Indiana State University



#5INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITYFACULTY SENATE, 2018-2019EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEOctober 2, 20183:30pm, HMSU 227Members Present: C. Ball, L. Brown, M. Chambers, M. Cohen, K. Games, B. Guell, T. Hawkins, R. Peters, S. PhillipsEx-Officio Present: Provost M. Licari and President D. CurtisGuests: Concetta DePaolo, Winnie Ko, Virgil Sheets, and Katie ButwinApproval of Executive Committee Minutes of September 18, 2018 (File #1)Motion to approve (M. Chambers/ K. Games), Vote 9-0-0Administrative Reports:President D. CurtisThank you for attending the fall address. All the pieces are here, good work has been going on, but this is the stuff that takes us past the pack. I am enthused to not have to talk you into it. Standing front and center without being asked, thank you for that. That is our future; it will push us past the competition. Demographics of our student population are changing. What is the right model to serve them, and help them get their first degree? We are there, but we have to be even better at it. B. Guell: I have looked at what causes FTFT to be successful, and there is no national data on what to gets them across the stage. We lose half that return as sophomores before graduation. M. Licari: Right, we do not lose them all in the first year. D. Curtis: Yes. There is a lot to study, what classes did they take, etc.?M. Licari: That is what I was referring to with student success data needs. What gets students off to a good start, but then, how do we turn sophomores into juniors, into seniors, and into graduates. There is zero national discussion on that. I have been to a dozen student success conferences and there is silence about that. The need is great. Provost M. LicariLast week the COT opened their yearlong 50th anniversary celebration with a nice picnic. They will be having events for the community, students, faculty, and staff throughout the year. In addition, this is the 50th year for the counseling programs in BCOE. There was a reception on Friday and speakers on Saturday afternoon. I attended and made some opening/welcoming remarks. Kudos to them as well. We will continue to push forward with Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) discussions. There is a set of task forces working on tactical level things to boost enrollment this coming Spring and Fall 2019 underneath the strategic work we are doing. This is will create a more sophisticated approach to SEM and a four-year plan. The work is underway. I look forward to continuing discussions here, in the full Senate, and with SAC. SAC will be doing some heavy lifting. I look forward to all of the good work. Chair Report: T. HawkinsAs the provost has noted, the discussions regarding strategic enrollment management have begun in earnest. To date I have participated in two meetings of the SEM council. I envision my role there as serving as a bridge between the faculty and the administration membership on the committee. Faculty governance will begin to address the issue in earnest tomorrow at SAC. I have already communicated with the SAC officers regarding the issues they need to consider—both short-term and long-term. For now, Exec will not have a direct role to play. We will continue to get updates on progress through the provost and SAC. At the same time, as the president notes, we have significant expertise here that should be included in the discussions. I want you to know that you are welcome to bring to this table at any time questions or comments—or ideas—that you think will facilitate the process.For today we have two action items on the agenda. Our guests from CAAC will introduce the proposal for the Business Analytics minor. And, Virgil [Sheets] will present the FAC recommendation for merit pay. We will follow those items with a discussion about the Strategic Plan draft that was recently released to campu.Fifteen Minute Open DiscussionR. Peters: The COT invited the new dean of graduate studies to meet with us and she mentioned that the Senate was discussing more pay for teaching 699/799/899. Is that happening?B. Guell: That has come through FEBC regularly in the past. T. Hawkins: It comes up regularly but never produces a result. There are certain admin arguments against it. Currently, no it is not being discussed. If FEBC wants to bring it up again, it is empowered to do so. M. Cohen: Is it possible to look at faculty teaching additional classes for overload, receiving retirement contribution on that as well? My impression is we are talking about dozens per semester. B. Guell: And the pay is extraordinarily unequal. Look at the October and February board minutes. Those getting overload at $3,000 per course and substantially more than that. It varies widely. M. Licari: Okay, those are two separate things. I can look at Bob’s concern. Building overload into retirement I do not know. B. Guell: If you decide that you aren’t going to pay CREF on overload