Meeting Minutes: Committee on Academic Affairs
November 16, 1999
Regents' Central Office Board Room
Atlanta, Georgia
MINUTES
The Administrative Committee on Academic Affairs held its Fall meeting on November 16, 1999 at the Regents' Central Office located in Atlanta, Georgia. Chairperson Thomas Jones called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Dr. Jones welcomed the Chief Academic Officers and introduced Dr. James Muyskens in his new role as CEO and Dean of the Gwinnett Center. Dr. Muyskens discussed the burgeoning areas of technology enhanced learning, promoting the scholarship of teaching, and distance education. Because of his leadership in the Central Office, Dr. Muyskens was presented with a farewell gift from the chief academic officers and Central Office academic affairs staff from Dr. Bettie Rose Horne, ACAA Chair-elect.
The minutes of the July 27, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed.
Report of the Senior Vice Chancellor
Dr. Jones introduced Interim Senior Vice Chancellor Beheruz N. Sethna. Dr. Sethna proceeded to discuss the following topics and activities that have systemwide impacts.
Benchmarking Project
Dr. Sethna explained that the Benchmarking Project had been modified in consideration of the management audits that will require the participation of each state agency. The Board of Regents was the first agency to volunteer for the management audit. The management audit team is comprised of three Board of Regents staff members (i.e., Madlyn Hanes, Lindsay Desrochers, and Beheruz N. Sethna) and three individuals from OPB and related state agencies. The goal is to create a product that meets the Governor's and Board's goals. The Request for Proposal (RFP) is near completion and a consulting firm will be hired.The RFP is comprised of three scopes: 1) the Benchmarking Study; 2) Management Review of Central Office and Select Institutional Business Practices; and 3) Data Similarity and Transferability.
Benchmarking Study -- The University System will be divided into four sectors. Research Universities will be benchmarked individually against peer institutions. It is projected that Regional and State Universities, as a group, will have a matched sample of peer institutions. The following remaining sectors will follow the same paradigm for comparator analysis: State Colleges and Two-Year Schools. The purpose of the Benchmarking Study is to develop a set of indicators against which comparator and system institutions will be evaluated. The indicators include input, outcomes, and process measures. Examples include retention and graduation rates, student satisfaction, employer satisfaction, research contracts and grants, foundation support, faculty student ratios, technology availability, expenditure data, faculty and staff salaries, appropriations, etc. At the close of the project, there will be ranges of performance on a national level that would be considered the norm. Some institutions may be outliers on each of the indicators. This is not a negative phenomenon, but rather, might even be expected depending on institutional mission. Some outlying dimensions, however, might signify the need for further study and possible modifications. It was suggested that institutions currently engaged in self-directed benchmarking studies maintain these processes. These activities are sources of continuous data comparisons.
Management Review and Benchmarking Studies of Central Office and Select Institutional Business Practices -- The project involves reengineering and includes reviewing each functional area individually and collectively to determine needs, efficiencies, and effectiveness in terms of business practices. In addition, the project involves performing evaluations to determine outsourcing and privatization, reviewing key operational policies and procedures and their implementation as issued by the Central Office and determining if additional functions should be performed resulting in revisions, reorganizations, and consolidations. The purpose of the project is to increase efficiency and economize the expense of performing said functions.
- Data Similarity/Transferability/Definitions -- This project involves revising current systems to enhance data extrapolation by chief executives from various state agencies for comparisons and reports.
