Inter-Institutional Committee (ICC)

Academic Policy Work Group

Minutes

September 20-21, 2001

Present:Mike Bowden (USM), Roy Clark (St. Mary’s), Sandra Cohea-Weible (Salisbury), Mary Gartner (FSU), Dee Houston (UMUC), Jackie Knight (Coppin), Eric Lampe (UMBC),Liz Murray (USM), Margaret Roberts-Davis (Morgan), Diane Showell (UMES), Sara Sides (Towson),

I.Sandra Cohea-Weible has agreed to continue as the committee chair for 2001-2002.

II.Development of Methods and Practices for Assessing Academic Advising (Mike Bowden, USM)

Because the Best Practices in Academic Advising reports that were approved by the BoR have an assessment component, due annually, Mike Bowden talked with the work group about methods and indicators for supplying the annual assessment report. He suggested using a matrix grid, similar to that submitted by UMUC as its Executive Summary, along with a brief (half-page) narrative, outlining the progress made toward achieving ‘best practices’ goals. (Dee Houston agreed to forward, via e-mail, a blank version of the matrix grid.) He also handed out a sample list of indicators (measurable) that could be used as part of the assessment report.

Liz Murray gave the group potential sources of information, including NACADA links and the Assessment Report used at South West Texas University in Spring 2001.

Teri Hollander said that the Assessment/ Outcomes Report will be due at USM by mid-May, to go to the BoR in June 2002.

Discussion was also made about the potential grants (for FY03) that USM is requesting as part of discretionary funding in the State FY03 budget. A total of $100K has been requested. Any proposal would require the institution to supply matching funds (or ‘in kind’ support); this would require including an appropriate amount in the institutions FY03 budget request.

III.General Education Conference

Institutions will send ‘teams’ to a conference at UMUC’s Inn and Conference Center on November 5 and 6, 2001. The ‘teams’ will be made up of faculty and administrators who shape each institution’s general education policies and curricula. The conference will include assessment experts and speakers. This is a ‘save the date’ notice.

IV.Shared Information

For the purposes of comparison between institutions (only), the group proposed future discussions about items, such as procedures and shared agreements, especially in areas such as distance learning. It was also suggested that members of the work group discuss these items with their colleagues.

V.Coming Year’s Agenda Items and Issues

Policies and Procedures: For comparative purposes, discussion of a number of policies and procedures for carrying out these policies was suggested. The first two policies/ procedures to be discussed will be

  • Academic Actions (Warning, Probation, Dismissal, etc.)
  • Graduation Honors

(Drastically different policies and procedures lead to difficulties for students who attempt to transfer between USM institutions.)

Other suggestions for future discussion included:

  • Repeats (and the number of allowable repeats)
  • Withdrawals (and appeals)
  • Golden ID
  • Tuition waivers
  • Distance education issues
  • Final 30 credits (and waivers)
  • Late registration
  • Faculty leaving campuses (presumably, before turning in grades, etc.)
  • Incompletes
  • Late grades (being turned in by faculty)
  • Pass/ fail in Majors
  • General Ed. exceptions
  • Prior Learning (with Web links)

ICC Web Site:

  • Inclusion of additional items?
  • Location for shared information?
  • List of coordinators/ e-mail addresses/ phone numbers

General Education Program: commonalities and differences