Minutes of Educational Policies

Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2003

Present: Terry Schlabach, Bill Hixon, Bill McAleer, Nathan Schlueter, Randy Richards, Barbara Wiese, Kris Eitrheim, Corinne Winter

A second member from the College of Education and Health Sciences is currently being elected.

The meeting was called to order by Terry Schlabach, 2002-2003 chair, who asked for nominations for chair for the 2003-2004 academic year. Randy Richards and Bill Hixon were nominated. Bill Hixon indicated he would prefer to wait a year before assuming the office. Randy Richards was elected. Terry Schlabach then left the meeting to the current committee.

Randy Richards asked for nominations for secretary. Corinne Winter volunteered and her offer was accepted.

There was a brief discussion regarding the committee members’ preference for fewer and longer meetings or for more frequent and somewhat shorter ones. Several members indicated a need to finish in time for early evening classes and the committee agreed to seek a compromise, meeting when there would be sufficient business for a meeting to last an hour to an hour and a half.

The committee did agree to meet on Tuesday, Sept. 9, at 3:15, to look over the list of program reviews for the year. Here is the list as currently posted on the web page.

· Student Success Center

· Catholic Studies Minor

· Communication Department

· Economics (Fall 2003 – postponed from 2002-2003)

· English

· Experiential Learning

· Industrial Engineering – (Fall 2003 - postponed from 2002-2003)

· Masters of Organizational Leadership

· New Student Seminar

· Peace & Justice Minor (approved for two years in 1999-2000)

· Philosophy (Fall 2003- postponed from 2002-2003)

· Physics (Fall 2003 -postponed from 2002-2003)

· Psychology

It was further agreed that the committee encourages electronic submission of program reviews. Members who served on the committee last year stated that receiving materials electronically was convenient and work especially well for those who had laptop computers which they could bring to the committee meeting and who therefore did not need to print the documents.

Reviews should be submitted as three documents:

I. The review proper, comprising sections as described on the web page

II. The supporting documentation, comprising syllabi and 4-point outlines

III. General Education materials

The committee will also examine the directions for the review document to see whether we can in any way reduce the work-load for departments without compromising the goals of self-assessment. We will check into what materials need to be on file for university accreditation purposes.

The committee discussed trying to accommodate programs that also undergo accreditation from an organization of their own. We will contact faculty from such programs about the possibility of scheduling their program reviews to fit with the work they already do for their accrediting body and about accepting for Ed Policies a review that can be easily culled from the materials they are already preparing. We will discuss whether it would be more helpful for EPC to receive their materials before or after materials are submitted for accreditation. What happens if the report of the accrediting body requires a change that needs to return to EPC or vice versa?

There was a brief discussion of the purposes and fruitfulness of the program review process. Bill Hixon recalled the philosophy of “zero-based” review – that a program return to fundamental questions about their goals as a department and then evaluate everything they are doing on that basis. Experienced committee members agreed that the fruitfulness of the process seems to vary by program. Perhaps an effort on our part to review the paperwork requirements can encourage the reflection the process is intended to engender.

Barb Wiese asked why the university does not use “-“ grades for undergraduates. She cited occasional confusion when the department accepts transfer students. If the student has a C- from another institution, that grade is considered acceptable but the grade is not equivalent of any grade given at SAU. Bill McAleer agreed that the same question is sometimes faced in the office of Records and Registration. Members of the committee recall discussion of that question from previous years. The graduate council proposed the use of “-“ grades for graduate students and that proposal passed EPC several years ago. A similar proposal was brought for undergraduate grading but did not pass. Members recall hearing SAU tradition and student self esteem raised as arguments against changing the current undergraduate grading system. It was suggested that either a proposal could be brought to EPC again or that there could be a request to the Faculty chair, Rachel Serianz, for a general discussion of the issue at a faculty meeting.

Motion to adjourn by Kris Eitrheim