Technology Masterplanning/PeachNet2, Fees
Dr. Sethna explained how Technology Masterplanning follows the general principles of Facilities Masterplanning. The purpose of Technology Masterplanning is to help address several questions regarding technology at the USG level, and later at the institutional level. The first phase will include development of a method of organizing and reorganizing special initiatives, to focus on critical areas of need, to manage the special initiative process, and to integrate technology with institutional renovation and construction plans. The past models have been entrepreneurial such that meaningful projects were funded (i.e., Connecting Students with Technology, Connecting Teachers with Technology, etc.). This plan will be devised at the System level. A sample survey sent to Chief Academic Officers, Chief Information Officers, OIIT, and Central Office Staff suggests that the following significant technology issues exist: 1) Stability and Bandwidth of Peachnet (There are intense demands on Peachnet. Because of changes at the federal level, another provider will be meeting the needs of DTAE, DOE, and libraries. Peachnet will become increasingly a USG centered network); 2)Staffing for IT Personnel (i.e., team to serve several campuses); and 3) Faculty Development and the Help Desk. An RFP is under development. The consultants to be involved in this project are considered neutral experts.Desktop/eCore & Academic Programs/GLOBE
Dr. Kris Biesinger discussed eCore Development and distributed the institutional response forms concerning eCore participation. The Chief Academic Officers were briefed on eCore participation and the commitment required at the institutional level. Dr. Biesinger asked that all returned forms bear an indication of the Presiden's support and institutional readiness to participate in alternative course development. The purpose of the form was to obtain information from USG institutions regarding participation interest in four areas: 1) as an eCore home institution; 2) as a provider of faculty developers; 3) as a provider of teaching faculty; and 4) as a provider of services. In addition, the group was briefed concerning the first six eCore course development teams that would be formed and the faculty selection criteria.SACS Substantive Change for Distance Education
Drs. Kris Biesinger and Dorothy Zinsmeister presented the findings from their SACS Substantive Change for Distance Education site visit in North Carolina. Dr. Biesinger informed the group that Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina have participated in SACS Substantive Change for distance education at the two-year college level. Georgia would be the first multi-sector system to participate in the process. Drs. Biesinger and Zinsmeister discussed the advantages to a comprehensive SACS Substantive Change review for a system. These advantages include savings in staff time and fiscal costs as well as increased opportunities for distance education collaboratives. Georgia has the option of encouraging a comprehensive visit in Fall 2000 or Spring 2001.During the North Carolina site visit, the team found that 38 institutions in three regions of the state participated. SACS was notified of the impending change in March 1999 and the visit was performed in October 1999. When SACS was notified, North Carolina determined that 25% of its programs were offered via distance education. North Carolina faced the challenge of determining whether distance education was separate from campus-based instruction or a fully integrated part of the didactic and clinical curricula. Another challenge involved the definition of alternative delivery (i.e., web enhancements, telecourses, on-line courses, etc.). North Carolina also addressed issues concerning the coordination of a System strategy that enhances learning, uses similar technologies, and integrates institutional effectiveness.
Governor's Education Reform Study Commission
Drs. David Morgan and Cathie Hudson discussed the activities of the Seamless Education Committee, Postsecondary Options (PSO) issues, the Accountability Committee, and the anticipated priorities of the Office of Educational Accountability. An example was distributed concerning Seamless Education Committee Issues & Alternatives. A sample describing 'seamless' includes the following: "How can coordination and cooperation between high schools and postsecondary institutions be improved?" One of the listed alternatives stated, "Require all students to complete the requirements for a dual diploma." Another sample issue involving PSO funding asked, "How can postsecondary institutions become more involved in delivering institutional services for high schools?" Again, one alternative stated, "Resolve the funding issues associated with the postsecondary options program (PSO)." Several alternatives were listed. At this time, the Committee does not know which alternatives will be approved. There is also uncertainty concerning the responsibilities of the Office of Education Accountability and how the University System will fit under the organization.High School Feedback Project
Dr. Cathie Hudson presented a report concerning the High School Feedback Project. Currently there are two high school feedback systems. One is an aggregate system where every high school is sent a summary of the performance of their students in the first year of college. The other system requires that data be reported on individual students and the courses and grades taken in the first year of college. Two years ago several high schools compared both sets of data with their own data and found that students who had not earned the CP or CP + vocational diploma in high school were evaluated by USG institutions as CPC complete. The University System requested use of the P-16 multi-agency linked database managed by a committee chaired by Dr. Ronald Henry to investigate this discrepancy. Students were matched across DOE and USG data files using social security numbers. Some students who received the CP seal in high school were coded as CPC incomplete; others who did not receive the CP seal were coded as CPC complete. The study points to the need for better alignment between agencies in defining the CPC. Dr. Hudson further reported that Dr. Jan Kettlewell chairs a sub-committee of the P-16 Council that negotiates the definition of the CPC between DOE and the University System.- FY 2001 Budget Expectations/Formula Task Force/Health Insurance
Dr. Sethna discussed the FY 2001 Budget Expectations, Formula Task Force and Health Insurance. The University System will experience a $33 million shortfall in the health insurance area. The budget for FY 2001 is likely to be seriously constrained due to enrollment declines in Fall 1998.
