Advanced Programs Committee

Minutes of meeting on 10/24/00

 

Present:  Carolyn Finch, Assoc. Dean; Chris Bocklage, Art; Lisa Frankes, TED; Ron Fulkert, BTE; Jane Gordon, TED; H. A. Hasan, SPED; Tom McDole, BTE; Kaia Skaggs, TED; Sue Stickel, L&C; Mary Teal, Music; Jackie Tracy, L&C; Judy Williston, TED

Absent:  Joe Coyner, SPED; Erik Pedersen, HPERD; Lech Wisniewski, SPED

Guest:  Ron Hoodin, SPED

 

            Minutes from the 10/10/00 meeting were approved.

 

            A revised edition of the COE Council and related structures document was handed out.  This is a bit more specific than what we have had in the past in terms of operating procedures although there are still some questions that need to be addressed in terms of the charge of the committee.  In accordance with the guidelines in the document, the request for the addition of representation from the EDPS and SOFD masters’ degrees on the Advanced Programs committee will be made to COE council.  In addition, a memo will be sent to the Dean with our continuing questions regarding the responsibilities of the Advanced Programs committee.

 

Curricular Items

            Some of the items listed in the agenda have already gone through the input structure without input from this committee.  A memo from the Dean to Dr. Harris stated that several of the items on the agenda had been approved and transmitted to the University for processing.  Thus there was a question as to the purpose of even voting on these items.  This led to a further discussion about the role and purpose of the committee.  There continue to be questions about what we should be looking at or for and what the differential responsibilities of the department, college input committees, college council, and university committees are in the process.  For example, we cannot be expected to look at content in an unfamiliar discipline but might be able to look for NCATE format or criteria.  It seems that criteria for evaluating and making decisions would be essential in clarifying our task and in providing guidelines for departments or individuals to make presentations to the committee regarding proposed changes.  What questions might we have the right to ask and what changes might we have the right to request for approval?

            Dr. Hoodin from SPED gave a brief presentation regarding proposed changes to the speech/language masters program.  These changes reflect changes in the field and in accreditation.  The hours have been increased but it is still expected that students can finish in 5 semesters for the M.A. degree.  The undergraduate pieces of the proposal have already been approved by Basic Programs.

            There was some concern that the proposed changes had not been made available for committee members to read prior to the meeting.  However, the proposed changes to the M.A. in speech and language were approved with one abstention.

            In light of the discussion regarding availability of information about program requests prior to acting on them, a notebook will be started in which items sent to the committee for review will be placed prior to the meeting.  Committee members will be notified of additions to the notebook and a check-off sheet will be provided so that committee members  can check off when they have reviewed the materials.  The notebook will be kept in Dr. Finch’s office.

            In addition to the above procedure, Dr. Finch will begin to get information and to develop criteria for what the committee should be looking at in order to guide its decision making.  Dr. Finch believes that this committee, along with Basic Programs, has a genuine obligation to review curriculum, but it should not take years to get something through the system.  A suggestion was made to invite Dr. Harris to the meeting to discuss the input structure and the movement of items through it in the expected fashion.

            Items discussed included the deletion of GDCN 688 which has already been done, the graduate certificate programs in Teacher Ed. which will be sent back to the department for verification that this is still desired and for updating, the request for new courses and changes to the speech curriculum which according to the memo from the Dean to Dr. Harris have already been approved, and change of prerequisites for SPGN 630 and 661 and SPSI 612.

 

            Dr. Finch discussed three charges from the Dean for the Adv. Programs committee:

1)                  Recommend ways to bring the advanced programs into compliance with NCATE

2)                  Devise, recommend, and implement outcomes assessments.

3)                  Recommend ways to bring the advanced programs into alignment with National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Expectations for the NCATE visit in Spring or Fall of 2003 were examined as were the summary of the NCATE assessment expectations and suggestions for how to proceed with assessments.  Programs should keep the NCATE standards in front of them as they revise their conceptual frameworks.  Competencies should be grouped according to the four areas NCATE has identified and target, acceptable, and unacceptable levels of proficiency should be defined.  Programs need to get started on devising and implementing assessments if we are to meet the expectation of being in the second year of data collection by 2003.  The specific charge to Advanced Programs is to take the lead in looking at assessment systems.

            The next meeting of the Advanced Programs committee will take place Nov. 14th.  NOTE:  There will be NO meeting on Nov. 28th.  Agenda items will include:

            •           presentations of assessments already in use

            •           more goals and guidelines for the Adv. Programs committee ?

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kaia Skaggs