2015-2016
SAC #7
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE – STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes, April 1, 2016
9:00 a.m., Cunningham Library, Room 028
Members Present: Cheryl Blevens, Lisa Phillips, Jeanne Sowers
Ex-Officios Present: Angie MacLaren, Josh Powers, Craig Enyeart.
Student Representatives and Guests Present: None
I. Call to Order
Chairperson Cheryl Blevens called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. There being no quorum,
the meeting was spent on discussion of Faculty Senate Charge #1: SAC’s response to the
Academic Advisement Task Force Report. A summary of the discussion follows.
II. Adoption of the Agenda
Tabled.
III. Approval of Minutes from the March 3 2016 Meeting.
Tabled
IV. Faculty Senate Charges for 2015-2016:
1. (Action Item) SAC response to Academic Advisement Task Force Report. Review
recommendations from the Advising Taskforce and, working with FAC and GC, make
recommendations that could be enacted without the additional funding requested.
(Sowers)
Dr. Powers expressed his belief that the issue is too important to call for a vote on the
draft response without having another opportunity for further discussion. Other points he
made were that FAC is drafting a document that has points that do not align with SAC’s
proposal. He addressed SAC’s “disappointed that no financial allocations have been
provided” point by clarifying that since advising is aligned with teaching and teaching
doesn’t result in extra pay unless the faculty person is assigned a heavier teaching load,
then faculty who are assigned a standard advising load should not expect to receive extra
pay for something that by handbook definition is part of their teaching responsibilities.
He talked about one of MySAM’s functions is the updating of degree maps, which is a
State mandated need. Although requiring it, the State didn’t explain how it was to be
done. Degree mapping seems to be a sub issue—competency is highly placed in
everyone’s conversations. Some faculty have feelings of discomfort regarding their
1
2015-2016
SAC #7
competency in advising students and that not enough is being done to eliminate these
feelings through education opportunities. Dr. Powers maintains that faculty needs to hold
themselves and each other accountable for supporting and seeking proper education, such
as taking advantage of the educational opportunities that FCTE is offering. It is a
challenge to get faculty to participate in training. FCTE needs to be supported in its
efforts. It’s hard to get faculty to show up at training sessions but the need to get people
out to those sessions is great. The stakes are too high not to make stronger efforts on the
part of all faculty.
Ms Phillips noted that her sense is that the degree mapping component seems to be the
most anxiety producing component. At yesterday’s faculty senate meeting, senators were
divided. They have scheduled an emergency meeting to continue the discussion.
Ms. Sowers will draft a new SAC proposal based on today’s conversation. The chair will
forward it to the committee as soon as possible. (Recorder’s note: a copy of the revised
proposal is attached to the bottom of these minutes.)
2. Work with FAC and student conduct regarding policy/procedures for removing a student
from a course. Charge complete.
3. Provide updates from SGA Senate meetings.
Tabled
4. Monitor the enrollment structure and processes of undergraduate, graduate, and
international student enrollment. (Hudnall)
Tabled
5. Monitor student quality measures that go beyond HSGPA. (Hantzis)
Tabled
.
6. Monitor scholarship GPA maintenance standards. (Liu)
Tabled
7. Administer the Faculty Scholarship. (Liu, Arrington-Bey, Hantzis)
Tabled
8. Produce and submit an annual report by April 27, 2016. (Blevens)
Tabled
9. Work together with the chairs of the other standing committees (other than the Dismissal
Committee) to draft Handbook language for the creation of a Policies Committee that
would serve as a subcommittee of the standing committees. (Blevens)
Tabled.
2
2015-2016
SAC #7
V. Administrative Reports:
1. Chair:
Tabled.
2. Ex-Officios:
a. Academic Affairs. Dr. J. Powers.
The Office of Student Success is partnering with the Vigo County College Success
Coalition to screen the award-winning film, First Generation, at the Indiana Theater,
Ohio and South 7th Street, on April 12, 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:30). The movie’s tag
line is “Because going to college and succeeding in college IS possible.” A post-film
discussion with Rondrell Moore, TH Channel 10 co-anchor, and Kathy Cabello,
Indiana State Board of Trustees and former first generation college student will
follow the screening. Admission is free and five laptops will be offered as door
prizes. Faculty is encouraged to promote attendance of this event among the students.
b. Registrar. Ms Hay.
Tabled.
c. Executive Committee: Hantzis
Tabled.
3. SGA:
Tabled.
VI. Announcements
The chair will research alternatives for a meeting that might be needed after the April
5th meeting.
VII.
Adjournment
There was no further business to discuss; the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:54 a.m.
Minutes recorded by Cheryl Blevens
April 4, 2016
3
2015-2016
SAC #7
SAC PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE ACADEMIC ADVISING TASKFORCE
REPORT
REVISED APRIL 4, 2016
SAC applauds the work of the Academic Advising Taskforce in
capturing the interactional complexities of the dynamic process of
academic advising. SAC is also pleased that the committee identified
challenges that occur at the undergraduate and graduate level. The
committee agrees with the Taskforce that the ability to develop and
sustain a relationship between the student and the advisor is essential
to student success.
However, SAC recognizes that academic advising goes beyond the
primary relationship between the student and the advisor. Individual
programs, departments, colleges, and administrative offices must be
involved and supportive of the process. SAC is disappointed that no
financial allocations have been provided for this essential task. To
clarify, SAC does not recommend reimbursement for individual
advising sessions. Instead, moneys would focus on the unique needs
of Colleges and Departments. For example, monies could support
changes in advising tools, advancements in advising technology, the
engagement of professional advisors and similar initiatives.
The University as a whole is responsible for identifying, training, and
providing appropriate tools to facilitate academic advising. SAC notes
the importance of documenting a curricular plan during the advising
session. However, it is SAC’s view that Degree Map is not an efficient
tool. The committee and would encourage a review and possible
change to the current system. The committee It agrees with the
Taskforce that each faculty member is unique and that not all faculty
members should be required to advise students. Deans, chairpersons,
and program directors must identify faculty who have the desire,
talent, and disposition to become advisors. Those who are qualified
must demonstrate competency in skills related to advising by being.
All advisors would be required to achieve an initial competency. To
achieve this, SAC recommends that the Faculty Center for Teaching
Excellence (FTCE) design a certification program for the undergraduate
as well as the graduate level. Additionally, FCTE should develop
requirements for continued competency. SAC recommends that
advisors complete the competency program and also demonstrate
continued competency. The committee suggests a further show of
support for the program through the development of a publicity
campaign that encourages faculty to hold each other accountable for
actively participating in the certification process. The University needs
to provide appropriate tools to assist in the advising process.
4
2015-2016
SAC #7
SAC is concerned that the primary outcome measure at the
undergraduate level is “on-time graduation” or the 30-60-90 rule.
Scheduling should not be the primary focus of advising sessions. Time
devoted to the development of professional behaviors and attitudes is
essential for student success. The scheduling of classes can and should
be addressed through other methods such as peer advising, or
graduate assistant mentoring. Students have different need levels, and
some will require additional advising sessions in order to be successful.
A standard assignment (number) of advisees may not be appropriate.
SAC agrees that advising must be evaluated and become part of the
promotion, tenure, retention, and biennial review processes. The
committee is undecided regarding where advising resides, teaching
or service. SAC finds that either category has strengths and
weaknesses. SAC would charge individual programs, departments, and
colleges to make the decision based on the needs of the students and
within the curriculum. The University must appropriately compensate
advisors for their work. Because of the diverse nature of programs,
departments, and colleges, this compensation must be negotiated
within the different areas and reviewed by the Deans for equity
between colleges.
1 March, 2016
5