29 September 2000
|3 October||Faculty Affairs Committee||Welles 111||4 p.m.|
|3 October||Student Affairs Committee||South 110||4 p.m.|
|12 October||Executive Committee||South 309||12:50 p.m.|
|17 October||All College Meeting/College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
|26 October||Executive Committee||South 309||12:50 p.m.|
|14 November||College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
|5 December||College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 245-5383
Summer School/Intersession Task Force 44
Nominations for the Faculty Personnel Committee 44
New Committee Opportunity 57
I wish to thank the members of the Task Force, as well as Maryann Stopha and Jeff Guttenberg, for their work in preparing these reports.
The summer school/intersession task force would like to make the following recommendations regarding summer school, 2001. The summer school budget should not be seen as solely a means to generate revenues but rather as a means of strengthening and enhancing the academic programs at Geneseo. In order to strengthen Geneseo's academic programs, students must have assurances that the courses they need will, in fact, be offered during the summer. This requires that some course offering be "guaranteed" regardless of enrollment, and that faculty salaries be raised. The current policy of using these revenues to help pay summer library costs etc. should be reevaluated and those costs returned to the general budget allocations.
1. After polling the various departments and faculty, a very frequent complaint was the current salary structure. Many faculty felt that the pay was too low, and therefore, that it was not worth their time to offer a class during the summer. Our committee recommends that the salary for a three-credit class be raised to $4,000.00. This will help to compensate adequately faculty who are already offering classes and perhaps entice others to do so, thereby strengthening the program as a whole.
From the student survey, 15 of 87 students who had planned to take a summer school course changed their mind because the course they wanted or needed was not offered. Willingness on the part of faculty to offer courses would increase the number and range of offerings.
2. Another common complaint that came up in our poll of faculty was the canceling of classes due to low enrollments, with some decisions being made the first day of class. Because faculty invest a significant amount of effort in preparing for these classes and sometimes need to buy supplies or make reservations well before the start of class, there needs to be a mechanism to guarantee that these classes will run. In addition, once the faculty commits to teaching, they pass up opportunities to go to conferences and workshops or take on other sources of funding. We recommend that the Dean's office work with chairs to determine classes that will be guaranteed offerings at the time the schedule is made. This "guaranteed status" would be for classes which have a track record of attracting students or which are needed for various programs or majors. New courses that are of an elective nature could be listed in the schedule as "offered only if demand is sufficient."
From a student perspective, it is a good idea to guarantee courses to remove uncertainty from the student decision process. Students could better plan their summers and seek local employment and housing. Assistance finding employment on or off campus during the summer session would also be very helpful to students since many listed cost, expense of living away from home and needing to work as reasons for not taking classes at Geneseo. Perhaps Career Services could help in finding local employment and the college could give priority to students enrolled in summer classes for campus employment. Also, offering lower-cost housing in a dormitory would be helpful.
It was noted by the accountant on our committee that, if recommendations #1 and #2 were approved across the board and nothing else changed from 1999 Summer to 2000 Summer (same course offerings, same course enrollments), instruction cost would increase by approximately 65% or $180,000. Summer school, 2000, would then operate at a loss of $140,000, but this assumes that all courses would be guaranteed and run. Primarily, this increase in cost would be due to the fact that the enrollment to cover instructional costs would rise from 8 to 13 students needed per class. It should be noted that this breakeven target does not help cover the $220,000 of overhead (library and other support costs), which is fixed. Roughly half of the 1999 Summer courses did not make this breakeven target; therefore, careful attention will be needed to determine which classes to offer on a guaranteed basis and how to advertise the program best to attract more students (see recommendation #3 on second page).
3. Our third recommendation is that summer school needs to be better advertised in terms of what courses are being offered in order to attract more Geneseo students. We also need to better reach students in the surrounding communities. From the survey it is evident that Geneseo students are aware that the college has a summer school program but we attract few students from other colleges. Two simple remedies might be to place a link to summer school on Geneseo's homepage and to advertise to students who fall into the three major categories for attending summer school: getting ahead in their program, wishing not to fall behind and a desire to concentrate on one or two classes at a time. (Advertisements could ask the questions "Interested in getting ahead in your academic program?", "Are you falling behind in your academic program?", or "Want to concentrate on one or two classes this summer?")
4. We also briefly discussed "distant learning classes" as possible summer school offerings. The consensus of our committee was that we should not consider this for summer school until the college as a whole reached a decision as to whether it was in support of classes being offered in this format. If the college were in support of distant learning, this would have great potential to increase the number of number of students taking classes and paying tuition to Geneseo rather than to other colleges. Seventy-two of 330 survey respondents took classes at other schools; two reasons they chose to attend a summer session at another school were was location (83.3%) and lower cost (45.8%). Distant learning classes can also be flexible in scheduling and can be easily worked around full-time summer employment. In addition, successful distant learning classes with large enrollments would help to support some of the lower enrollment classes offered on campus.
Summation of Student Survey (Internet survey prepared and analyzed by Jeff Guttenberg in the School of Business with the help of Mary Ann Stopha in CIT; the complete results are attached as an addendum in the three ring binder. [The binder is available in the College Senate Office--Ed.]):
1. The class standing of the respondents was 23% freshman, 27.9 % sophomores, 30.6% juniors and 18.5% seniors. Most respondents were females, 72.1%. Science/math majors made up 24.2% of the respondents, education majors 23.9%, business majors 13% and other majors 38.9%.
2. Of 335 respondents, 96.46% of students are aware that classes are offered during the summer at Geneseo
3. Of 335 respondents, 9.2% have enrolled in summer school courses. Of those students who have taken classes, 41.9% of them have only taken one class at Geneseo, 22.6% two classes, 12.9% three and 6.4% more than three. The three most common reasons for taking a summer school class were: "wanted to get ahead," "wanted to concentrate on 1 or 2 classes and "falling behind in units."
4. Of 331 respondents, 25.7% of the respondents had planned to take a summer school course and then changed their mind for a wide variety of reasons (listed in complete report).
5. Of 330 respondents, 21.3% had taken a summer school course at another school after starting at Geneseo for similar reasons that student took them at Geneseo: "wanted to get ahead," "wanted to concentrate on 1 or 2 classes and "falling behind in units." The reasons why they chose to attend a summer session at another school was location (83.3%), lower cost (45.8%), course was easier (43.1%), course was not offered at Geneseo (36.1%) and course was offered at a more convenient time (18.1%).
6. When asked "Are you planning to attend summer school at Geneseo in the summer of 2000?" 8.9% of 332 respondents were planning to, 85.2% were not and 4.1% were "not sure."
7. When asked "Are you planning to attend summer school at another school in the summer of 2000?" 18.9% of 328 respondents were planning to, 71.6% were not and 9.5% were "not sure." The colleges they planned to attend were quite varied, although many were community colleges as were the types of classes they planned to take.
8. When asked "under which circumstances would you take a summer school course at Geneseo, or take more than you are currently planning to?" 63.6% of the 338 respondents would if they " fell behind in units," 63.3% "if I had to live here during the summer," 63.3% "if a specific course were offered during the summer," 35.5% "if a preferred professor were offering a course," 16.9% "if there were fewer weeks in each session," and 5.3% if there were more weeks in each session."
With its combination of traditional courses and unique learning opportunities, Intersession holds promise for creative and rewarding experiences not always available during the regular semester. As it is currently conceived and structured, though, Intersession does raise criticisms and concerns. Some courses are not easily taught in three weeks, while those that can be taught in three weeks may not run at all when undersubscribed. Students may not wish to pay for extra tuition, room and board. Nevertheless, the Committee feels that, with a new vision of what Intersession could do--expand options and provide incentives for both faculty and students--Intersession could make more of its promise a reality.
The following paragraphs detail the benefits our committee sees to maintaining and supporting an intersession program at Geneseo and possible ways of augmenting the intersession experience so that more faculty and students participate.
Intersession provides a block of time during which the Geneseo community of students, faculty and staff can prepare for the spring semester. For faculty, this might include attending meetings, preparing lectures or doing research and writing. For students it might include working and earning money, volunteering in their local community or taking a class to catch up or get ahead in their academic program. For staff, this time may be applied to planning future activities or catching up on projects that have already begun.
