College-wide Governance Meeting
November 2, 2011
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
Middle States Update (Luzadis)
SUNY Senator Report
Student Life Committee
Instructional Quality Report
a. Resolution #2011-02
5. Executive Committee Report
ESF Reaffirmation of Accreditation by
Middle States Commission on Higher
Education (MSCHE)
Faculty Governance Meeting
2 November 2011
Accreditation Background
• Strengthens institution through self-regulation and
commitment to continuous self-assessment
• Federally approved accreditation agency, Middle States
Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), creates and
implements review structure
• ESF agrees to comply with MSCHE Standards of Excellence
• Best practices for higher education
• Peer review every 10 years after initial approval (2011-12)
• Periodic review completed by ESF at 5 year point
Review of the Process
• Two parts
– Self-Study on a Selected Topic
• Allows us to devote concentrated attention to topic
• MSCHE suggested that we use this approach
• Sustainability chosen by Executive Cabinet as topic
– Demonstration of compliance with MSCHE
Standards of Excellence
• Through development of a “Document Roadmap”
prepared separately from the Self-Study report
ESF’s Self-Study Report
• Advancing Sustainability at ESF: A Selected
Topics Self-Study for MSCHE Reaccreditation
• http://www.esf.edu/middlestates/
• Developed through a highly participatory
process directly involving nearly 100 ESF
faculty, staff, and students
– Input from full campus community
External Evaluation Team Visit
• November 6 -9, 2011
• Meetings with students, faculty, staff, administrators
• Open session purposes
• To help team to understand ESF
• To discuss sustainability efforts at ESF
• Open session for faculty
• Tuesday, November 8, 408 Baker, 4:30 – 5:15
• Open session for staff
• Tuesday, November 8, 408 Baker, 1:15 – 2:00
The Evaluation Team
• Chair – Thomas Buchanan
• President, University of Wyoming
• Co-Chair – Barnett Hamberger
• Assistant Provost, New York University
• Members
• Michelle Appel, Assoc. Dir. Enrollment Planning & Policy, Inst.
Research, Planning & Assessment, University of MD, College Park
• Tom Apple, Provost and Chem Prof, University of Delaware
• Arthur Johnson, Former Provost, Poli Sci Prof, University of MD,
Baltimore County
• Margaret Plympton, Vice Pres Finance and Admin, Lehigh University
Next Steps
• MSCHE External Team sends their report to
ESF for comment in December
• Team report and ESF response are submitted
to MSCHE Commission
• MSCHE Commission makes decision on
reaccreditation in March 2012
Questions?
www.esf.edu/middlestates
Steering Committee Members
• Robert Davis, Director of Forest Properties
• Michael Kelleher, Director of Renewable Energy Systems
• Danette Desimone, Assistant Director of Business Affairs
• Maureen Fellows, Director of Institutional Planning and Governmental Relations
• Robert French, Vice President for Enrollment Management and Marketing
• Richard Hawks, Chair and Professor, Landscape Architecture Department
• Rene Germain, Professor, Forest and Natural Resources Management Department
• Kimberly Schulz, Associate Professor, Environmental and Forest Biology
• Gary Scott, Faculty Governance Representative, Chair and Professor, PBE
• Richard Smardon, Professor, Environmental Studies Department
• Arthur Stipanovic, Chair and Professor, Chemistry Department
• Anna Stewart, Environmental and Forest Biology, PhD Candidate
• Valerie Luzadis, Assistant Provost, Professor and Chair, ES Department
University Faculty Senate
Meeting
Purchase College, October 20-22, 2011
Resolution on Shared Services
• Shared Presidencies without consultation of
UFS, College Councils and campus governance
• Resolved that:
– Policy of shared presidencies by carefully
considered
– Governance bodies be consulted andhave working
groups for shared services in the regional campus
alliance
– Shared services only after serious consultation
with governance bodies (BEFORE action)
Resolution on Evaluation of Shared Services
• System Administration is encouraging
campuses to share services AND establishing
an oversight process
• Resolved that:
– System-wide committee of
faculty/students/administrative staff to guide
process
– Provide benchmarking and procedures for
accountability
– Measure extent of enhanced spending on
academic programs is achieved
– Transparency of process
Of SUNY Central:
“Failure to acknowledge the wisdom
and knowledge of faculty and staff –
students don’t have longevity of the
faculty and staff.”
Susan Camp, Oswego
Campus Governance Leader
Campus Governance Leaders Topics
• Shared Services/Shared Presidencies
• Grade Change Policy
– Resolution 2011-03 submitted by
Shannon/Bongarten in IQAS for revision and
discussion
• Course Evaluations
ESF Academic
Integrity Policy and
Procedures:
Faculty Perceptions and
Participation
Ginny Collins
Craig Davis
Kelley Donaghy
Valerie Luzadis
Tsutomu Nakatsugawa
Ken Tiss
Julie White
academic integrity
@ESF
2008
Academic integrity policies and procedures are
important for developing ethical students.
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
percent of respondents (of 45)
Survey sent to 170 faculty
number of occurrences
In the last academic year, how many violations of
academic integrity do you know occurred in your
classes?
