Meeting Was Called to Order by Todd Carter at 2:00 P.M

Academic Affairs Council
Monday, November 17th, 2014
2:00 p.m. in AA 130, Hobble Academic Building

Members attending the meeting: Todd Carter, Cynthia Rapp, Dale Doll, Kim Zant, Patsy Fischer, Janese Thatcher, Frances Brown, Matt Pannkuk, Travis Combs, Ammie Jones, Veda King, Larry McLemore, Luke Dowell, Alaina Rice and Carmen Sumner.

1. Meeting was called to order by Todd Carter at 2:00 p.m.

1. Approval of Agenda
   Motion was made to approve the agenda by Larry and 2nd by Patsy. Motion carried.

1. Approval of minutes from October 20th meeting.
   October minutes were approved as submitted—Cynthia made a motion to approve and Kim 2ndthe motion. Motion carried.

1. Standing Reports

A. SCCC/ATS Assessment Report – Todd Carter
Critical Reading and Information Literacy were topics addressed at the Faculty
Assessment Workshop on 11/13/14. Ashley Kappelmann presented at the
workshop. We hope to use this information to guide us on our internal goals.
Todd agreed to send the data on Information Literacy to all divisions
for review and their input.
Graduate Assessment will take place on December 12th, at 1:00 p.m. Larry
has agreed to help with the Workkeys portion.

B. Edukan Assessment Report—Cristy Mulanax
No report
C. Edukan Curriculum Committee Report—Cynthia Rapp
Report should be ready for the December meeting.
D. AQIP Report – Cynthia Rapp
Theaction project will be reviewed on Friday, November 21st. All projects
should be uploaded by November 30th.
E. Adviser Report – Patsy Fischer
No report

1. Unfinished Business

A. Discussion and Action: Program Review Process Evaluation and Revision
Luke Dowell
Follow up to September meeting discussion about data availability and
program review annual updates.Discussion included the possibility of
changing the scheduled times as to when program updates should be
presented to the board. Would it make sense to move the scheduled time
to November or December? Luke will follow up with Dean’s Council on how
shifting the reports to November and December might affect Board of Trustees
meetings and planning timelines.
B. Update on Project: 2014-15 Goals
Credit for Prior Learning - Todd Carter
CPL Goal Annual Planwas provided for review. A draft policy should be
completed by next month.
C. Request for Input: Revised Distance Learning Policy—first reading
Luke Dowell
The Distance Learning Policy subcommittee requests a first reading and input
on the revised Distance Learning Policy. A second reading and vote for
approval will take place during the December AAC meeting.
Distance Learning Policies Table of Contents
Distance Learning Individual Policies
Divisions should make sure their instructors are aware of the policies when
developing a course and/or setting expectations for a course. Instructors
would have to be sure their students are aware of the policies. For auditing
purposes data would have to be archived for 5 years.

Policy 40.4 requires 3rd sentence from the end be removed (The peer
review…..). If there are any other questions or revisions, the divisions should
communicatewith Luke so he can make themprior to the next month. A
final document will be presented for approval at the December meeting.

VI. New Business
A. Discussion and Action: Course name change - Luke Dowell
Request for Course Name Change - Intro to Engineering Careers
Intro to Engineering Careers Syllabus
This course has not been offered for 10 years. The course approval form is
requesting a name change to make it more current. Thesyllabus has been
updated as well. Alaina made a motion to approve the course title change.
Cynthia 2nd and the motion carried

Teresa used the above data as an example of why the course approval form
does not work well. Sheexplained required data is often missing which
prevents accurate data entry without redirecting for questions to be
answered. She provided a new template for Program Course Change and
walked everyone through the new process.
Programchangeform Template
The new form will take the place of the current Approval Form. It will
be housed in the I:Drive>Academic Affairs folder>Program Change Form
Template. The form should be filled out by a division, saved as a named
file, and sent electronically to the Academic Affairs Chair. When
approved it will be assigned a course number, signed off electronically by
the Academic Chair and the Dean of Academic Affairs, and sent to Teresa’s
attention. Eventually, Teresa will have the syllabi attached
to this form for convenience purposes.Everyone agreed to follow the new
process. Should anyone have questions or concerns they can contact
Teresa for help.
B. Discussion and Action: Surgical Technology Program Review – Veda
Final ST Program Review 2014
This program review contains approximately 345 pages, so Carmen prepared a
program review summary instead. AAC reviewed the data and Carmen
requested any questions or concerns from the team. Minor edits were
pointed out. Amotion was made by Veda to accept the program review with
corrections. Travis 2nd the motion and the motion carried. The next step will
be Dean’s Counsel for their approval.
C. Discussion and Action: AAC Policy Revisions Based on Changes in Credit for
Prior Learning processes - Todd
1. The CPL Team is recommending a residential credit hour requirement
policy be added for certificate programs. The Higher Learning
Commission recommends a maximum of 75% of total program credits be
transfer or CPL for any degree or certificate. The definition of a certificate
degree is from KBOR Policy Chapter 3, Part A, No. 9
Certificate Degree Definition
Motion was made by Cynthia to approve the Certificate Degree Definition
with the one correction.Patsy 2nd the motion and it carried.

Proposed policy number changes: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Changes
Todd made a recommendation to number the Certificate Degree
Definition policy as 20.14 and move the Degree Requirements to 20.19.
Veda made a motion to approve the recommended policy number
changes and Kim 2nd. The motion carried.

2. The CPL Team is recommending a revision of AAC policy 20.9 to reflect the Higher Learning Commission recommendations for maximum CPL credit and the removal of fees as recommended by theCouncil for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) and the Kansas Board of Regents.
The revisions to the policy were reviewed based on recommendation. #4 should be revisited. It was decided to table this item until the next meeting because the CPL Team will need to research the 24 credit hour limitation for pass/fail courses used in a degree.

3. Changes to AAC policy 20.9 will impact AAC policy 20.39 - courses taken as pass-fail. Recommended changes reflect revisions to AAC policy 20.9-20.13
The CPL Team will have a recommendation at the next meeting after researching the limitations place on the numberof pass/fail credit hours allowed for a degree.

D. Request for Input: Determining a process for identifying accepted CLEP
exams, scores, and testing fees - Todd
Celeste Donovan (Dean of Students) is in the process of getting SCCC/ATS
certified as a College Board CLEP testing site and is asking that Academic
Affairs Council develop a process for reviewing the list of courses, cut-off
scores, and fees. AAC Policy 20.9 is our current Credit by Examination (CBE)
policy and states:

• Standards for awarding credit will be determined by the academic division and will include: Specific courses which CBE credit can be awarded; the minimum scores for each CBE; the number of credit hours to be awarded, approved testing agencies, etc.
• If credit is awarded, the student’s transcript will indicate the name of the course, the testing agency/name of examination, number of credit hours earned, and a grade of “P” to designate a passing grade.

In the interest of improving our Credit by Exam process, we will need to identify a list of acceptable CLEP tests and scores for our Credit for Prior Learning information and policies rather than relying on a case-by-case review by the academic division which has been our process in the past. Also, charging a testing center fee beyond the actual cost of the CLEP exam is not recommended by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) and the Kansas Board of Regents.
CLEP Scores Fees
Part of the application process is to determine what the CLEP exam covers and how does that coincide with what the course offers. It needs to be determined it the test aligns and meets the core outcomes of each course. Each division should review and recommend if they agree with the CLEP guidelines. If a student has the proper skill set and can bypass taking a course then the CLEP testing should be permitted. This will impact mainly returning students. Todd will send the link for the test outcomes to each division so they can review the exams, determine which courses will be accepted through CLEP scores, and make recommendations for minimum scores used to award credit. After discussion, all agreed no
additional charge to transcript the CLEP exam was in the best interest of the
student.
E. Discussion and Action: Formation of a Distance Learning standing committee -
Luke Dowell
The distance learning subcommittee recommends that a standing committee
be created to oversee distance learning at SCCC/ATS. This committee will
ensure compliance with and make recommendations to update distance
learning policies, provide support for distance learning instructors, and carry
out reviews and evaluations of distance learning courses as specified in the
distance learning policies. The committee will consist of the SCCC/ATS
Instructional Designer, Distance Learning Support Technician, one division
chair, one faculty member, and the Dean of Academic Affairs. The division
chair and faculty member will serve three year terms and will be selected by
Instructional Team. This committee would report to the Academic Affairs
Council.
Patsy made a motion to approve a Distance Learning Standing Committee as
suggested. Janese 2nd the motion and it carried.

F. Request for Input: Biennial review of placement scores and general education
review committee - Todd

According to AAC procedures 10.1 No. 15, placement scores are to be reviewed during even years in October. A committee is to be appointed for general education course review prior to the scheduled review of SCCC/ATS course listing in March. Requesting input on whether adjustments should be made in the placement review deadlines for this year.
Council members agreed to extend the deadline. The review should be completed by the end of January.

G. Discussion and Action: Placement score validity time frame – Todd
The college catalog states that placement scores are valid for two years.
We have no Academic Affairs Policy addressing the length of time
placement scores are valid. Should we have a policy and is two years a
reasonable time frame?
It was decided this should addressed with the placement score review.

1. Other
   A potential problem with EduKan colleges not being accredited through ACBSP was brought up for discussion. SCCC/ATS and Pratt are accredited through ACBSP, so any instruction from those institutions would not be questioned. How is this handled with other institutions? It was decided before any actions are taken to wait until ACBSP brings back their findings and/or to follow up with Pratt to see how they handle this issue.

1. Adjournment
   Kim made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Travis 2nd. Motion carried.

Next meeting will be scheduled for December 15, 2014 at 2:00 PM