1 / 18

SACS-COC Fifth Year Interim Report Administrative Subcommittee 1 Overview

SACS-COC Fifth Year Interim Report Administrative Subcommittee 1 Overview. Core Requirement 2.8 Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11 Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8. Standard for Evidence - Institutions should ensure that the evidence it presents has the following characteristics . .

lan
Download Presentation

SACS-COC Fifth Year Interim Report Administrative Subcommittee 1 Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SACS-COCFifth Year Interim ReportAdministrative Subcommittee 1Overview Core Requirement 2.8 Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11 Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8

  2. Standard for Evidence -Institutions should ensure that the evidence it presents has the following characteristics. Evidence must be: • Reliable. The evidence can be consistently interpreted. • Current. The information supports an assessment of the current status of the institution. • Verifiable. The meaning assigned to the evidence can be corroborated, and the information can be replicated. • Coherent. The evidence is orderly, logical, and consistent with other patterns of evidence presented. • Objective. The evidence is based on observable data and information. • Relevant. The evidence directly addresses the requirement or standard under consideration and should provide the basis for the institution’s actions designed to achieve compliance. • Representative. Evidence must reflect a larger body of evidence and not an isolated case. Additionally, evidence should: • Entail interpretation and reflection; those responsible for submitting the evidence should have thought about its meaning and be able to interpret it appropriately to support a conclusion. • Represent a combination of trend and “snapshot” data. • Draw from multiple indicators.

  3. Core Requirement 2.8 – Number of Qualified Faculty The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs.

  4. Rationale and Notes for CR 2.8 Adequacy of faculty resources is necessary to ensure the quality and the integrity of an institution’s academic programs. Moreover, the mission of the institution will govern the type of faculty employed, including the number of full-time faculty members. The achievement of the institution’s mission with respect to teaching, research, and/or service will require a critical mass of permanent, full-time, qualified faculty to provide direction and oversight of academic programs. The number of such faculty will need to be sufficient to fulfill basic faculty functions of curriculum design, development, and evaluation; teaching; identification and assessment of appropriate student learning outcomes; student advising; research and creative activity; and institutional and professional service. The work of the core faculty may be supplemented and enhanced by judicious assignment of part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants whose special qualifications broaden and enrich the curriculum and increase learning opportunities for students. Note: This requirement addresses the adequacy of faculty personnel, not the adequacy of academic support services and resources

  5. Relevant Questions for Consideration for CR 2.8 • What are the institution’s definitions of terms such as full-time faculty, regular/permanent faculty, student-faculty ratio? • How does the mission of the institution determine the number and type of faculty employed? • How does the institution determine the number of full-time faculty needed to achieve its mission? • What is the responsibility of the full-time faculty and do they constitute a sufficient resource for carrying out basic faculty functions? • What are the ways in which members of the institution other than full-time faculty carry out some of these functions? • What are the institution’s policies on employment of part-time or adjunct faculty?

  6. Sample Documentation for CR 2.8 • Definitions of terms such as full-time faculty, regular/permanent faculty, student-faculty ratio • Data such as number of faculty; student-faculty ratios; faculty loads; proportion of courses taught by full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and graduate assistants; comparisons of peer institutions; etc. • A narrative describing the relation of the type and number of faculty to the mission of the institution • Policies describing the role of full-time faculty (and others) in the carrying out of the basic functions of the faculty as described in the rationale • Policies governing the employment of part-time faculty and graduate assistants.

  7. Additional Supporting Documentation for CR 2.8 Completed official Commission roster for instructional staff, listing all full-time and part-time faculty teaching credit courses during the academic term the compliance certification is submitted and for the two terms preceding that term.

  8. GCSU 2004 CR 2.8 Submission – Pg 2 • CORE REQUIREMENT  8 -- Numbers of faculty • Thenumber of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution. The institution has adequate faculty resources to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs.  In addition, upon application for candidacy, an applicant institution demonstrates that it meets the comprehensive standard for faculty qualifications. • Judgment of Compliance • Yes, GC&SU is able to provide a portfolio of evidence supporting compliance.                                                              • Explanation of Rationale for Judgment of Compliance • Mission • GC&SU is a Carnegie Level IV institution, which offers baccalaureate and masters/specialist degrees.  GC&SU is also Georgia’s public liberal arts university, with a mission primarily focused on teaching, as stated in its Principles: • While GC&SU faculty are committed to community service and are creatively engaged in their fields of specialization, they focus their attention primarily on maintaining excellence in instruction and guiding students. Students are endowed with both information and values through small classes, interdisciplinary studies, close association with the faculty and staff in and beyond the classroom, lively involvement in cultural life, and service to the community. • Adequacy • Since receiving its liberal arts mission from the BOR in July 1996 (scroll to end of minutes, p. 14), GC&SU has sought to increase the quantity and quality of its full-time faculty, particularly in the School of Liberal Arts & Sciences.  BOR support of GC&SU and its mission have made this possible.  While GC&SU, like most schools, has not funded new faculty positions in the last two years, the new tenure track lines awarded to GC&SU for FY ’02 reflect a pattern that began in 1996, which shows a commitment to lessening class size and increasing course offering in arts and sciences.  New faculty lines for FY ’02 were as follows: • Arts and Sciences – 41 • Education – 10 • Business – 3 • Health Sciences – 2

