Peabody College Faculty Council

Peabody College Faculty Council

Minutes of Meeting

October 25, 2007

Members Present: Jim Steiger, Janet Eyler, Paul Speer, Steve Heyneman, Robert Jimenez, Kevin Leander, Karon LeCompte, Sharon Shields, Claire Smreker.

Chair Jim Steiger called the meeting to order and asked that the minutes from the meeting of April 20. Janet Eyler moved to approve, Sharon Shields seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously.

The Council then began to consider reports/updates from each of the standing committees.

Academic Standards, Chair Janet Eyler

The Academic Standards Committee will consider and examine the following items this next year:

• Grades of incomplete count as an ‘F’ until they are cleared

• The posting of grades before all final exams have taken place

• The issue of transferring master’s level course credit to another master’s program as opposed to transferring credit into a doctoral program

Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity, Chair Donna Ford (Karon LeCompte filled in)

Karon reported that the Committee on Affirmative Action & Diversity will present a formal letter proposing Peabody policy on the use of braille communications for all Peabody buildings.

Committee on Curriculum, Chair Paul Speer

The Committee on Curriculum has not held any meetings so far. Two course proposals have been submitted recently to the committee, which will meet soon to process the proposals and report back to the Council.

Committee on Faculty Affairs, Chair Sharon Shields, co-chair Claire Smreker

The Committee on Faculty Affairs has not yet held a meeting. The first order of business this year will be to finish their document detailing procedures for reviews of practice faculty. Karen Harris is spearheading this effort. Janet Eyler noted that this document will require revision and thought once the draft is produced. Sharon Shields noted that department chairs will also provide input as will practice faculty themselves.

Committee on Research, Chair Steve Heyneman

The Committee on Research will produce their minutes to share with the FAC. They are working on a survey of faculty and their research needs. A previous survey of department chairs created by Len Bickman may provide items for this instrument. It was noted that research problems at Peabody reflect a first or second stage that research one institutions experience. One idea involved bringing in new faculty who are not tenure line to provide support and expertise in various areas. The Committee will also look at how budgets, departments, and PIs get taxed.

Other Business

FAC Chair Jim Steiger raised the issue of a lack of institutional memory for FAC and that there is no permanent record of the FAC’s activities. Work gets lost and things are forgotten. A FAC website that includes a page for each of the committees will be developed and information dating back to 2004 when Craig Smith was FAC chair will be archived at this site.

Jim Steiger then moved discussion to a Motion for clarification of the composition of the Graduate/Professional Administrative Committee (GAC). The GAC was created by a previous motion of the Faculty council at the April, 2004 meeting. The purpose of the GAC was outlined in the materials distributed in 2004. However, the precise method for selecting Chair(s) of the GAC was not stated clearly in the materials now available to the Faculty Council.

In the revised and clarified system currently under consideration, the Graduate/Professional Administrative Committee (GAC) is composed as before of Directors of Graduate Studies from each department, but is co-chaired by the Associate Dean of Graduate Education and the Associate Dean of Professional Education. Standard procedure is for M.A. or Ed.D. students to forward their petitions to the Associate Dean for Professional Education, and for Ph.D. students to forward their petitions to the Associate Dean for Graduate Education. After receiving the petition, the appropriate Co-Chair will convene a meeting of the GAC to consider the petition. In emergencies, either Co-Chair may stand in for the other.

Janet Eyler moved to constitute a Graduate/Professional Administrative Committee whose members would consist of directors of graduate studies from the various departments and that would be co-chaired by the Associate Dean of Professional Studies and the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies. Sharon Shields seconded the motion. Questions concerning what power such a committee would have and who would decide if the committee rendered a decision in conflict with the deans. Jim Steiger noted that the committee would be advisory to the deans. The motion carried unanimously.

Some examples of issues that such a committee might handle included transfer of credit, course substitutions, dissertation questions and disputes. Karon LeCompted added that some students in T&L who don’t pass their master’s capstone projects might appeal those decisions if they have to take another semester of coursework. Janet Eyler noted that cases of cheating on doctoral exams and subsequent expulsion could also be appealed to the committee.

The FAC then considered the following issues on the agenda:

a. Continuing to increase diversity and inclusiveness.

b. Enhancing the research support infrastructure to match increases in grant support.

c. Controlling the “tuition tax” on grants

d. Speeding up the process of reimbursing faculty for expenses incurred. Apparently, reimbursements sometimes take significantly more than a month.

e. Enhancing the effectiveness of Information Technology Services. (Example, lack of confirming emails throughout the Vanderbilt system.

f. Time between classes. Ten minutes is inadequate and disruptive.

g. Online course evaluations and their impact on student responsiveness and evaluation accuracy.

Steve Heyneman wanted to know what the tuition tax was. Jim Steiger indicated this was a charge to grants to cover grad students’ tuition.

Discussion concerning ‘d.’ revealed that some faculty have to wait as much as 5 to 6 weeks to be reimbursed for substantial sums of money. It was noted that one young faculty member actually had difficulty covering his/her rent for the month because of this delay. Problems in accounting were identified as the reason for some changes in reimbursements. It was suggested that the college should have to meet performance standards such as 10 working days to deal with reimbursements and that right now there is no incentive to move things forward more expeditiously. The idea that the institution should bear some of the cost rather than just individual faculty members was also raised. The FAC decided to invite Karen Cunningham to discuss the issue and to gather more information about the new system. The FAC also decided to inform the dean of our efforts on this issue.

Sharon Shields stated in reference to ‘f’ that the time provided to move between classes, 10 minutes, is inadequate and that because students do not have enough time that instruction is disrupted.

Steve Heyneman said that with respect to online evaluations that some students include inappropriate, insulting comments concerning faculty. That often these comments are ad hominem attacks concerning appearance and that no faculty member should be subjected to this sort of abuse. The recommendation was made that there be a code of conduct concerning acceptable behavior. Karon LeCompted noted that standards need to be made explicit to students.

1