MOCC Agenda
February 2, 2007
10:00 am to 12:00 noon, CST
605-773-2307; password: 4625#
Minutes to be recorded by Rose Ann Lennon
(Back up: Sharon Kienow)
Recorded by Sharon Kienow for Rose Ann Lennon
Main Agenda:
1. Introductory items:
v Role call Present: Lolita Foss (for Sandy Anderson), Matt Aschenbrener, Barb Dolan, Rose Hansen, Sharon Sopko (leaving call at 11:00 am), Pam Thomas, Kent Anderson (for Don Ticknor), Trudy Zalud, Sharon Kienow
v Agenda modifications
v Approval of minutes from December 15th meeting - approved
2. System project for electronic check-in and refunds: Pam
Per Monte’s request, Suzanne created a task force to work on this effort; she serves as chairman. Representation from MOCC includes Pam, Sandy, and Trudy.
Background information:
In the spring of 2006, the System VP for Administrative Services Monte Kramer initiated a request for development of an Electronic Attendance and Financial Commitment process for students which would allow SDBOR to leverage technology and reduce paper processing and mailing costs. Because time was not sufficient for SD to implement a common, system solution prior to the start of the 2006FA term, the six universities developed unique electronic processes for 2006FA and 2007SP, with the target date for implementation of the system electronic process scheduled for 2007FA.
Goals for the project are:
1. A common electronic Attendance and Financial Commitment process for the system to be available in Web Advisor
2. A common Financial Aid Authorization form for payment of miscellaneous charges and for ACH refund for Title IV funds to be available in Web Advisor
3. Forms for collection and maintenance of ACH account information to be available in Web Advisor
4. Any modifications to the current Colleague refund interface program XSRV to accommodate the new processes
5. It would be advantageous to include address update workflows.
For each of the workflows, we need to define:
1. The format or presentation of the form on WA
Content of the form
Wording of the questions
Timing of the form (available all the time or during limited times)
2. The files/fields where the information gathered is stored
3. The relationship between the workflow and existing WA workflows and the new workflows included in this project
The task force met for the first time on January 2; currently, it meets on a weekly basis. Workflow processes are being developed. RIS is taking the lead on the project and is being very helpful in making it as automated as possible.
One issue is when do students have access to WA? Award letters are sent out in March, but new students often don’t have WA access until June (during preregistration days).
We need to take a look at WA access and when this is provided to students. Trudy and Suzanne discussed this very issue and acknowledge that WA access needs to be reviewed.
Financial Aid module does not see an advantage to currently having the Financial Aid authorization on WA. Financial aid award information is currently not available on WA due to lack of view access to local accounts where FA information is housed until moved to combined after aid acceptance. Therefore, students will continue to receive authorization form via award letter enclosure or reference to school’s web site.
3. South Dakota Opportunity Scholarship: Sharon
Courses that are taught with a letter grade option of S/U are not eligible to be counted toward the SDOS 15 credit requirement unless they are approved by the Board Office. The courses are then approved for that institution only.
The problem arises when a course is taught at more than one institution but not all institutions request the S/U approval. In that case, the coding for allowing this must occur at the section level, not the course level. RIS would be responsible for coding the courses at the course level if all sections of that course are approved. The registrars would be responsible for coding the sections when only certain sections are approved.
One of the issues to resolve is who is responsible for monitoring changes to the list of approved courses/sections? How often would it need to be reviewed? If institutions do not roll forward sections to the next year but rather create new sections every year, how do they remember which ones should be coded as such?
Person needs to be identified from a system standpoint who will ensure the classes coded at the course level are current. Discussion on who this person should be - Ranny? Carla? Chris Langdon’s replacement? Trudy will look at it from a central standpoint to identify responsible party. Lolita will add to Registrar module call for discussion on how the Registrars will monitor this since generally are not responsible for SDOS administration.
4. Minimum progression: Lolita
Excerpt from minutes of the Registrars’ Module meeting on January 24th:
Minimum progression problem w/ TR courses We discussed the problem with minimum progression when a students transfer in coursework in order to raise their GPA. With the current system, those courses are not included in the minimum progression “mix,” and as a result, students’ academic standings are incorrectly calculated, including some students incorrectly suspended. We decided this it too important an issue to rely on campus-based manual fixes and that the issue should go to MOCC requesting a search for a system fix.
Joann Pomplun suggested a University writing a report (and sharing with the other universities) to look for students whose current cumulative gpa is 2.0 + to be run before CACS and each university updating any Academic Standings that they missed as the students brought in their transfer credit.
Is it possible to run a program to identify those students who have transfer credits from the previous term?
Kent: shouldn’t be hard to get list of students with only transfer credits for a particular term.
Discussion concerning what would happen if a student transferred in poor grades and it actually brought down their academic standing as opposed to increasing it? We probably should look at both the good and the bad, but the greater majority would be increasing their standing as opposed to decreasing it.
Trudy will discuss with Sam re: policy on minimum progression and how transfer credits should be handled. Perhaps needs to be brought to AAC. Lolita will bring up again on Registrar call.
5. Reading placement: Concerns pertaining to mid-year implementation were shared with Sam; AAC discussion was deferred to the February meeting. AAC deferred its continuing discussions until the February meeting. This group is still planning to create a task force to determine implementation mechanics. Concerns on mid-year implementation were forwarded to Sam Gingerich; he agreed to consider this information as decisions are made.