  9. GCSU 2004 CR 2.8 Submission – Pg 2 • The average lecture class size as of Spring 2003 at GC&SU was 20 students.  The overall average class size was 14.  In Spring 2003, GC&SU had 292 full-time faculty members teaching 88.4% of classes, and 118 part-time instructors teaching 11.6% of classes.  The breakdown of faculty-to-students in each school during Fall 2002, presented online in the Campus Profile, is as follows: • School of Liberal Arts and Sciences • 2,233 undergraduate students251 graduate students164 faculty • J. Whitney Bunting School of Business • 1,110 undergraduate students224 graduate students43 faculty • John H. Lounsbury School of Education • 433 undergraduate students496 graduate students42 faculty • School of Health Sciences • 627 undergraduate students79 graduate students31 faculty • General College • 627 students • Credentials • All full-time and part-time faculty members meet the degree-credential guidelines or have legitimate alternative qualifications.  This information is fully available online in the Faculty Information section of the GC&SU Profile System.

  10. Example 2008 5 Yr IR CR 2.8 Submission • Part III: The Abbreviated Compliance Certification • 1. The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. (Core Requirement 2.8) • X Compliance ___ Non-Compliance • Narrative: • As of August 2008, Mountain View College (MVC) employs seventy-six full-time faculty members. These full-time faculty members are adequate to support the MVC mission and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. All core curriculum course disciplines have at least one full-time faculty member. All active technical programs have full-time faculty members with the exception of the E-Commerce Technology program. MVC is currently reviewing options for the future of E-Commerce Technology Program. (1.1) • MVC ensures that all new and current full-time and part-time faculty have academic credentials that satisfy the "Faculty Credential Guidelines" as referenced in the Commission on Colleges, Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1. MVC deans use the “MVC Faculty Credentials Review Form” to officially document and ensure that all applicants for faculty positions and existing faculty have appropriate academic credentials and experience. (1.2) • For the past five years, 50-55% of MVC Fall and Spring semester student course enrollments and 54-56% of the associate contact hours have been taught by full-time faculty. (1.3) • References: • Curriculum Areas and Responsible Faculty Members Table – August 2008 • MVC Faculty Credentials Review Form • MVC Full-Time Vs Part-Time Faculty Enrollment Distribution – Summary Report

  11. Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11 - Academic program coordination For each major in a degree program, the institution assigns responsibility for program coordination, as well as for curriculum development and review, to persons academically qualified in the field. In those degree programs for which the institution does not identify a major, this requirement applies to a curricular area or concentration.

  12. Rationale and Notes for CS 3.4.11 This standard assumes that individuals competent in the field oversee all majors or curricular areas or areas of concentration in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in order to ensure that each contains essential curricular components, has appropriate content and pedagogy, and maintains currency in the degree. Degree programs normally are coordinated by academically qualified faculty who hold degree credentials or other qualifications appropriate to the degree offered. If responsibility for coordination for curriculum development and review are assigned to persons other than faculty, then the institution should provide appropriate documentation.

  13. Relevant Questions for Consideration for CS 3.4.11 • What evidence exists that the coordinator for each major, curricular area, or concentration in an undergraduate or graduate degree program has the qualifications and credentials for leadership in the development and review of the curriculum? • What evidence exists that the coordinator provides oversight for assessing the quality of the curriculum for the respective undergraduate or graduate degree programs and for ensuring that the curriculum, as well as the delivery of the curriculum, is educationally sound?

  14. Sample Documentation for CS 3.4.11 • List of program coordinators, their areas of responsibility, and their qualifications • Description of coordinator responsibilities

  15. GCSU 2004 CS 3.4.11 Submission – Pg 1 • PROGRAM STANDARD 13 -- Curriculum development, program coordinators • For each major in a degree program, the institution assigns responsibility for program coordination, as well as for curriculum development and review, to persons academically qualified in the field.  In those degree programs for which the institution does not identify a major, this requirement applies to a curricular area or concentration. • Judgment of Compliance • Yes, GC&SU is able to provide a portfolio of evidence supporting compliance.                                                              • Explanation of Rationale for Judgment of Compliance • The BOR Policy Manual Section 302.06 states, • 302.06:  Faculty Rules and Regulations • The faculty, or the council, senate, assembly, or such other comparable body, shall make, subject to the approval of the president of the institution, statutes, rules and regulations for its governance and for that of the students; provide such committees as may be required; prescribe regulations regarding admission, suspension, expulsion, classes, courses of study, and requirements for graduation; and make such regulations as may be necessary or proper for the maintenance of high educational standards. A copy of the statutes, rules and regulations made by the faculty shall be filed with the Chancellor. The faculty shall also have primary responsibility for those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process, subject to the approval of the president of the institution. (BR Minutes, 1986- 87, p. 333). • Following BOR policy, faculty members of GC&SU have primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of program coordination and curricula.  All schools follow established procedures for course proposals and have curriculum committees that function to approve curricula.  Except for core courses, curriculum changes originate with individuals or committees of faculty, go through a series of departmental and school reviews, and are then submitted to the Vice President & Dean of Faculties.  Degree program changes are then forwarded to the BOR.  Changes in the curricula of the Core also go through a series of faculty, departmental, chair, and dean approvals. Under the previous governance structure these changes were submitted to the Committee on Core Outcomes and Assessment before going to Academic Council for approval before going through the Office of Academic Affairs to the BOR Committee on General Education for Core Courses.  Under the new governance structure these changes will be forwarded to the University Senate Committee on Academic Governance for approval before going through the Office of Academic Affairs to the BOR Committee on General Education for Core Courses. (See Program Standard 12 for further discussion.) • At the undergraduate level, advisors are assigned to students by department chairs. At the graduate level, program graduate coordinators who serve at the pleasure of their school’s dean are either self-selected or appointed by the chair or identified through a search process.  For some disciplines, the department chair also serves as the program coordinator.  In all cases, academically qualified individuals provide leadership and accountability for program coordination.  (see GC&SU Academic and Faculty Information Systems)  

  16. GCSU 2004 CS 3.4.11 Submission – Pg 2 • The School of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Curriculum and Instruction Committee (see Article II B)is responsible for the integrity and coherence of all curricula and programs in the school and recommends to its faculty members course offerings, major and/or minor programs, degree requirements and other academic matters. After a comprehensive series of approvals, information is sent to the Vice President & Dean of the Faculties for submission to the BOR.  Bylaws and recent official minutes for the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences are posted online.  Older school minutes and school committee minutes are located in room 2-50 of the Arts and Sciences Building. • The J. Whitney Bunting School of Business Committee on Undergraduate Admissions, Curriculum, and Standards is comprised of representatives from each of the four departments and has the following responsibilities: • the admissions and transfer requirements for the School of Business; • the undergraduate curriculum (courses and degree programs ); • the standards set forth by AACSB (the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business).  • The Committee submits recommendations for additions, deletions, or changes involving admissions, curriculum, or standards to the School of Business faculty.  • Further, it recommends to the Dean of the School of Business the creation of ad-hoc committees for specific purposes and needs relative to undergraduate admissions, curriculum, and study.  The Bylaws of the School of Business, which explain the duties of this committee, along with committee minutes, and past school minutes are available in Atkinson 203.  Recent minutes for the School of Business are available online. • Similarly, the Graduate Admissions, Curriculum, and Standards Committee maintains familiarity with accreditation issues and other requirements related to graduate programs and endeavors to see that these standards are met by the School of Business.  It makes recommendations to the Dean of the School of Business concerning curricula changes required to meet accreditation standards; monitors course content for accreditation standards; monitors statements, such as course descriptions set forth in the Graduate Catalog; reviews and makes recommendations to the School of Business faculty members for action on admissions, all changes in the graduate curriculum, and standard policies and procedures relative to the graduate program. • The John H. Lounsbury School of Education Educator Preparation Council Curriculum Committee (see Article V) has responsibility for matters relating to the curriculum of the School of Education, including but not limited to, review of new courses and other curriculum developed; new or changed programs; matters such as grades, hours of courses, and other academic issues.  This committee serves as a forum for curricular matters.  The School Bylaws and recent minutes for the School of Education are posted on line.  Older school minutes and committee minutes can be found in Kilpatrick 228. • The School of Health Sciences Curriculum and Instruction Committee develops and monitors implementation of curriculum and annually evaluates its effectiveness in achieving the philosophy, purposes, and goals of the School of Health Sciences; formulates and presents to faculty members proposals and recommendations for curriculum change; reviews proposed courses and course revisions and makes recommendations to the faculty members; considers recommendations pertaining to curriculum development and implementation as they are received from faculty, committees, students, and others; recommends additional personnel and resources needed for the attainment of the goals of the School of Health Sciences; formulates methods of evaluating the curriculum and the programs of study; monitors, reviews and suggests revisions to special academic programs within the School and assists the SHS Director of International Studies by providing a panel of faculty representatives, when requested, to interview applicants for the SHS International Study Program.  Bylaws and recent minutes for the School of Health Science are online.  Older school minutes and committee minutes can be found in room 202 of the Health Sciences Building.