~16
>5
~14
2-5
~10
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
percent of respondents (of 45)
50
60
If you had incidents of academic dishonesty during
the last academic year, what was your response
(select any combination of answers that apply)?
other
did nothing
reported to Student Life
reported to chair/director
settled issue with student
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
percent of respondents (of 30)
70
If you had incidents of academic dishonesty in the
past 4-5 years, how frequently have you reported
these?
always
sometimes
never
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
percent of respondents (of 29)
35
40
I am familiar with ESF’s policies and procedures
regarding academic integrity.
very unfamiliar
unfamiliar
neutral
familiar
very familiar
0
10
20
30
40
percent of respondents (of 45)
50
60
ESF’s academic integrity policies and procedures
are cumbersome.
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
N/A
0
10
20
30
40
percent of respondents (of 45)
50
ESF’s academic integrity policies and procedures
are fair to students and faculty
to faculty
to students
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
N/A
0
10
20
30
40
percent of respondents (of 45)
50
ESF Faculty Perceptions and Participation:
Low participation/reporting rate
• Familiarity with procedures
• Time commitment for follow-through
• Perceived fairness of outcome
• Other
The
Instructor Suspects Violation – Notifies Student
Judicial
Instructor Notifies Judicial Coordinator
(prior violations?)
Process:
First
1 Offense
Repeat
Offender
Offense Instructor Contacts Student
st
& Determines Responsibility
No Violation
File Destroyed
Instructor Offers
Resolution
Student Accepts:
Offense and
Resolution
Documented and
Filed with Judicial
Coordinator
Student
Does Not
Accept
Instructor
Documents
Offense to
Student and
Judicial
Coordinator
Repeat
Offender
The Judicial
Process:
Repeat
Offense &
Appeals
Instructor Documents
Offense to Student
and Judicial
Coordinator
Student
Does Not
Accept
Review by Committee
on Academic Honesty
(a) Offense
No Violation
File Destroyed
Student
Accepts
Student
Does Not
Accept
(b) Sanctions
Provost-Appointed Appeals Board
Appeal Accepted
No Violation
File Destroyed
Appeal Denied
Board Levies
Sanctions
Provost Review
The Judicial Process:
Sanctions
1st Offense
2nd Offense
3rd Offense
4th Offense
Assignment/Exam
Failure
-and/orCourse Failure
Disciplinary
Probation
Suspension
Dismissal
Reflection Paper
Assignment/Exam
Failure
-and/orCourse Failure
Educational
Project
-educational-
Future Initiatives
-Streamline procedures
-Improve faculty awareness of procedures
-Develop campus-wide culture of integrity
IQAS Committee Report 11/11
1. Research how ESF can better support
instructional quality at individual and
institutional levels.
2. Developing a proposal to modify process to
select ESF Foundation teaching award
3. Work to improve the delivery and content of
the end-of-course survey
Course Survey - Big Picture
• Course Surveys are an instructor tool, not for
P+ T
• We would like flexibility both in the delivery
method and in the content of the surveys.
• Current focus is improving delivery method,
flexibility in adapting content of surveys will
be next.
Survey open dates
• Paper survey – Last two weeks of the semester,
instructor controlled. (~ 65% response rate)
• Spring 10 – Started two weeks before the end of
the semester, ran through finals, no instructor
control (86% response rate using “the stick”)
• Fall 10 – Last two weeks of the semester , no
instructor control ( 39% response rate using a
sweet “carrot”)
• Spring 11 – Instructor controlled start and stop
dates (within a window), with flexibility for short
courses and a default of last two weeks (30%
response rate)
• Fall 11 – No change.
Proposed changes – Spring 2012
• Survey open period expanded from 2 to 3.5
weeks, instructor can still override
• Instructors will be able to track how many
students in each class have completed the
survey throughout open period
• Students will be able to select an option to not
complete a given survey
Executive Committee Report
• Resolutions submitted to E. Comm.
– Resolution 2011-01 – add/drop change of
procedure for summer classes – in COC for
revision/review and comment
– Resolution 2011-02 – discussed previously
– Resolution 2011-03 – grade change policy – in
IQAS for revision/review and comment
Want to influence campus life?
• Write a resolution (template on governance
page) www.esf.edu/facgov/bylaws.htm
• Submit it to either the appropriate committee
or to kdonaghy@esf.edu (word documents
please)
Screen Shot of www.esf.edu/facgov/bylaws.htm as of 11/02/11 – 1:23 PM
Technology Committee
• Chair – Steve Weiter
• Membership
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deborah Storrings
Jim Halligan
Eddie Bevilaqua
Brandon Murphy
Dayton Reuter
Mark Storrings
Scott Turner
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Paul Otteson
Colin Beier
Neal Abrams
Christopher Baycura
James Sahm
Steve Weiter
Bob Meyer
David Dzwonkowski
December 15th 2011
• Reading Morning
• 10:00 AM Meeting
• FERPA/Faculty Privacy/Disability
Accommodations
Breakfast Meeting
9:40 AM for bagels/fruit/yogurt and coffee