6. Computer proficiency requirement:
v Fall 06/Spring 07: MOCC concerns relating to implementation for the current academic year were conveyed to Sam; a segment of his final response is included below.
The VPAA’s said that the campuses have taken steps to track this, and it has been dealt with this year. As I recall, it was stated that entering students this year had been evaluated during registration and that they had been advised appropriately. Further, since there was no mechanism established in Colleague to code this, it was agreed that this set cannot be tracked.
Not an issue for program evaluation, graduation requirements, etc. for this group. Dr. Gingerich has encouraged total focus on preparation for fall 07/spring 08.
v Fall 07/Spring 08: Trudy drafted an informational letter to the Admissions Module; Rose distributed the letter, along with supporting comments, via email to the membership. Trudy will also follow up with each campus.
Rose has not received any feedback from the Admissions module so assume everyone is on track for compliance. Trudy heard from BHSU saying everything is going smoothly; they have encountered two unexpected computer classes and identified these for further discussion. Trudy is in the process of touching bases with other schools as well. Rose suggested sending this reminder in May to all campuses: when final transcripts are received, check for evidence of this computer proficiency requirement one more time.
7. Student Address:
v Higher Education Reauthorization Act: no element of this legislation reflects the need to document physical location.
v Current status:
§ USPS regulations for mailings: PO Box
§ RIS counsel, SEVIS reporting requirements: Street address
v Discussion
v Next step
Discussed on DA call. May not be an issue as originally thought. Consensus was that we don’t want/need any more address types. We are already tracking street address -- if have both street address and PO Box, put PO Box in home location (for mailing purposes) and put street address in family location (for tracking purposes).
This will be incorporated in Colleague procedures and issue should be finalized.
8. Immunizations:
v Progress:
§ Revamped coding structure; proposal was approved by MOCC via email in December and by the DA’s during the phone conference on January 3rd.
§ Rewrote the immunization compliance program to be consistent with current policy dictates; effort was coordinated by Suzanne and ASCC.
§ New codes and compliance program were tested in TEST mode and then moved to LIVE mode on January 11th.
§ Data clean-up – both obsolete codes and compliance formats: tremendous progress has been made; efforts continue
Major accomplishment: the data is meaningful and valid; much of the old baggage has been addressed.
v Non-compliance reports: Unofficial reports were generated on January 12th and 18th. The first official report was run on January 25th.
System totals:
January 12th: 464
January 18th: 270
January 25th: 201
However, these figures don’t include the TWR code; this glitch will be resolved shortly.
v Five-week grace period for compliance: February 1st concludes week 1; four weeks remain until the March 1st deadline!
v Report frequency:
Weeks 1, 2, 3: weekly (Thursday)
Week 4: bi-weekly (Monday and Thursday)
Week 5: daily (Monday – Friday)
Carla will generate the reports and distribute to campuses via the DA’s. Additionally, Trudy will summarize the data and send out in table format to BOR office administrators, MOCC, and the immunization subcommittee.
v Questions/issues/concerns
Current system total: 252 non-compliant students (including those with TWR code). Dr. Shekleton giving testimony today at SD legislature on immunization policy. In preparation for his testimony, Trudy prepared supporting information. As of February 1, here is the breakdown of compliance:
§ Students documented as compliant: 98.46%
§ Students excused from compliance: 0.61%
§ Students expected to demonstrate compliance before March 1: 0.93%
9. Technology Update: Don – test box was upgraded yesterday with new hardware – should now be faster response time.
Next meeting: Friday, February 23rd (10:00 am to 12:00 noon CST; 605-773-2307; password = 4625#) Minutes to be recorded by Rose Ann Lennon (back-up: Sharon Sopko) on vacation that week so unavailable to be backup minute taker.
Supplemental Agenda:
1. MCR update:
v MCR 20B: Immunization Compliance for Spring 2007
This document was approved by MOCC in December; the finalized version was posted to the website…along with the Executive Summary!
v MCR 26A: Teacher Certification
For purposes of assessing, planning, and reporting, all students who express interest in teacher education will be assigned a D code at the earliest possible point in time.
Formal discussion:
§ AAC
§ Phone conference: Paul, Ranny, Suzanne, Biying, and Trudy
§ Ed School Deans, Paul
Next steps:
§ AAC on February 13th
§ MOCC on February 23rd
§ UDA’s
§ Other groups as appropriate
v MCR #34: Admission Status (IPEDS Definitions)
First draft is complete; it will be distributed for review in the near future
v MCR #35: Coordination of Census Extract with Administrative Withdrawal for Non-Payment
Await follow-up from Monte
v MCR #36: Residency Appeals
Distributed this week – comments or questions? Following finalization, the document will be posted to the website. Mapped out by Registrars’ module. Dr. Shekleton has read and approved. Question in regard to the appeal form – does the student complete the entire form (appeal to local committee and appeal to Executive Director) at the same time, or is page one sufficient with page 2 sent to the student if the appeal was denied at the local level? Lolita will take to Registrar’s module for further discussion.
2. Other items:
v Module minutes: please include Trudy on the distribution list – thank you!
v Other?