University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Faculty Senate Meeting

Friday, April 16, 2004

Stella Boyle Smith Concert Hall

Minutes

Present: Al-Shukri, Barrett, Beaird, Belcher, Byrne, Cheatham, Coleman, Eshleman, Faust, Ford, Grable, Guffey, Hamm, Kosmatov, Leslie, Lindquist, Lowry, Lytle, Mansell, Matson, Nelson, Perkins, Prince, Ramsey, Runion, Smith, Strom, Tschumi

Absent: J. Anderson, S. Anderson, Bacon, Bakr, Bruhn, Buffalo, Burns, Crawford, Curenton, Dhonau, Epps, Ferguson, Hardin, Harm, Robertson, Skinner, Tramel, Warrick, Wayne, Williams, Yoder

President Pete Tschumi called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.

I. Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the March 26, 2004, meeting of the Faculty Senate were reviewed and accepted.

II. Announcements

President Tschumi announced he’s tentatively planning to call a meeting of the Faculty Senate for May 7, 2004, in order for Undergraduate Council to bring forward some recommendations for changes in policy. The meeting will be in Reynolds 103 at 1:00 p.m.

III. Reports

Rosalie Cheatham, Undergraduate Council

Cheatham reported that the Undergraduate Council has been meeting often and at length. The recently revised D policy took much time, and they’re still working on the Chancellor’s initiative to make policies cleaner and more student-friendly.

They are focusing now on pp. 28-36 of the student handbook, which covers baccalaureate degree requirements. The Council is sorting out those things that are in fact requirements for graduation from those that aren’t. They’re finding some things they believe need to be changed. An example, on p. 32, is this: “No more than four hours of Leisure Science may count toward a degree.” Council will be recommending the policy be eliminated. There’s also a convoluted section on the same page that places a limit on correspondence courses that can be applied to a degree. The Council is likely to recommend that it be deleted, along with the stipulations that the student’s final thirty hours must be in residence. They will propose a much simpler set of basic requirements that should serve the students better, and make for clearer, more easily understood language. Cheatham invited faculty to study these provisions currently in policy. She reminded the Senate that individual departments or colleges may put in place more restrictive requirements in connection with particular degree programs.

VI. New Business

A. Motion. Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Legislation. Requires majority vote at one meeting.):

That the Faculty Senate approve the awarding of the appropriate degree at Commencement to each student who has completed requirements as of spring or summer graduation cycles 2004 as specified by his/her department, college, or school.

A list of graduation candidates was prepared for the Senate’s review. Tschumi acknowledged Ford’s long campaign for such a list. Ramsey thanked Tschumi for having made it available. Others noted with some regret the absence of Ford’s customary indignation.

Motion carried unanimously.

B. Motion. Executive Committee (Legislation. Requires majority vote at one meeting.)

That a Collegiate Success Program shall be authorized where a student required to take a developmental course shall be required to participate in the program. The implementation date shall be the decision of the Chancellor.

The Collegiate Success Program is designed to assist those students whose college preparation is below what students need for success in college. A key aspect of the program is placement; the learning needs for a student in the program will be carefully assessed and the student will be placed in courses matching those needs. Further, students will not be allowed into courses for which they are not ready and shall be required to take the courses they do need. A student in the program may take no more than 13 credit hours per semester. As a student finishes the courses in the program they need and transitions into regular coursework, the student’s coursework may be prescribed to facilitate a successful transition.

Commentary: The implementation date is left to the discretion of the Chancellor because, while there is a need to implement as soon as possible, the logistics are complicated enough to make it hard to predict when it will be possible to do so. The program needs to be authorized to allow action to be initiated. The details of the program will need to be developed and will have to go through the normal curriculum approval process. A draft of the basic framework for the program is attached as Attachment A – Collegiate Success Program.

Tschumi began discussion by explaining that someone needed to pull together a plan for better meeting the developmental needs of students. The Executive Committee took it on. Tschumi used the data base that resulted from the Retention Task Force’s three and a half years of work on these issues.

Tschumi found that the needs are not fully met. The data shows 300 slots available in developmental course for an estimated 450 students who need them. And while we advise these students, in keeping with our policy, not to enroll in regular courses until they’ve successfully passed the developmental courses, many students go ahead and register for the regular courses. This, said Tschumi, is illustrative of the need for much more substantial support from us for these students. There is arguably even a larger question here, as raised before by Dean Ledbetter: Is it even ethical for the University to take money from students who enroll in courses it has good reason to believe the students cannot pass?

The heart of the proposal says students need to take the developmental courses they need when they need them, which is at the beginning of their work here. If just a single deficiency is identified, the student may be able to enroll in regular courses in other areas of study while taking developmental courses. The proposal would also ensure that those students identified as needing developmental work will not be able to register themselves.

Leslie suggested that when students are registered for regular courses, it’s important that they enroll in ones appropriate to their level of accomplishment thus far. Tschumi agreed, and said the system as proposed would entail consulting with departments on the selection of courses.