Committee Reports
Regents Administrative Committee on Institutional Effectiveness
Dr. Thomas Jones discussed the activities of the Regents Administrative Committee on Institutional Effectiveness. The Draft University System of Georgia Academic Program Review Model was distributed. It is recommended that the model be used for the institutional and Central Office overall accountability effort. Dr. Jones explained that academic program review is required of all system institutions; academic program review should be part of an institution's institutional effectiveness strategy; and that the model offers institutional latitude in how the review is prepared and formulated to reflect existing policies. It was further recommended that the model become effective Fall 2000. An annual report is to be submitted to the Central Office. Dr. Jones further explained that the report is to be based on a uniform set of indicators that have comparability within the System. At present a subcommittee of the Regents Administrative Committee on Institutional Effectiveness is working with Dr. Hudson to develop these indicators. The draft model is currently under review by the Central Office Academic Affairs staff.Council on General Education
Dr. Joan Lord discussed the activities of the Council on General Education with regard to the development of common student learning outcomes. She indicated that the Council on General Education was asked by the Regents Advisory Committee on Institutional Effectiveness (RACIE) to develop a set of common student learning outcomes that might be used in workshops designed to assist institutions in assessing student learning outcomes. The Council began with the institutional student learning outcomes developed in conjunction with semester conversion curriculum development. She handed out a draft document showing the work to date. Dr. Lord indicated that both the P-16 and eCore initiatives were interested in the potential uses of the set of common student learning outcomes but she made clear that their purpose was to support RACIE's assessment efforts.Academic Committee on Teacher Preparation
Dr. Jan Kettlewell presented the report of the Educator Preparation Academic Advisory Committee (EPAAC). Dr. Kettlewell reported that EPAAC (the education and arts and sciences deans from the universities that prepare teachers and the vice presidents for academic affairs from the two-year colleges) met to discuss the July 1998 Academic Advisory Committee recommendations concerning Area F. She called upon Dr. Joan Lord, co-chair of EPAAC, to present the October 1999 EPAAC recommendations. The recommendations presented for Area F included teacher preparation in early childhood education, middle grades, high school, special education, speech pathology, and physical education. The recommendations were approved by the Chief Academic Officers based on the following results: 27 - Approved, 5 - Abstained, 2 -Opposed. Dr. Bill Bompart, Vice President for Academic Affairs, discussed the conflicts between the Regents' 1998 Teacher Education Principles and the required 120 semester-hour credit limit for baccalaureate programs.- Faculty Information System
Dr. Beth Brigdon presented an update on the New Faculty Information System. The old system was not Y2K compliant. The new system will be web-based, retain editing windows and warehouse data, have institutional release times, require an electronic approval system, and provide users with the capability to generate informal and formal reports. Institutional use of the new FIS offers two options: 1) the institution uses the Regents FIS for its intra-institutional faculty transaction preparation and also for submission of FIS faculty transactions to the RCO and the BOR; and 2) the institution may choose to use a separate system, an institutional FIS, for its intra-institutional faculty transaction preparation and then its institutional FIS automatically submits its faculty transactions to the Regents FIS.
Georgia Open Records 1999 Revisions and Interpretations
Ms. Kathryn Allen, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, presented the 1999 Revisions and Interpretations of the Georgia Open Records Act. In 1999 the Governor sponsored a bill that revised the Georgia Open Records Act. The following three pertinent questions clarify the changes that have occurred:- When must an agency provide information in response to a request? An agency is required to provide records within three (3) business days if they are available. If the information is not readily available, it is important to respond and tell the inquirer when a response can be provided.
- What criminal penalties have been reinstated for violation of the Open Records Act? Citations can reach to fines of approximately $1,000. No representation can be provided if an agency is charged with a criminal penalty.
- What private entities are covered by the Open Records Act? Examples of private entities include physicians at Grady Memorial Hospital, medical suppliers, foundations and others. These entities are functionally subject to the provisions of the Open Records Act, especially their records.
Under the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, in the past an agency had to be discussing official business. That has changed such that now a quorum of a committee or governing authority that discusses a public matter is covered under the Open Meetings Act. Purely functional advisory tenure committees are not subject to this Act; however, final judgement on whether tenure committees are covered under the Open Meetings Act is judged on a case-by-case basis. The best position to take is to have an "open meeting."
Under FERPA, student records are subject to privacy rights. For example, letters of endorsement for applicant admission are open records because the applicant is not a student yet. However, student medical reports are considered private.
Candidates who are interviewing for executive positions within the University System are allowed 10 days to make a final decision of withdrawal. At this time all records concerning candidates are open records.
Other Issues
- Transfer to Georgia Tech
Dr. Michael Thomas, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs of Georgia Institute of Technology, explained that the institution has received approval for an exception to the core requirements for transfer students. Dr. Thomas explained that students must come prepared with calculus courses reflected on their transcripts because program accreditation requires the completion of these courses at the undergraduate level.
- Transfer to Georgia Tech
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.