Specific suggestions regarding course offerings might include additional study abroad opportunities of the type already in existence (e.g. to London) in order to take advantage of the lower cost of travel to Europe during the month of January. Domestic field courses similar to History's research trip to Washington, D.C., might also be expanded. Such experiences could include a multidisciplinary course offered jointly by Multicultural Affairs and Geography or a one-credit field study where students did in-depth examination of their hometowns via e-mail communication with a professor and other students. Departments might use this time to sponsor field trips to research facilities, museums and government bodies or agencies. Intensive laboratory experiences, courses in scientific or creative writing or courses in desktop publishing might likewise serve student' needs. Intersession might also be a time to offer remediation to students who got into academic trouble during their first semester. A significant number of students might show interest in a class on how to improve study habits.
The above suggestions regarding intersession do not come without a cost. Class size may need to be kept small and faculty may need to be compensated in ways other than monetarily or on a per- credit basis. Intersession must be viewed as a way of enhancing a Geneseo undergraduate education and not first and foremost as a means of generating revenue. It can definitely provide our students with wonderful opportunities that might not be available during the fall, spring and summer terms. However, commitment and effort on the part of the administration, departments and faculty will be crucial to ensuring that the session reaches its full potential.
COPLAC Schools (Prepared by Kathy Broikou for the Committee)
A survey of fourteen COPLAC schools found that only three; Ramapo College of New Jersey, Sonoma State University, and New College of the University of South Florida offer an Intersession. The schedule of classes range from 3 to 4 weeks. The academic calendar at the other eleven COPLAC schools, which do not offer an Intersession, have spring semesters that begin as early as the second full week in January.
Ramapo and Sonoma State University have an Intersession that is similar to that of Geneseo’s. Ramapo has a limited number of course offerings (approximately 50) from all areas. Many of the students who attend Ramapo during their Intersession are non-matriculated students. Sonoma offers approximately 55 courses during their Intersession. In general, the courses are general education courses or courses that are difficult, courses that students "like to get out of the way." Most of the students who attend Intersession at Sonoma are matriculated students.
New College offers a January Interterm devoted solely to independent study. The purpose of this independent study is to give students the opportunity to devise, structure, and carry to completion an intensive study or to provide students with the time for a group project or special course that requires a block of time free from competing activities. This independent study is required of all students and faculty members but there is not additional tuition or salary associated with this term since this is part of the regular school year for both students and faculty.
Summation of Student Survey (Internet survey prepared and analyzed by Jeff Guttenberg in the School of Business with the help of Mary Ann Stopha in CIT; the complete results are attached as an addendum in a three ring binder. [The binder is available in the College Senate Office--Ed.]):
1. The class standing of the respondents was 23% freshman, 27.9 % sophomores, 30.6% juniors and 18.5% seniors. Most respondents were females, 72.1%. Science/math majors made up 24.2% of the respondents, education majors 23.9%, business majors 13% and other majors 38.9%.
2. Of 326 respondents, 96.6% of students are aware that classes are offered at Intersession.
3. Of 328 respondents, 7.3% have enrolled in intersession courses. Of those students who have taken classes, 83.3% of them have only taken one class. The three most common reasons for taking an intersession class were: "wanted to concentrate on 1 or 2 classes," only time it was offered," and "other (see complete survey)."
4. Of 316 respondents, only 8.5% of the respondents had planned to take an intersession course and then changed their mind.
5. Of 313 respondents, only 1.6% had taken an intersession course at another school
6. When asked "under which circumstances would you take an intersession course at Geneseo, or take more than you are currently planning to?" only 5.6% or less of 338 respondents could be induced to take an intersession course for any of the reasons listed ("a specific course were offered," fell behind in units" etc…).
Present: J. Ballard, E. Cleeton, C. Faulkner, K. Hahn, T. Hon, J. Koch, M. Lima [chair], S. McKenna, J. McLean, S. Muench, N. Paternostro, E. Spilman, J. Wrubel
Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05pm.
The first item on the agenda was the Chair’s summary of the charges for this year’s FAC (see pages 937-44 of 1999-00 Senate Bulletin). In order to know more about these charges, and then decide how best to accomplish them, J. McLean requested to hear from a representative from each subcommittee.
Speaking for last year’s FAC Subcommittee on Personnel Matters, J. Koch briefly summarized the Committee’s history of findings and recommendations. (1) After surveying other SUNY schools and COPLAC members, the Committee realized Geneseo is not unique in granting Continuing Appointment (CA) without Promotion to Associate (PA); (2) once the Committee realized that CA need not be concurrent with PA [there was no consensus even within the Subcommittee whether they should be linked], the Committee decided to suggest that the differences between CA and PA be clarified and highlighted; (3) the Committee’s proposed revision of guidelines for CA and PA are on pages 943 and 944 of the 1999-00 Senate Bulletin).
S. Muench shared the diversity of viewpoints that informed the FAC Subcommittee on Student Evaluation of Teaching. The Committee ran into different viewpoints as to the role the student evaluation of teaching plays in personnel decisions: how their use and importance vary from Department to Department. The more the Committee looked at the issue, the more complex the task at hand became. While initially there was no recognition even of the differences between formative and summative assessment, by the end of the year, every member was almost an expert on the topic. Despite the new acquired expertise, no consensus could be reached whether to recommend the use of a national form, or whether to suggest revisions to the current SOFI form.
After a brief discussion, this year’s FAC voted unanimously to stay together to create consensus among the different constituencies we represent, before we go to the Senate floor with any recommendation on the student evaluation of teaching and on the revision of the guidelines for CA and PA. We even raised the possibility of having a single faculty survey addressing both issues (SOFI and CA). The Committee concluded that the conversations we need to have as a campus and as a committee on what constitutes good teaching and how it should be evaluated are definitely connected to a larger debate that Geneseo should engage in on its philosophy of teaching and learning.
A member reminded us that if we had a Teaching and Learning Center with an expert in charge, all this should become much simpler. Until we do, the Committee decided to create sub-groups based on each member’s expertise to work on different tasks (i.e. survey other SUNY and COPLAC schools whether they have adopted a national form and what feedback on that decision they can share). We will also survey students and faculty to assess their different concerns on these issues, but we will analyze the results together, and attempt a consensus.
The Committee feels that it can address both issues (evaluation of teaching and CA/PA guidelines) simultaneously during this year since they seem connected. We looked at no. 5 in the Senate Bulletin as an example: Establishment of a means to ensure that Geneseo strikes a desirable balance in personnel decisions for instructors between the student ratings system and other forms of evaluation of teaching (940).
The Chair will provide a packet of readings to each member before the next meeting, including an
overview of the arguments that the Subcommittee has developed concerning the premises, functions, and features of a Student Rating System; a list of the Pros and Cons that can be used in deciding whether to use a national or a local form; information on the IDEA and the SIR2 national rating forms; a copy of Helena Waddy’s historical overview,"30 Years of Student Evaluation of Teaching at Geneseo, 1969-99."
Next Meeting will be on October 3, at 4pm, Welles 111.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45.
Present: T.Bazzett, J.Bushnell, B.Dixon, E.Gillin, B.Glass, E.Kallin, C.Leary, M.Lima, J.Liu, J.Lovett, W.Pogozelski, A.-M. Reynolds, E.Wallace
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by C. Leary at 12:52 p.m.
2. Chair's Report
C.Leary requested that Executive Committee meet every other Thursday (beginning with 21 September). He said that members may send a substitute if they need to give a report but can't make the meeting.
Chris then reported that he'd received an email message from Joseph Flynn regarding resolutions that were passed the previous weekend (16 September) at the Campus Governance Leaders' Caucus. The following resolutions had passed unanimously and were reported by Rose Rudnitski, Convener, Campus Governance Leaders. The following statements are quoted verbatim.
While the rhetoric of the report of the Provost's Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of Student learning Outcomes implies that the faculty will design its own curriculum for its students and assess them accordingly, the substance of the report does not.
Although we believe that there should be continuous, healthy dialogue with System Administration [sic] and the Board of Trustees, we think that recent statements by the president of the Faculty Senate have been too conciliatory. We would like the Senate to more clearly convey our dismay with the Board of Trustees' mandate on General Education and the Board's abrogation of its fiduciary and advocacy responsibilities for the university. The president of the Senate and the Executive Committee need to be more responsive to the concerns of the SUNY faculty and more open and inclusive in engaging diverse voices.
c. Observer Status
The Campus Governance Leaders request that the Faculty Senate acknowledge our involvement by confirming the Observer status of our Convener and by adding the Convener to the Executive Committee. (We have also resolved to call ourselves a caucus, a name that we think more accurately reflects our service in this context).
d. Winter Plenary
Since we learn at, and feel that we contribute a great deal to Senate meetings, we request that the Senate restore its tradition of inviting us to its Winter Plenary sessions and continue to invite us to the planning session.
The Campus Governance Leaders of the StateUniversity[sic] of New York are seriously concered[sic] about the breakdown of collegiality between the faculty and administration at SUNY Plattsburgh. We support the Governance Leaders of Plattsburgh in fulfilling their duties and stand behind their actions.
The Campus Governance Leaders of the State University of New York are quite dismayed at faculty reports of the quality of the stewardship of the president of SUNY Maritime. We support the faculty of Maritime as it attempts to resolve leadership issues at its institution.
E. Wallace questioned what the turnout was at the meeting at which the above resolutions had been passed. C. Leary replied that the number of attendees was "not three or four" but said he had "no evidence of more than eight."
3. President's Report
Provost Dixon expressed President's Dahl's regrets at being unable to make the meeting. On his behalf, she asked for names of persons to replace Randy Bailey on the Strategic Planning Committee, saying that the position should be filled with someone who is able to think broadly. Several names were suggested for the one-year term.
4. Provost's Report
Provost Dixon had no report.
5. Vice-Chair's Report
J. Lovett reported that the Excellence Committee had met and that subcommittees had been formed. Letters informing individuals of their nomination for an award will be sent out shortly.
6. Treasurer's Report
A.-M. Reynolds said that she would send condolences on behalf of the Senate to two professors who recently lost family members.
7. University Faculty Senator's Report
E. Wallace had no report.
8. Central Council Report
E. Kallin had no report
9. Student Affairs Committee
J.Liu reported that the Student Affairs Committee had met and had decided to focus on several items. One was the student union, particularly the ballroom, which students had said was badly lighted and had an outdated sound system. Secondly, the committee was concerned with diversity training and may send out a survey to assess items such as biased behavior. The next issue was student expectations of faculty involvement. Many students complained that they were sent letters informing them who their advisors were, but with no information about where or how to contact the advisors. J. Liu then reported that students were concerned with the cost of replacing their smart cards and dorm keys. A fee of $15 is charged for each smart card replacement, despite the fact that the cards "break down" and $10 is charged for every replacement dorm card. J. Lovett asked if the same fee was charged when the cards wear out as when a student has lost a card. E. Kallin said that the fees are applied inconsistently. J. Lovett also added that the current smart cards do not identify Geneseo as a college or university and that this was a problem for students who were trying to obtain student admission prices overseas. She also remarked that the card doesn't identify professors, which can be a problem in trying to use the card for things like library privileges at other universities. There followed some discussion as to the best procedure for making such complaints heard. Provost Dixon said that the committee could make recommendations. C. Leary suggested that J. Liu contact Tom Bell, head of CAS, for smart card issues. B. Glass clarified how CAS gives and receives information. She said that the organization has open meetings and a Board of Directors. E. Kallin also pointed out the existence of a CAS advisory committee. Provost Dixon said that the Union ballroom issue could be brought up at budget meetings or could be brought to the attention of the Buildings and Grounds Committee. She also suggested contacting the Vice-President for Facilities Planning. J. Liu asked if work study help would be available for the surveys that the committee wants to conduct. C. Leary replied that two students had been hired as Senate assistance and that these individuals might be available.
10. Faculty Affairs Committee
M. Lima reported that the committee had met and unanimously agreed to stay together to create consensus before going to the Senate with recommendations. The committee is concerned about what constitutes good teaching and how it should be evaluated. The group intends to survey students and faculty about their concerns regarding the SOFI. It also plans to survey other SUNY and COPLAC schools about their experience with such things as the national form.
11. Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review
E. Gillin said that the committee would meet next week.
12. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
T. Bazzett had no report.
13. Graduate Academic Affairs Committee
J. Bushnell had no report.
14. New Business
C. Leary referred to the Final Report on Summer School and Intercession that had been prepared by the Summer School/Intersession Task Force. There followed a discussion as to what should be done with the information. One suggestion was made to send the report to the Policy Committee. J. Lovett said that Executive Committee could endorse or not endorse the report's recommendations. J. Bushnell suggested that the report be sent in full to the Senate and perhaps published in the bulletin, since she thought that concerned faculty would be interested. Provost Dixon said that the Executive Committee could accept the report and that it could be sent to the ListServe as an attachment or be published on the web. A call was made for a proposal to accept the report. J. Bushnell moved to make the proposal and E.Gillin seconded it. The proposal was unanimously approved. C. Leary said that he would be certain to thank Bob O'Donnell and the other members of the task force for their work.
E. Wallace then brought up a proposal concerning the formation of a new organization that would be called The New York State Public Higher Education Conference Board. The proposal suggests that the organization be made up of one voting representative from the SUNY Faculty Senate, and one representative from each of the following organizations: The New York State United Teachers, the Professional Staff Congress, the United University Professions (UUP), the NYSUT Council of Community Colleges, the NEA-NY Community College Council, and the CUNY Faculty Senate. Information from the Board says that the organization's major objective would be to serve as an advocate for public higher education in New York State; other objectives would entail making recommendations to the Commissioner of Education, the Board of Regents, the Governor, the Legislature, etc. and studying proposed legislation. Ed expressed resistance to linking the Senate to any outside organization such as the UUP, stating that the organization had "lofty goals" but that it would change the relationship between the Senate and the Union. He said that Geneseo would get one vote on the issue in October and he was willing to vote in accordance with the wishes of the campus. J. Lovett, in noting that the Faculty Council of the Community Colleges had voted no, asked who else had voted and whose vote is still pending. E.Wallace presumed that the other groups had endorsed the proposal, but said he was unsure. Provost Dixon said that unions in general are negotiating units that bargain terms of employment and for that reason, are adversarial, while faculty Senates have different concerns. She reported seeing other institutions adopt similar arrangements and noted that the result was a loss of influence for the Senates as they became "broad-based, rather than specific." E. Wallace noted that the manner in which he had received the information raised a flag in his eyes as well. B.Glass asked who had proposed the arrangement. Ed said that the Union had initiated it. J. Bushnell asked why this particular body was needed in addition to the existing organizations. Ed thought this would give the union another area of influence. T. Bazzett asked what the advantage of the Board would be. Ed replied that "bigger" might mean "more influence". C. Leary then called for collective thoughts and consensus was "thumbs down." J. Lovett added a concern with the stipulation that motions would be passed "by unanimous agreement of the member organizations present." She feared that if one member were unable to attend a meeting, that whole organization would have no vote.
The last item of New Business dealt with a concern raised by a faculty member that the General Education Core Requirements, having expanded to as many as six new credits, should be limited to no more than 40 credit hours. Dean Greenfield had sought clarification of whether the matter should be addressed by the Policy Committee or the General Education Committee. C. Leary expressed his desire to avoid having the two committees work concurrently. A discussion followed that confused the secretary greatly since the discussion involved multiple "they's" and "it's" and "he's" and was very fast-paced. Provost Dixon said that the Policy Committee (hereby referred to as "Policy") takes the recommendations of the General Education Committee (hereby referred to as "Gen Ed"). E. Gillin said that Policy may act without Gen Ed. J. Lovett said that program revisions (i.e. changes in majors) are only mentioned in the directive for Policy and that she feared a "limboland" where electives would be attacked by both committees. C. Leary asked if it would be impossible for the committees to meet together. Provost Dixon said that it had been done and J. Lovett confirmed the statement. E.Gillin clarified that he did not want to deny his colleagues the chance to address the issue. C. Leary said that Gen Ed wants to "take it on" but that the issue would be discussed at the Policy meeting next week.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:52 p.m.