Ford, commenting on the proposed budget, suggested that we should be sure to periodically review the fiscal performance of the program. Tschumi agreed, and noted that the budget will need to be revised as we test certain assumptions about implementation, such as what proportion of students will require additional lab time.

Tschumi praised Mathematics for their development of flexible one-hour modules to cover the developmental needs of students.

Tschumi suggested adding a sentence to the motion that calls for an annual review. Ford indicated that he had in mind a bit more than that, asking that we specifically reserve the power to rescind the program if it turns out not to generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself.

Cheatham reminded the Senate—and Tschumi clarified her reminder—that the graduation rate for those students who took and passed the developmental course in reading is greater than the graduation rate for students who did not need any developmental assistance. She argued that investment in developmental courses will clearly pay off for the University over the longer term. Tschumi said the data he examined on graduation rates included only native students, and he added that the numbers of students who took other combinations of developmental courses were too small to perform tests for statistical significance of what appeared to be greater percentages graduating.

Ramsey asked if the retention report was included in the meeting packet. Tschumi said he didn’t include the forty-page report, but invited any Senator who wants one to e-mail him.

Matson requested clarification on what the Senate is being asked to vote on. She pointed out that our policy as it presently exists requires that students bring test scores and be evaluated for developmental needs, and it requires that students identified as having such needs must take developmental courses before going on with the regular curriculum. She asked if this proposal addresses the enforcement of our policy, and ensures that we are applying resources sufficient to the implementation of the policy?

Tschumi said yes. The proposed policy affirms our present policy, and introduces comprehensive new measures, including careful advisement of students, registration of students by the University in courses that are appropriate to their needs and capacities, and providing adequate access for students to the developmental course they need.

Matson said she has reservations about voting for what seems to be a program rather than a policy. If there aren’t enough sections, that’s an administrative responsibility over which the Senate has little control. She said the package as proposed has too many specifics in it, and she’s not comfortable voting for it.

Byrne asked where the mentors will come from. Tschumi replied we know from the literature that one way to improve retention is to insure students have solid, ongoing contact with someone at the university. Combined with the complicated process of careful advising, this suggests the use of mentors. They will be hired specifically for this role, and will be attached to the Developmental Skills Center.

Mansell asked how much Tschumi actually intended to have the Senate approve today. Mansell suggested that the difficulty with the proposal may be the level of detail present in it. He said he appreciated central idea—the commitment to making developmental support work. Tschumi agreed that what he’s seeking is approval of the concept.

Matson said the motion appears to be largely adminstrative, and thus inappropriate for the Senate.

Ramsey and others suggested that we take the time to carve the motion more carefully.

Ford moved to table. The motion failed for lack of a second.

Eshlemann asked if there were particular reasons for passing this motion now. Tschumi said the acquisition of the new property and the structuring of the resulting bond issue is one reason for acting quickly. Note was made that there is another meeting of the Senate before the end of this semester.

Tschumi asked if it would help to modify the two-paragraph motion by substituting the words “a program” where the phrase “Collegiate Success Program” appears. Further discussion seemed to indicate that a quick remedy was not possible.

Eshlemann gave his opinion that the Senate needs to affirm the direction and not the details.

Ford moved to table. Leslie seconded. Motion passed, 15-9. The motion was laid on the table.

C. Motion. Academic Calendar and Schedules Committee (Legislation. Requires majority vote at one meeting.)

That the Calendar and Schedules Committee will prepare the academic calendar three years in advance of the current year.

Commentary: In the past the Calendar and Schedules Committee prepared calendars and schedules five years in advance. In recent years, several factors have created circumstances that required modifications in those future calendars, i.e. lack of information, changes in policy, errors in calendar. The Committee feels the availability of web-based calendar information for students no longer requires a published academic calendar five years in advance.

The Calendar and Schedules Committee will review the current calendar policies (examples listed below) no later than November 2004 as part of an attempt to streamline the calendar creation process.

Spring Break

Graduation

Drop date

Consultation Day

Holidays

Start date for each semester

Number of minutes per credit hour

Multiple start dates in semester

Runion asked if the motion included direction to the Committee to make our spring break coincide with the Little Rock School District. Tschumi said it does not.

Marian Douglas, chair of the Calendar and Schedules Committee, said the Committee did not have the most current policies to guide their work. They do not have presently a 2008-09 schedule to propose.

Motion carried unanimously.

Douglas asked if there were any other considerations the Senate Ford would like to have the Board policy before the Senate in writing as we vote on a calendar. Douglas agreed to include it. Tschumi and Cheatham noted that the difficulty is in the interpretation of the policy.

IV. Other Business

Tschumi reminded the Senate that the University Assembly will meet next Thursday, April 22, at 2:00. He urged Senators to be present. He noted that Fred Williams’s name has been put forward as a candidate for president of the University Assembly, and reminded the Senate that nominations may be made from the floor as well.. There being no further business, the President adjourned the meeting at 2:11 p.m.

Judith Faust, Secretary

Faculty Senate Minutes • April 16, 2004 Page 1 of 5