Meeting started 10:31 a.m.
The dean referred the meeting to the “continuing agenda” item, which will roll forward over the course of this academic year. She attached a 2006 report from the Ad hoc travel budget committee for members to review. This report describes options for enhancing travel budgets and can form a basis for discussions this year.
The dean mentioned that a number of the AC committee members asked to speak with Advancement leaders to talk about restricted department funds. She will invite Tom Gutenberger to a meeting early next semester.
The dean shared that she is going to bring the AC a draft proposal for an Academic Planning Group, which could be a subcommittee of this body to review course and program revision proposals before their addition to an AC agenda.
The business of the meeting began.
The minutes of September 16, 2014 were approved by vote.
Libby discussed spring scheduling with AC. She shared that they will get an email from her later today reminding them that they are still looking for FYS courses. She also reminded department chairs to schedule some Friday classes. It is in the interests of students to do this and it helps to use space and resources more effectively if we schedule courses on all five days of the week.
Approval of Course Proposals (proposals are embedded links in the Agenda)
The course proposals are divided into three sections.
The AC voted to approve all courses listed under 3 A, including proposed title changes, course numbers, or to reactivate or deactivate a course. The list with embedded links is incorporated in the Agenda
The AC voted to approve all proposed new courses listed under 3 B.
After discussion, the AC voted to approve revisions to the Chinese Studies major ( 3 C). This revision permits five of nine required courses to be transferred from another institution. A student must take at least one 400 level course in Chinese after returning from study abroad.
Kristen Ball moved approval of the list of alternative courses that can satisfy the Com2 requirement. This approval is required each year. After discussion, Linda Boland moved to table list pending its redaction in consultation with the department chairs. The AC voted to table the motion. Kristen Ball will bring the list back to AC for approval after consultation.
Dan Palazzolo moved approval of a Visiting Away Program. The description is in an embedded link in the Agenda under item 3. The AC voted to approve.
Presentation of Merit Review Divisional Analysis
The dean presented an analysis by division of all merit scores for tenure-stream faculty assigned in 2013-2014. She also presented a divisional analysis of tenure-stream faculty by rank and gender as well as average merit score by division and gender. She also presented an analysis of merit scores of associate professors by years in rank.
A member suggested that the data presented did not support any inferences or recommendations. It was suggested that the conversation focus on process. The dean offered to consider any queries for analysis, and supported a shift to discuss process if that was agreeable. With no further discussion of the divisional analysis proposed, the discussion turned to process.
It was asked if a three-year review of tenured faculty would be possible. The dean said that she had recently asked if this could be considered and received a positive response. It would be necessary to develop rubrics for a three-year review. It was suggested that rubrics should be responsive to faculty development in rank. A member said he preferred the ability to use plus and minus prior to the assignment of a composite merit category.
A member criticized the timing of the dean’s notification to faculty member of divergent scores. The dean suggested that she could meet with department chairs prior to the salary letters going out to explain divergent scores. The scores are not in letters. The dean suggested meeting with the department chairs when there is a divergent score. The dean recommended continuing the discussion with a view to submitting a revision of the Guidelines to Annual Merit Reviews Process [passed April 2012] in Spring 2015. A member recommended a school-wide rubric on teaching.
The dean reminded AC that at the next meeting the whole group would convene for any general business. Then all but the department chairs would be excused. The department chairs will remain for a meeting to discuss and make recommendations to the dean about calibration of merit scores within and across divisions.
Meeting adjourned 11:48 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment