ASCRC Minutes 4/25/06

Members Present: J. Campana, S. Derry, J. Eglin, V. Hedquist, C. Henderson, J. Luckowski, D. McCormick, D. Potts, J. Prongua, M. Roscoe, A. Szalda-Petree, H. Thompson

Members Absent/Excused: C. Johnston

Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon, A.Walker-Andrews

Guest: Lou Laakso, Evaluator Supervisor, Admissions & New Student Services

Chair Luckowski called the meeting to order at 2:12p.m.

The minutes from 4/18/06 were approved.

Communication

· Lou Laakso explained how transfer credits are evaluated and how this would change if the proposed revision to the Regents policy (301.5) is adopted. At the present time, courses from COT designated by a “T” are not accepted for the BA or BS degree. It is the case that students may petition to include up to 10 credits for use in the BA or BS. The petition process involves the department reviewing the material from the courses in question.

Unfinished Business:

· The proposed revisions to Board of Regents policy 301.5 would mean that all vocational technical courses would transfer as free electives. Their use beyond that would be determined by each department. The courses would not necessarily meet general education or major requirements. The University of Montana is the only institution in the Montana University System that does not accept vocational technical credits even as electives. The current UM practice of not accepting all credits as electives is difficult to explain to students.

This proposal is the result of the legislative audit and the Commissioner’s Office response to student complaints regarding the transferability of pre-health curriculum. Rather than make the equivalency determination on a case by case basis Deputy Commissioner Roger Barber has mandated consistency with course numbers and curriculum across the MUS.

The student member reported that she has heard complaints from accounting students who complete COT courses that are not accepted automatically by the main campus. She reported that she thinks they use the same textbook, and they wonder why they are not accepted. Members said that one difficulty with transferability stems from accreditation concerns. In order for these courses to transfer, the COT would have to meet the same accrediting standards of the School of Business, which is not the case.

Members questionable whether courses that are clearly skills or trade focused should be applied to an academic degree. Others noted that the revision is not an issue for extended programs that do not have room in the curriculum for elective courses or for programs that prescribe electives. Should ASCRC adopt a resolution against the revision for the Faculty Senate Chair to take to the Board of Regents meeting? If so the argument should be clearly articulated with supporting evidence not just anecdotal information. No resolution was proposed; Chair Luckowski will report on the issue to ECOS.

· Professor Thompson summarized the April 18 meeting with Dean Rowland regarding the proposed BA in Communicative Disorders.

Audiology programs, in particular, are in demand nationally as the population ages. However, the demand for audiologists in Montana is not expected to follow the national pattern. Rather, the demand in Montana is for speech-language pathologists.

Montana school populations are in decline, but are expected to start increasing in about 10 years. Meanwhile, the speech-language pathologists are aging and moving toward retirement. Statistics from the Office of Public Instruction (OPI) are provided in the proposal. The demand for speech-language pathologists is driven by special education requirements (not OPI), but OPI tracks unfilled positions

The plan is to attract Montana residents for the BS program and use them to feed into the MS program in order to minimize loss of graduates out of state. However, it is likely that the initial graduate classes will be made up of students from other programs and more of those initial graduating classes are likely to leave the state to practice, given higher salaries elsewhere. Dr. James Blair, who consulted on the proposal, indicated that many of the unsuccessful applicants to the Utah State graduate program are well-qualified and would likely apply to the UM program, so he anticipates that there will be sufficient demand.

The proposal calls for a department chair to be hired about a year before the program starts. This person would prepare the application for accreditation and evaluation before the first class starts. Other tasks during the first year include hiring of faculty, renovation of clinical areas, and development of curriculum.

The faculty positions could be difficult to fill because of the demand and the nature of competitive salaries. The consultant indicated that the faculty lines should be sufficient for the teaching load.

Jean Carter attended the April 18 meeting as a representative from Pharmacy and ECOS. She cautioned the faculty about the great risk of approving a program that doesn’t have the necessary financial support. The Public Health Program is an example of such a program and it is struggling. Some members indicated that they are inclined to focus on academic issues, rather than funding concerns but in this case we cannot ignore the negative effects on existing programs.

Members commented on the lack of specific support from UM faculty, OPI, local agencies and the community; the lack of possible integration across campus; and the relative cost of an intensive, clinical program. Members are concerned about the lack of any details of the program beyond course titles.

One approach that could be followed is the WICHE/WRGP options to help fill the personnel shortages across the state. It could expand on the current program, described in the proposal that provides incentives to develop speech therapists by sending current employees for training out of state. Members pointed out more pressing needs in the state –such as the estimated 800 vacant nursing positions.

The original proposal relied on tuition increases, but that approach will not provide sufficient funding and it is likely that UM will go to the legislature to request a special appropriation for the programs.

Following lengthy discussion, Chair Luckowski asked for a motion to support the proposal or not. The consensus was that the Committee does not support the proposal. She and Professor Thompson noted the reasons why not and will write a statement to that effect. The Committee voted unanimously to not support the proposed BA in Communicative Disorders. Chair Luckowski will inform Graduate Council and ECOS of the decision.

New Business:

· The committee agreed that the draft revision to Section IV, Process Leading to Submission of a Level II proposal was acceptable.

· The need for a chair-elect for 2006-2007 was briefly discussed. This will be postponed until the fall when the new committee members are present. It was commented that the chair of the committee should be in a tenure-track position. There has been a recent trend that departments nominate faculty who are engaged and available but not in tenure-track positions.

Unfinished Business Continued – General Education Models

Chair Luckowski provided the recent history of the general education efforts. At the request of the provost, Professor Borgmann chaired a General Education Taskforce that met from 2002-2004. He presented the results to the Faculty Senate in April 2004. At that time the following was approved:

The Faculty Senate directs the Academic Standards and Curriculum Review Committee to establish a permanent subcommittee to deal with all issues pertaining to General Education. The subcommittee will review the proposed general education revisions made by the Provost’s Task Force. ECOS shall be responsible for creating the initial charge and appointing the committee members.

An ad hoc committee chaired by Jean Carter created the structure and charge of the General Education Committee. In October 2004 the bylaw amendment creating the General Education Committee was approved and the detailed charge was presented as information to the Faculty Senate. The newly formed General Education Committee met for the first time in January 2005. The Preamble was approved by the Senate in April 2005. The committee charge was revised in September 2005 and the structure of the committee was amended in October 2005. A flowchart depicting General Education was provided to ASCRC in November 2005 and several models of how General Education might look on 3/3/06.

For purposes of discussion, Chair Luckowski provided committee members with a revised preamble, a draft General Education model (based on the common elements of the multiple models provided by the General Education Committee), and a draft of next year’s charge to the General Education Committee.

There was a question about what was meant by “at least one additional significant expository writing course” and no mention of the UDWPA. Professor McCormick will have to speak with his department regarding the movement of the foreign language / symbolic systems sequence under department specified. Symbolic System courses are often required of the major anyway. There is the potential for a reduction in students taking foreign language competency courses. It is `unclear whether this model would include a mechanism to assure that departments are requiring students to take a foreign language or symbolic systems sequence. It was suggested that “Natural, Physical, and Environment Science” could be stated as “Natural Science.”

The committee was asked to consider the document and circulate comments/ideas. It is hoped that, at a minimum, the charge to the 2006-2007 General Education Committee could be settled.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.