  17. GCSU 2004 CS 3.4.11 Submission – Pg 3 • The School of Health Sciences Graduate Committee is responsible for the policies related to graduate programs in the School of Health Sciences, including decisions about graduate courses and programs, nominations for permanent membership to the University Graduate Faculty, criteria for admission to graduate programs, and graduate student petitions. The decisions are forwarded to the Dean of the School of Health Sciences for approval/disapproval who then forwards proposals to the GC&SU Graduate Council for approval/disapproval. • The record of actions taken by the faculty in each school is found in the minutes of the school faculty meetings.  • Oversight Committees • Departments presenting proposals for curriculum changes must send their proposals, in writing, to the Dean of their school, who forwards the proposal and data justifying the need for it, with recommendation, to the Academic Governance Committee, a standing committee of the University Senate (formerly, Academic Council, section B).  Graduate curriculum changes are similarly sent to the subcommittee on Graduate Affairs (In former statutes, Graduate Council, section C).  Both committees make recommendations to the Vice President & Dean of Faculties concerning issues of admission, graduation standards, operating procedures, changes in programs, courses, curriculum, majors, and degrees. • In addition to considering new courses and program proposals, the Educator Preparation Council (Section D) is the primary council responsible to the Dean of the School of Education and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Information for review and reaction is then presented to the Academic Vice President & Dean of Faculties. The Educator Preparation Council also acts as an advisory group for continuous planning and serves as an information link to state Educator Preparation criteria and to other faculty and departments at the University. • All proposals for new degrees or majors conform to the outline in the BOR Academic Affairs Handbook. • As a part of the Comprehensive Review Program all non-accredited programs are reviewed every five years.  A review committee headed by an external reviewer, with one member from the Curriculum and Instruction Committee of the school and one member from the Academic Council (outside of the school being reviewed) has been established. A systematic process has been developed to allow GC&SU to assess program changes, to examine their strengths and weaknesses, and to identify areas for strategic change.  The process outlined was developed to adhere to the policy outlined by the USG while simultaneously recognizing the unique mission of this institution.

  18. Example 2008 5 Yr IR CS 3.4.11 Submission • 4. For each major in a degree program, the institution assigns responsibility for program coordination, as well as for curriculum development and review, to persons academically qualified in the field. In those degree programs for which the institution does not identify a major, this requirement applies to a curricular area or concentration. (Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11) • X Compliance ___ Non-Compliance • Narrative: • For each major that is part of a degree or certificate program at Mountain View College, and for each curriculum or discipline area offered at MVC, there is a faculty member or academic dean responsible for the course offerings in that particular area. Each assigned faculty member is academically qualified to teach in the area in which they are responsible for. (4.1) • Many of these individuals are also members of the Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD) Curriculum Committee that oversees specific disciplines and/or degree programs. The DCCCD curriculum committee is responsible for reviewing, revising and coordinating the curriculum on an annual basis. Additionally, a separate local MVC Curriculum Committee is charged with attending MVC Instructional Council meetings to hear presentations by the MVC DCCCD Curriculum Committee representatives in each discipline. The MVC Instructional Council considers curricular changes proposed by the DCCCD committee and reviews and gives written recommendations in response to those curriculum changes to the MVC Vice-President of Instruction. • MVC’s provisions for curriculum evaluation and revision are outlined in the DCCCD policy Curriculum Development and Revision EE (Local). (4.2) The faculty role and responsibility for curriculum planning and revision are outlined in the DCCCD policy Educational Role and Mission, Purpose, and Responsibility AD (Local). (4.3) • References: • Curriculum Areas and Responsible Faculty Members Table – August 2008 • DCCCD policy Curriculum Development and Revision • DCCCD policy Educational Role and Mission, Purpose, and Responsibility (pages 4-5)

More Related