Multi-Purpose Room, SCC

Multi-Purpose Room, SCC

February 13th, 2018

3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Meeting Start Time: 3:00 p.m.

Facilitator: Erin Busscher

Guests:

Bruce Morrison

Lina Blair

Sophia Brewer

Katie Hughes

AGC Members: Proxy:

Eve SidneyKaren Walker

Julie Bera Julie Lackschede

Kevin DobreffDeb Dewitt

Lynnae SelbergSarah Rose

Welcome:

Introduction of Guests and Proxy Voters
Housekeeping Items: iClickers and microphones

Approval ofMinutes of January 16, 2018

Nan Schichtel made motion to approve, seconded byDrew Rozema; approved as distributed.

Vote: YES 100%, NO 0%, ABSTAINED 0%, passed

Mandatory Placement: Eric Mullen (Presentation 3/3 and vote)

Reviewed the team members
Reviewed the policy
Reviewed the questions/feedback
Discussed the transfer student performance
Discussed the English departments request to have a time limit on the credits
Noted that there is not an indicator that transfer students would be an issue in terms of student performance
Recognizes that this may need to be looked into further
Believes this is beyond the scope currently and would recommend a white paper to AGC
Stated that this would have to align with our transfer credit policy
Recommendations
Do not alter current policy language related to mandatory placement
Add language that transfer students who meet admission policy of 12 college level credits earned at a 2.0 or higher are considered college ready and meet requirements for courses with college level prerequisites
Combine policy Mandatory Placement (8.2), ACT/SAT Cut Score (8.27), and Admission (8.4) into one comprehensive policy
Questions
Jennifer asked to explain the data in a little more detail
It appears that it is comparing students that took EN 97 and then 101 to students who also took EN 97 and 101
John Cowles agreed that this should have had data showing before implementation and after, versus those who took the appropriate course before anyway

John Cowles made motion to approve, seconded by Mike Vargo; approved as presented.

Vote: YES 85%, NO 5%, ABSTAINED 9%, passed

Student Email Policy: Eric Mullen (Presentation 3/3 and vote)

Reviewed team members
Reviewed the policy language changes
This specifies when a student is considered enrolled

Tom Kaechele made motion to approve, seconded by Jimmie Baber; approved as presented.

Vote: YES 97%, NO 2%, ABSTAINED 2%, passed

Catalog Year Policy: Valerie Butterfield and Katie Hughes (Presentation (3/3) and vote)

Reviewed Team members
Reviewed the proposed revised policy statement
Discussed the concern to make it easier for students to understand
Reviewed the proposed policy statement
This takes into account that it may not necessarily be the catalog that is active when the proposal is submitted
i.e. the student may be placed into the catalog year that is active for the following semester if submitted mid-semester
Recommend an immediate implementation of the policy to the provost for Winter 18.
Questions
Rebecca Brinks asked if advisor includes a faculty advisor
It does and will be included in the definitions

Michelle Richter made motion to approve, seconded by Felix Pereiro; approved as distributed.

Vote: YES 100%, NO 0%, ABSTAINED 0%, passed

Multiple Associate Degrees: Sheila Jones and Renae Boss Potts (Presentation 2/3)

Reviewed team members
Reviewed the existing policy statement
Reviewed benchmarking of our peer institutions in regards to why 15 credits was selected as the requirement
Provided the context for what the current degree types and pathways are
Referenced the HLC expected practices that give some philosophical reason for why we elect 15 as the minimum credit
Discussed the concerns with the current policy
Reviewed the terminology/definition
Recommends that the implementation defines a transfer degree as an A.A. or an A.S.
Reviewed the feedback from the January Presentation
Reviewed the recommended updates to the policy statements
Recommend removing the language around credits and replace it with a student
Questions
Greg Forbes: What harm does it cause an institution or student to earn one more than one degree at our institution? (I.e. a student who wanted to come back for a degree later in life
Sheila stated that we can take it back to the team to look at potential exceptions
Rebecca Brink asked regarding the 2 education programs the one with the MTA and one without the MTA. Would students be able to get one without the MTA, and one later with it.
Sheila stated that we would have to look at that situation earlier.
Rebecca Brinks also noted that we are reaching out to students regarding earning a degree, but then they may get a general AA, but would actually want to get their specific program.
This may be a procedural issue to review in terms of who that project is reaching out to
Sheila asked for feedback by February 23rd

Graduation Requirements Update: Sheila Jones and Mike Vargo (Update)

Reviewed the policy statement
Explained the reason for the review in terms of the impact that it has on the
Presented to previous modifications to the policy
I.e. removing wellness requirement and PS 110 requirement
Discussed the Instructional Support Implementation
Explained role of General Education Review Team
Reviewed the program requirements that might affect section counts
Discussed the School of Arts & Sciences Implementation
Reviewed enrollment counts of PS 110 and Wellness courses
Significant reductions in both
Reviewed the impact of EN and COM courses
11% declines for EN
Mild increases for COM 131/135
Presented the change in the makeup of our student population
Drop in enrollment
Change from Full-time to Part-time
Questions
Tony Vanderark
Asked about the number of programs that require EN 101 & 102, and what programs those are.
Sheila will find a list

Library Collection Development: Brian Beecher and Sophia Brewer(Presentation 1/3 and table discussion)

Reviewed the team members
Reviewed the history of the policy
Presented the data regarding the current collections
E-books are roughly half of the collection
Provided a breakdown of the collection by subject
Discussed the Proposed Policy Changes
Reviewed the current policy statement
Reviewed the changes to the policy
Largely changing grammatical errors and wording for clarity
There is a removal of some of the information that is more procedural, inconsistent with practice, or repetitive
I.e. removed language regarding preference for digital material
Removed some sections where it really was just a situation that uses the 8-point criteria
Removed sections that are procedural versus policy
Asked for Feedback by February 27th
Distributed table discussion

Mandatory First-Year Experience: Raynard Ross (Presentation 2/3)

Presented Team members
Reviewed the history of the policy
Presented the teams discussion points
Policy versus implementation
Presented various options discussed in regards to potential changes to the policy
Discussed various potential changes in regards to implementation
Discussed how this really fits into a holistic First Year Experience program
Discussed the observations
In terms of data at GRCC the results for inconclusive
Results from other institutions across the nation have been very successful
This may require
Reviewed the data from Bronx community college
Mike Vargo noted that the students in the study that was presented were not compelled to take the course. So, it may not be representative of our student population
Reviewed the data from GRCC
Reviewed the student feedback data
Presented the recommendations
Discussed the potential benefit to teach a FYE course for faculty
Explained different changes planned for implementation for the Fall semester
Explained the change back to a 10-week format
Maintaining 14 week sections as needed (especially for veteran students)
Asked for feedback by February 23rd
Questions
Greg Forbes: What is the strongest data indicating that CLS has been successful?
Raynard stated that the data largely shows that it was inconclusive. However, the Bronx study showed that
Greg noted that the matched sample had was not a match, and stated that the study was riddled with procedural errors
Raynard reiterated that he would invite everyone to review it and decide what they think themselves
Greg asked why the CLS successful students were included in the All CLS study? There is not a control.
Raynard noted that it was difficult for an apples-to-apples comparison
Greg stated that we need to know how the students were doing before CLS in order to see the value
Donna noted that we need to look at the all CLS students
However, this should not be compared to All FTIACs
Mike Vargo: CLS successful means what?
It means students who received A-C
This is a problem when comparing these students to All FTIACs
Mike noted that even comparing the Pre and Post policy doesn’t show that it has been necessarily effective
We are adding a barrier
Mike would like to ask the team to consider removing the mandatory component
The data that is presented states that
Mike reiterated that the Bronx study was not analogous
Raynard noted that it is not wholly analogous
Frank Conner: believes that most if not all of our students need some help in preparing for college. However, he wonders if having a separate class is the best model.
Other institutions have incorporated this into other common entry courses
We have done a good job of determining what is a tier 1 course
Could we add this information as more of a co-curricular element?
This appears to meet many of the needs that you have
Eric noted that in studying the data we can see what students are going into the course
We should be able to see what GPA’s these students are receiving based upon what they have going into it

Student Code of Conduct: Lina Blair and Amy Kudrna (Presentation 2/3)

Reviewed team members
Discussed review schedule,
Presented the revision process
Provided the highlights of the current student code of conduct
Presented the preliminary suggested changes
Reviewed definition changes
Reviewed Table Discussion Feedback
Lina explained where to report
Amy described when to report and what to report
Explained that Lina is the best resource
Discussed the cell phone and electronics policy
Explained that it can be in the syllabus
The students code is to present a baseline for what is acceptable/unacceptable on campus
Anything beyond that can certainly be included in your syllabus
Lina noted that issues that happen in the middle college areas can be directed to Dan Clark or Lina Blair
Lina added language surrounding accommodations
Were asked to change the word “penalties” but were not given an alternative
Asked for anyone with an alternative to provide them
Presented the changes
Asked for suggestions and questions to be emailed by February 23rd.
Questions
Mike Light asked if we should have a central repository of academic dishonesty
This ideally would be non-punitive, but allow us to track trends
Lina noted that any faculty can report this to her and ask that it not be charged
Mike asked if there was a way to make this more easily accessible to faculty

College Generated Graduation: Tina Hoxie (Presentation 2/3)

Tabled for next meeting

Meeting adjourned at 4:56 pm

Members’ Next Steps: Share information regarding today’s topics with department/program and provide feedback as indicated in italics under each section.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March13th, 2018