stipends, you will have to tell us why one course we can’t be compelled to teach has CREF with it (as it does during the summer) and another course we can’t be compelled to teach doesn’t (because it is offered during the semester.) M. Licari: I did not say no, I just could not answer your question. We would need to talk to Diann [McKee]. C. Ball: Various types/levels of program review come from different offices that contain the same information in different packaging. For program operators, especially ones with external accreditations, it is difficult. We need a more efficient way of reporting. Graduate Program Review (GPR) is redundant with assessment. Is there a mechanism for a more efficient reporting stream?M. Licari: I have no problem streamlining; we should if it is redundant. I can talk to you more about specific concerns and problems. Other instructions are content with substituting reports if a program is externally accredited. Yes, there are opportunities, but I would like to know more about what the duplication looks like. L. Brown: When GPR began, one of the concerns was because they might be high quality and accredited, but are they graduating a reasonable number of quality graduates? M. Licari: I am sure there are opportunities. Let’s talk more. Perhaps you can get me more information. B. Guell: [A copy of the handout mentioned here is posted on the Senate Blackboard page under “Meeting Materials” for EC meeting #5] On the SEM council there are 17 members, but only one has faculty status, Tim [Hawkins]. For reasons that will be apparent, I believe that someone who is comfortable with large-scale stats should be added to the group. The last meeting’s references to the admissions grid were overblown. For 25 years, the SAT has not been a practical predictor of student success. (The handout) shows how little predictive value are in the pre-entry variables. There are high school specific differences that we could make/add, but it would have uncomfortable consequences. (The statistical analysis on the handout) is data for every first-time, full-time student between 2006 and 2017. Half of all our students are clustered with GPAs between 2.5 and 3.5 and with (converted) SATs between 870 and 1150. In the regression analyses you can see that when you predict retention (Sophomore enrollment)the R-squared (a measure of goodness of fit) is .05 (which is incredibily low). Moreover, SAT has no predictable ability. There is no statistical significance. That is startling when you have 25,000 observation. Predicting with fall GPA is better with the R-squared rising to .25). If you turn your attention to the tables of predicted retention and predicted first semester GPA you can see in those as you move from left to right, though SAT is statistically significant, it is not practically significant. On the next page, iff you look at high schools, it shows the marginal impact of the high school. Being from Ben Davis, the impact on retention is significantly negative after you control for SAT/GPA. That is a student coming from a generic unnamed high school has a 6% better retention rate than does one from Ben Davis. On the other side, a student from Center Grove has 15% added to their predicted retention. Where you come from matters. I propose a faculty member who has no other title be added to SEM Council and the provost can pick from faculty capable of doing what I just did. M. Licari: This is valuable and it’s obvious. We need to get a lot more sophisticated in understanding the likelihood of success for every student as they come through the door. Do we invest this way in trying to recruit those more likely to be successful, or as we have recruited and invest in student success measures. This helps us make a decision to invest in the “right kind” of marketing/recruiting or more targeted in terms of student success. Variations from high school does matter. B. Guell: We already knew they were co-linear with income and race. M. Licari: Knowing that helps us support our students. If I can leverage those on campus rather than hire a firm that would be great. I would rather have us harness our own horsepower. This is great, really good stuff! B. Guell: This took no more than 8 hours, it is not sophisticated stuff. Are you willing to add another member who is a faculty member?M. Licari: Probably, originally it was supposed to be small, with people in places of decision-making. Other groups can provide data analysis. We would have the SEM Council and student success with a data council informing both. That is a lot and we probably do not need that. We can put someone on the SEM Council, or perhaps connect him or her with SAC as they contemplate admissions requirements. B. Guell: I understand someone might cough up 8 hours if they are curious, I was frustrated. I did this to make the point that SAT never matters and hoped to get the SEM Council off the idea that it does. M. Licari: That is a topic of some debate regarding what to do with test scores in higher ed in general. It is being done; Ball State no longer requires them. In my personal opinion, they might not be good a predictor of ultimate success, but might be for advising. T. Hawkins: I am there in order to provide a faculty voice and help figure out how faculty can contribute to the general discussion. Someone, regardless of position, could have the exact same concern regarding SAT and want to make sure that is in the mix in terms of the discussion. Does it matter if it is a faculty member? B. Guell: It could be someone in IR that has statistical ability. Someone who knows what data is available and use it to answer statistical questions; it would not matter to me. T. Hawkins: So, you are not seeing on SEM Council the statistical skills that would allow the council to answer critical question? B. Guell: There are a lot of issues, and I am not arguing a place for myself. There is a set of empirical questions, set of empirical tools and I would prefer it be a faculty member. This is not a small sample size; the class level is 250,000 observations (because the data has all five classes in both semesters.) They need to be able to visualize ends in 250,000. T. Hawkins: If I am there as FS chair only, would it be better for someone to replace me with someone who can do what Bob wants them to do or should they be in the mix somewhere else?M. Licari: I can do a swap. I chose you as chair to be a liaison for EM and faculty. I am looking for a way to leverage this statistical expertise. We are dealing with many things other than refining admission standards. Maybe SAC is where the number crunching power could be done. Sophisticated and fine-tuned as possible. I am not shoving it off to the side. S. Phillips: Bob’s points are important, a faculty voice on SEM is not only about number crunching, but can contribute other things. That number crunching would come from IR. You spent a lot of your time, would you want to spend that much time putting that together for this committee?B. Guell: I appreciate you listening. D. Curtis: Faculty with the expertise can collaborate in a meaningful way and can provide data support when it comes to SEM. Institutions pay thousands for vendors, but all they are getting are statisticians and business people with no higher education background. If we can engage this within the university, it is priceless. This service is not being offered out there right now. Business is trying to understand higher ed. This would be the best of all worlds and bring us to the next level, not just for ISU, but for higher ed. When a university is buying vendor products, they are paying money through their nose while the process is being developed and it ends up being not what you want it to be. They are not people who know or understand higher ed. I am excited about the conversation; you and your colleagues can turn this into something that is uniquely ISU. It will make a difference in who we invite into ISU and allow ourselves to help them get across the stage. Thank you! More importantly, expertise is not enough. He [Bob Guell] spent 8 hours this on data because it captured his imagination. We cannot pay you enough for that kind of effort. The bottom line is coming together for the right reason. A faculty group can sit down and say what other variables can we look at? What can we see in our own data? Are the successful students participating in extracurriculars in high school? Community service? What is the difference in students from the same high school that are successful/not successful? I cannot wait to buy the billboards to put this up there. I am really excited to see what you have to say. T. Hawkins: It sounds like Mike will have some things to think about. M. Licari: I will not make a snap decision. I want to talk to you more about it. T. Hawkins: The SAT point will be made in the SEM Council. M. Chambers: Could there be a data sub-committee with someone from SAC? M. Licari: That is perhaps the most efficient way of doing it. M. Chambers: Info can be brought to wherever it needs to be. M. Licari: There are important questions to answer with a mix of folks. We need to make sure we get this right. CAAC Item: Winnie Ko and Concetta DePaoloBusiness Analytics Minor: see Curriculog Motion to approve the minor (K. Games/M. Cohen); Vote 9-0-0C. DePaolo: I teach operations supply chain, which is now including business analytics. It is a very hot field, and there is a huge development of programs happening right now. We as faculty wanted to offer it. Our hope is for a major, but that is not where it is now. With the rise of the growing field, we have noticed several of our business majors have been placed in positions with these types of skills. This motivated us to give that official stamp/transcript and push it further than what they had been getting. This is a way to give those students those credentials, similar to other colleges. This will be done with almost all existing classes. When I