Task Force to Create Policies for
SACS Comprehensive Standards 3.4.11 and 3.7.2
Meeting Minutes - April 20, 2012
Present: Dr. Hicks, Ms. Anderson, Ms. Keeth Williams, Dr. Rhoads, Dr. Sparhawk, Mr. Arrington, Dr. Randolph, Ms. Daye, Mr. Ferguson, Dr. Lemons, Dr. Laub, Dr. Fronheiser
Dr. Hicks said that we have three sub-committees who are going to make reports today. The first was a report from the Program Definition Sub-committee.
Dr. Laub said that they worked independently on consolidating the programs that will need program heads. He said that he had his consolidation and he passed it around to everyone. Dr. Lemons said that he had his and he passed it around to everyone. Dr. Laub said that they do not have Dr. Mickles’. Dr. Hicks asked if there was a consolidation from Humanities and Social Sciences. Ms. Daye said that they do not have one typed out, but they would have Education, Liberal Arts, General Studies, Human Services, Child Care, Communication Design and Studio Arts, Legal Assistant, and English. Dr. Laub recommended that History and Psychology could be assigned to Liberal Arts and General Studies. He said that it could be Liberal Arts/History and Psychology/General Studies.
Dr. Hicks counted up all of the potential program head needs and said that there are 31 total. Dr. Sparhawk pointed out that that is half of the number of faculty that we have. Dr. Lemons said that there are going to be half of the faculty needed because, in some cases, there is only one faculty member in an area and they would have to be the program head. Dr. Laub agreed and said that some of these areas are part-time and only have part-time faculty because smaller programs only have one part-time employee and that is it. Dr. Sparhawk suggested for the larger programs like Education, Liberal Arts and General Studies to have one main program head, but also have sub-heads for the various departments included in those programs.
Mr. Arrington said that he thinks it would be informative for these break-outs to put some kind of metrics next to them about faculty count, FTE/student count, student credit hours or something to weight the programs when it comes to release time/compensation. Dr. Lemons said that he agrees with Mr. Arrington when it comes to the statistics that we are talking about that will be relevant when it comes to compensation. But, he said that some of these areas are going to have unique job descriptions. For some of the Allied Health areas a lot of the job description is dictated to them by the other accrediting agencies. Dr. Lemons said that there are going to be some core responsibilities that all program heads will have and there will be compensation for those commonalities. He said that he thinks that there should be more compensation for those program heads that have more responsibilities than just the core responsibilities.
Dr. Hicks asked Ms. Anderson to report for the next sub-committee regarding Program Head Responsibilities. Ms. Anderson said that they met this week and Jason Ferguson and Cindy Wallin were the two additional people in their group. They were able to come up with a list even though it is not all-inclusive and is still going to have some differences depending on programs and responsibilities. They were able to come up with a list of responsibilities that would be relevant to any program head in any of the programs. They did not get into any detailed responsibilities for certain program areas, but they looked to CS 3.4.11 for the basics of Responsibility for Program Coordination, Curriculum Development and Review, and Assessment. She said that they identified some responsibilities that will need to be developed further and something that they discussed was having some break-out smaller committees that would help to shape each individual program head’s description a little more. Dr. Randolph said that a stumbling block they had was the question of what a program is. Ms. Anderson said that once the programs are defined, they would break down into smaller committees to then add to and define more of the responsibilities.
Dr. Hicks said that Dr. Mickles needs to be at the next meeting. He also asked that Dr. Mickles put together a list, in the same format as the other deans, of the possible program head areas for HSS. He asked that she email that out to this taskforce as soon as possible.
Dr. Hicks said that the last committee report is the Evaluation Sub-committee. Dr. Fronheiser said that he did not call this committee together early enough. He said that they met a few minutes before the Taskforce meeting. Dr. Sparhawk spoke on behalf of the committee. He said that they talked about what kind of evaluations would be beneficial to the college and what could improve the professors’ abilities and teaching in courses. They reviewed one big article that is a summation of assessment techniques. It pointed out that student evaluations are key and necessary in all faculty evaluations. They tried to come up with ways of doing this and then realized that with adjunct faculty and full-time faculty a bunch of different stuff can be involved.
The sub-committee talked about how in evaluating adjunct faculty they would do the student evaluation and then they would have a form where they would fill in what was positive about the class, what problems there were with the class, what they would like to see improved in their teaching and what resources they would need to accomplish that. That would be turned in by adjuncts every year so that we could figure out how to assist them in teaching their classes.
The full-time faculty would have the student evaluations as well. They also chatted about a laundry list of five or six other techniques such as peer evaluation, self-evaluation, portfolios, etc. that would allow faculty to periodically do one of these additional evaluations to see how they can improve their teaching. He said that they are still trying to figure out exactly what that list is. They want to present it to the Faculty Association to get its feedback before they come up with the final list.
Dr. Hicks asked if this meets the requirements of CS 3.7.2. Dr. Fronheiser said that it will. He said that he thinks the core part would be using the course evaluations in a more informative way.
Dr. Hicks asked if this will allow for us to be able to show how our adjunct faculty measure up against our full-time faculty. Dr. Fronheiser said yes. They would use the student evaluations as a baseline for all faculty and then those can be compared across everyone.
Dr. Hicks said one of the issues is the lack of credibility of dual enrollment education in the eyes of four-year institutions.
Dr. Fronheiser said at the very basic level, they have to take student evaluations of courses and do something with them that improves teaching effectiveness.
Dr. Fronheiser said that the Evaluation Sub-committee will meet again and formalize its members’ thoughts. He said that their conclusion is to take the student evaluations of courses and come up with a minimum of a template that everyone can use, get results, say what they are going to do with their results, and track that over time. He said that the questions will change over time, but the metrics will not change much.
Dr. Randolph said that at a meeting he was at last week, Susan Wood said that there is no definition of a program head. It is locally defined.
Dr. Hicks said that everyone needs to go back and review the handouts. The three sub-committees will report back at next week’s meeting with additional information.
The next meeting will be next Friday, April 27th at 1:30pm in Room 1114.
Handouts from the meeting: