and supplementary information, presented the data to
reporters, and emphasized the non-comparability of the data between campuses. There
were no negative report in the newspapers. It has raised some issues for us to consider,
however, regarding posting assessment plans. Szelest, Faerman, Lorang, Herman, and
Luntta met in January with John Reilly, University Counsel, about this. We learned that
charts and tables are open to FOIL, while narrative, recommendations, summaries, and
non-final reports that are part of the deliberative process are not. In either event, it is
prudent to discuss and future FOILs on a case-by-case basis. We want to encourage
discussion and critical self-reflection by our programs and units. We do though need to
be smart about what we make public.
Szelest next addressed item #3. Administrative units will communicate their assessment
plan with their constituencies. We need to be smart about this also, focusing on what we
will do to improve. Szelest asked if there was anything we would like to discuss. He
added that in the spirit of openness, that we would promote making assessment plans and
activity reports available on a website. Pryse clarified that this was referring only to the
assessment plan. Szelest explained that the CAA is working on language to facilitate
annual reports. This will serve as a confirmation of the assessment plan and discuss
results to update the assessment plan. Wagner referred to the phrase “various campus
constituencies”, asking whether is there a breakdown of what information is circulated to
which constituencies? Szelest replied that at this time it referred to all information
available to all constituencies. We have not been very good at this in the past. Units
would benefit from discussion. Persily asked how accreditation, such as CDPH, is seen.
Szelest replied that internally accreditation satisfied assessment requirement, and pieces
related to assessment can go on the website. Persily explained that the process of change
was the more interesting part, and asked whether a report was expected. Szelest
responded yes, and agreed that the main focus is the process. Phillips explained that the
in the School of Education, some programs were accredited and others are not, and asked
what is the unit of analysis. Szelest replied that it was the program. The Institutional
Assessment Plan, as drafted, does not require assessment plans for schools or colleges.
At the VP level, however, there are divisional assessment plans. Phillips asked whether,
given that some programs would go through an accreditation process, it would make
sense for all programs to go through the process. Szelest responded yes, and that it needs
to flow through the assessment office. Phillips asked, am I answering to the Assessment
Council, Provost? Szelest replied that the provost is the primary person for deans to be
responsible to, but other groups will be interested in assessment activities. Mumpower
will consult with President Hall and the Senate; procedures will eventually become
university policy. Sherman added that the Council on Academic Assessment is
reviewing documents and discussing procedures. Walker asked about assessment plans
and reports being made available on the web, would this be the intranet, or available to
the world? Szelest responded that his thinking is that they be made available to the
world, and this is why we need to be smart. Butler added that in her experience as part of
an assessment at NYU, she found that reporting scores were of concern, not because they
were bad but that they did not meet expectations, and there is a need for sensitivity.
Szelest suggested that given poor results, unit focus might be on discussing plans for
improvements and not include reporting results. We are unable to do Intranet at this
time. Kavanaugh added that students and parents would like to know this information.
Szelest proceeded to item 2. Pryse explained that a summary of the conversation
regarding Linking Assessment to Planning and Resource Allocation was sent to the
committee. Questions of policy must come from the Provost and President. Their role
was to make suggestions. Pryse added that the discussion included concern about the
link between assessment and resource allocation without looking at history. Pryse asked
if there were any questions. There being none, Szelest suggested we accept and move on.
Technical difficulties with the overhead projector prevented a preview of the Assessment
website, so Szelest described the entry page with links to assessment plan and activity
report for each program. Wilkinson and Szelest can facilitate, and do most of the work to
get information on the website. Other issues, implementation schedule will most likely
be this summer for the VP units. Suggests leaving the implementation language as is
(non-specified) to give VPs flexibility if needed, especially those that are currently led by
interim leaders. This really only affects non-academic units, as assessment in the major
and general education assessment are already underway.
Discussion ensued regarding the reporting of the Director of Assessment to both the
Undergraduate Dean and the Director of CETL, and the potential implication for
minimizing the role of the Graduate Dean, and graduate programs, in assessment.
Faerman noted that in the past, the position was not located in CETL because assessment
was generally viewed as evaluative. The position was historically linked with General
Education, and that the Dean of Undergraduate Studies met with the Dean of Graduate
Studies regularly to make sure graduate program needs for assessment were met. It was
agreed that the language be modified to include only Director of CETL, striking Dean of
Undergraduate Studies, to reinforce the new direction of CETL to be more focused on
faculty development and support for teaching.
Szelest asked the committee to vote on recommending the current plan, incorporating the
issues discussed today, to the Provost. It was unanimously approved. Szelest said that a
final draft will be made available electronically.
An advisory committee listserv will be set up to facilitate communication among
members as we will probably not meet again formally this Semester.
Respectfully submitted by Barbara Wilkinson.