presented this to CAAC, I showed them the core of business analytics, which is statistical analysis, data management, and math modeling. What we did was look at programs that exist at other schools that all have minors. We have required courses that would hit all three of these core subjects with electives where the students could choose to focus on one of the three. We put together a list of courses, which have already been taught as topics classes in the past. They will have to become actual named courses, but the others are elective from our major. It is estimated that 17 students would declare, or have a strong interest. About three are consistently asking if the minor is being offered yet. That is a decent number to start. The rest of Indiana universities have majors in Business Analytics, I would be hopeful we could get a minor it would get us closer to IU, Purdue, and Ball state. W. Ko: This will put us in line with other universities. It is a hot field. It will also give more opportunities for students to choose minors, because a math or tech major can do this and it could be applied in their future field. B. Guell: Would they need to take the business core to add this minor?C. DePaolo: No, only some specific courses. B. Guell: For example, a student who is creating his or her own actuarial science kind of major would be capable of starting the program?C. DePaolo: Yes, the student would need to take BUS 180, which is an Excel class, but if an individual could demonstrate knowledge, we could make an exception. Then they would need BUS 205 or an equivalent, but they could take other stat courses. B. Guell: Would MATH 341/342 would pass for BUS 305?C. DePaolo: Yes, it could, but in 305 we look at some analytics and business forecasting. I would not think everyone else would have that. We also discuss optimization topics, but we are open to looking at previously taken courses if someone is well qualified we do not want to make them repeat something. B. Guell: Students will not need an accounting sequence, right?C. DePaolo: No, they will not. K. Games: I can see this having cross college success, especially with HHS. How many requirements would they need if they have no pre-reqs or nothing related? Three business core, two minor required classes, and nine minor electives?B. Games: If they can demonstrate Excel, stats, etc., they still need 305 and the minor itself. C. DePaolo: Yes. FAC Item: V. Sheets (File #2)Merit Pay recommendationMotion to endorse FAC’s proposal (L. Brown/K. Games); Vote 9-0-0B. Guell: Is this an addendum to BR, or a stand-alone statement?T. Hawkins: Stand-alone. T. Hawkins: We charged FAC with establishing a basic outline we can pass on to departments. V. Sheets: This is a very basic outline and that was intentional; we wanted to avoid controversy/bigger issues with the process under BR. One being a university wide standard. This lets the departments speak. It is limiting the number of people to be recognized. We do not want everyone being awarded for fairness. This proposal requires departments to develop policy for what constitutes merit. Any changes to the policy can be done quickly and overseen by the dean. The dean has oversight to step in if it does not appear that the policy is working, and can send it to the college P&T committee if the department is not following or if the policy is not good. Faculty can appeal based on the policy not being followed, but the college has to figure out how to address that. L. Brown: A deadline of December 2018 is quick. Maybe February 15, 2019?M. Licari: We just need this to be finished by end of the academic year. V. Sheets: We were concerned we would have to give proper notice about how this would be done. It is your discretion, we are responding to your charge. T. Hawkins: Everyone knew as of April there would not be much time. Yes, if it were me they would have everything done by the fall term. But, once it leaves Senate are we going to see aneurisms, action, or revolts. Hopefully, everyone will begin the work to create their policies. If December is too soon, what should we recommend?M. Chambers: This will go to the full Senate on October 18. T. Hawkins: Yes and no one will start until November. B. Guell: If admin does not have a problem with mid-February, we should not have a problem with that. M. Licari: Sometimes you go fast by slowing down. It produces better work and no need to redo things. L. Brown: I wish to amend date to February 15; approved by unanimous consentB. Guell: The notion that college P&T could alter distribution, if departments have engaged in subterfuge to give everyone the same amount of money, this at least offers a dean who is paying attention a different group of people to make sure the distribution is appropriate. M. Licari: I would have been uncomfortable without a fail-safe. C. Ball: Is there an alternative fail-safe?B. Guell: No, I did not use that phrase, but as the liaison, I asked for it to be included. M. Licari: Bob pointed it out at FAC. C. Ball: What is the reason? The second paragraph is doing two things: policy itself, applying it properly. It seems like a better process if the first look at the policy is by the dean, and then the college P&T committee can look at it. When the distributions made then the fail safe can take effect. V. Sheets: Policy looked at first, if not making distinctions, rewritten. Adding distributions into it. M. Chambers: Review occurs after first distributions made. Put in once they are written. V. Sheets: We assumed it would happen.Guell: We could insert this language into the last paragraph,“in consultation with College P&T, shall provide, oversight into these policies”T. Hawkins: Is there any objection to that change of language? Approved by unanimous consentK. Games: Is there a method of distribution of this information? As the chair of a departmental review committee, I would not know about the changes to the BR and merit pay if I were not on Senate or did not read the minutes. How can we ensure that information and directives are making it down to the department level? I would not know there was a BR change. Is it a faculty member’s responsibility to read that or our responsibility to inform?B. Guell: Around the time when Virgil Sheets was chair, there was a break down with what happened at Senate. Items were approved and just sat. It has gotten better, with Licari as provost. The functions of the Monday morning meeting between the officers and the provost is to talk about implementation. This needs to be communicated with deans and with chairs. The history of that is not every good at this institution. T. Hawkins: The BR has been communicated to the chairs. K. Games: It was never discussed at department or college meetings. If you polled faculty the majority of the college would not understand. V. Sheets: That would not surprise me. It was passed at the end of April, and I know personally I have no more department faculty meetings after that. What do chairs do in the summer when faculty are not there? M. Licari: I and the officers, and the deans got it to the chairs. B. Guell: It was also the musings. T. Hawkins: It has been mentioned twice in the musings. M. Licari: I can put a paragraph in my upcoming biweekly musings. T. Hawkins: When we finish I can make sure this information gets to deans and department chairs. M. Licari: A lot of communication goes out and it is part of the job of faculty to stay engaged. A lot do not read it and that is on them. B. Guell: I created musing in hopes of solving the commutation gap. I suggest a new tradition on action items, have the chair communicate directly to the deans and them to their chairs what has occurred. L. Brown: That is why the deans are at the Senate meeting. B. Guell: Yes, but they are not always engaged. C. Ball: Senate reps can also communicate that. They can say what is going on in senate at department and college meetings. M. Licari: It is a key part of their role. V. Sheets: That is hard in CAS with so many reps. T. Hawkins: We will take all of those recommendations. L. Brown: Deans are also on the distribution list for meeting materials. T. Hawkins: Katie [Butwin] had a recommendation that we note the merit pay policy will comply with ISU non-discrimination policy. M. Licari: That should go without saying. T. Hawkins: We will include a note to that effect. Strategic Plan Discussion: . Hawkins: Does anyone wish to recommend anything?K. Games: On the last SP, resources were allocated and programs were ask to do something distinctive. There does not appear to be same emphasis on that in this draft. Will there be a bridge of resources? Many people are in the middle of a project and if resources are pulled/redirected, it could end up diminishing the program’s reputation because much of these efforts were external. With the shift away from distinctive programs, there should be some consideration for how to manage. Do we cut the projects, continue to do these distinctive things, etc. what is the plan?M. Licari: Goal four had been programs of distinction. The entire goal a challenge, and poorly understood. They were mainly used as promotional devices, reputational, and to provide a list of things going on at ISU. It was in need of an overhaul. To the extent that there were projects started underneath it, we need to talk about that to make sure we do not do damage to a program’s reputation. These projects and programs will show up as evidence. It is not as if we have abandoned things. If we need to meet, that works. B. Guell: I have a comment with regard to Goal 1, strategy 4. It seems as though the conversation has moved to something other than the word growth. The Key Performance Indicators (KPI) do not seem to align with state measures. They care less about 6 year graduation rates than 4-year rates. KPI should show taking students through their first year and to on time graduation. M. Licari: In strategy 4, the SEM discussion is a shift in how we do things. The goal is to continue to grow enrollment. B. Guell: There is a change in the conversation in what growth means. It is currently unchanged from the first draft ten years ago. If I am right, language in S4 needs to reflect our newer thinking. M. Licari: In terms of the evidence list, we can add new ways of understanding and if what we are doing is successful. It will ensure the university thinks of enrollment as more than the FTFT class. It was melded into one statement. It can become more sophisticated and lengthy in our evidence. The KPI mistake might have been an omission; I might have forgot to send that change in. The Commission on Higher Education holds us accountable for our 4-year rate, but there are other degree completion efforts that would show up there as well. T. Hawkins: Goal 1 Strategy 2: there is no explicit academic programming mentioned. There seemed to be a significant absence. M. Licari: Experiential learning is part of that. List in the bullet above could be more inclusive. Educational events—that is fine. T. Hawkins: Goal 4 Strategy 6 mentions enhanced academics, athletics, and alumni success. The athletic achievements that are listed as KPIs are rankings in conference standings. As far as I am concerned you can have achievements even when you are not in first place. I am not sure if that is a valuable way to define excellence. B. Guell: I am proud when our student athletes place high in conference GPA standings. That is an athletic achievement too. M. Licari: Yes, we can add that to the KPI. K. Games: I agree with Tim’s second concern. There is a danger with tying success to winning and losing. It puts students in a place where we may not want them to be. My field is athletic training, I see their physical health and the impact playing has on them overall. Putting winning over health, immediate sport success over long-term academic success or wellness is not good. A culture of success is important, but it is not always found in the stats table. D. Curtis: I expect them to be competitive. If we are going to have athletics, they should be competitive otherwise why are we spending money on them? I am not saying we have to win championships, but I think it can be a negative experience to be part of a team that is not competitive. Ensuring this is not just part of the presidential job, but I also came into this as a former coach. T. Hawkins: I will never say I have a problem with competition. But do we have to prioritize winning? And, why is football set apart?M. Licari: That might be because there are two different conferences. B. Guell: Placement in conference standings is relevant for all sports, but football is singled. Being a doormat of a conference is not good. I was proudest of this institution when we replaced a former coach with someone who is interested in creating good men on a football field. We also create good women in any number of sporting events. Winning matters everywhere, but the function of athletics is not Ws. The best mechanism is linkage with very hard work and success. Yes, we devote 10% of our operating funds to athletics, but it is part of who we are to teach our students that hard work pays off across the board, but you do not have to do that with more Ws than Ls. T. Hawkins: In Goal 5, could we list academic production and scholarly activity?M. Licari: Yes. M. Chambers: In evidence, it talks about early career workshops and supporting activities for pre-tenure faculty. It does not have to be a mini sabbatical, but perhaps a course reduction one semester a few years in as a way to help those folks. I was benefited by an external grant, not all those fields have those opportunities. M. Licari: I can review that with the deans. M. Chambers: Sometimes it is just not having that third 35 people course that allows for the time to produce scholarly work. T. Hawkins: We still have a day on the link to report feedback as well. D. Curtis: Yes, put your feedback there as well so it makes the official record. Standing Committee Liaison Reports:AACM. Cohen: Meeting October 12. AECR. Peters: No news. CAACL. Brown: Met and approved the minor we just approved (Business Analytics). FACB. Guell: In addition to the merit pay policy draft, FAC is taking up the ombudsperson proposal and putting specificity to it. They are also tackling Executive Committee succession, which was part of their charges. FEBCK. Games: No report; meeting October 4. GCC. Ball: Approved sub-committee slate and created an ad-hoc to look at questions for graduate assistant allocation. Meeting October 17. SACM. Chambers: Meets tomorrow and will start looking at SEM stuff. I shared the spreadsheet with the committee. Steve Neiheisel, the Interim V-Provost EM will be there. M. Brown: I am meeting with the chair, Missy Malone, on October 11 to discuss scholarship donations. The committee wanted more information. URCS. Phillips: No report. Adjournment at 5:09pm. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download