Agenda/Minutes‎ > ‎1999-2000‎ > ‎

1999 - 09/16

UCAP Meeting of 09/16/99


agenda status: approved


    1. Approval of Agenda

    2. Approval of Minutes of the September 2, 1999 meeting (to be distributed at meeting)

    3. Comments from the Chairpersons

    4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

    5. Election of MEAC (Military Education Advisory Committee) representative

    6. Progression Criteria for Acceptance into the Nursing Program ( Attachment A)

    7. Criteria for Progression to the Internship in the College of Education ( Attachment B...)

    8. Discussion on Student Laptop Computer Proposal (original proposal...; background on this issue ...)

    9. SIRS:  Issues and Process (Attachment C ...)

    10. Roundtable

      *Materials distributed earlier via mail
      Attachment A:  College of Nursing materials
      Attachment B:  College of Education materials
      Attachment C:  Fred Jacobs note & materials, Brigham Young U materials, past UCAP minutes regarding SIRS isues

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of 09/30/99

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 09/16/99

Approved 9/30/99
University Committee on Academic Policy
September 16, 1999

Present: Joe Chartkoff, Cindy Gibbons, Fred Jacobs, Folke Lindahl, Paul Orzea, Jon Sticklen, Jeanne Wald, Winston Wilkinson

Other: Linda Stanford (for Barbara Steidle), Geraldine Talarczyk (Assoc. Dean, College of Nursing), Cassandra Book (Assoc. Dean, College of Education)

1-2.In the absence of a quorum, no actions were taken. Those present engaged in informal discussion of agenda items. The agenda was followed but not approved; the minutes were clarified but also not approved.

3. Comments from the Chairs:
    A. Co-Chair Jon Sticklen reported the Committee website is not yet ready.

    B. Co-Chair Jeanne Wald spoke of the idea of sending a letter concerning issues for UCAP to the faculty. She has a draft which she will send to UCAP members, each of whom may revise the draft for their own constituency.
      She reported also on the recent meeting of the Executive Committee of Academic Council (ECAC):

      i) ECAC has passed along for approval by other relevant committees UCAP’s resolution for bringing to students timely information on class status.

      ii) ECAC is attempting to make people aware of requests to make public student’s instructional evaluations. A request under the Freedom of Information Act makes the issue urgent.

      iii) An ad hoc committee on University awards has assigned to UCAP the task of reviewing award processes. We need a volunteer to look over recommendations and to report to UCAP so that the committee can respond by the end of the semester.

      iv) Certain elements of the faculty work-life report have been directed to UCAP for review. Other parts of the reports have been directed to teams, with the intent of having them formulate action plans.

      v) ECAC has been looking at long-range traffic plans. They’re considering, e.g., moving all parking structures to the periphery. They want feedback; what they have is only a talking draft, not proposal.

4. Without a quorum there could be no election of a UCAP representative to the Military Education Advisory Committee (MEAC), but it was noted that Wilkinson is already a member of MEAC anyway, so UCAP is not totally disconnected from MEAC.

5. Geri Talarczyk, Associate Dean of the College of Nursing, discussed a document ( Attachment A ...) outlining the proposed College of Nursing student performance policy, a document setting forth a student performance policy that specifies criteria for continuance in the nursing program. The proposals are motivated by a need to insure that students have a plausible prospect of becoming nurses after they have passed through the program, some previous students having either failed the state nursing exam or having been short of the skills necessary for the kind of interpersonal relations in which nurses must participate.

    Talarczyk responded to various questions and suggestions from UCAP members. Guidelines concerning grade minima and incompletes are in accord with those of other nursing programs in Michigan. While the proposed rules differ from University rules, they are not incompatible with University rules, and will be to the advantage of students and consumers of nursing care. During the discussion committee members suggested spelling out provisions for readmission and procedures for finding a student unfit because of psychological problems. It was suggested some vague terms (e.g., “seriously compromises” and “difficulty”) might be replaced with references to specific behaviors; but it is difficult to make a definitive list of the sorts of behavior serious enough to interfere with a person’s ability to work as a nurse. So various suggestions for re-wording to avoid such problems were made.

    There being no quorum, no action on the nursing proposal could be taken anyway, so Talarczyk will return another day with a new draft of the proposals.

6. Cass Book, Associate Dean of the College of Education, presented a document ( Attachment B...) outlining criteria for progression to the internship, a document which tries to specify special obligations teachers have to the people affected by their work. The items found in the document were there, Dr. Book explained, as responses to problems the College of Education has had to deal with in the past. Book briefly explained various points in the document. She remarked that a checklist for baccalaureate regulations in the College is not yet ready; and the document being considered would add to the requirements specified in the checklist assurance of information about other relevant behavioral problems and would provide a basis for gathering such information.
    In the Committee discussion, some suggestions for stylistic revision were made, and there was some concern about the partial openness of the concept of unacceptable behavior and the extent to which it could, e.g., impinge on academic freedom. Book did not think it would, but noted there is a state curriculum teachers must use anyway and they are required to conform with local rules, too, so constraints are somewhat spelled out. There is an appeals clause, and the Academic Freedom Report is also available for recourse. The criteria for admission to the internship will be on the agenda of a future UCAP meeting.

7. Joe Chartkoff talked briefly of the status of UCAP deliberations concerning the proposal to require students to own laptop computers. He suggested we need a small subcommittee to develop suggestions. After some discussion it was agreed such a committee, headed by Chartkoff, would meet to develop and prioritize questions for the Provost and the questions would implicitly carry recommendations.

8. Fred Jacobs reported (Attachment C ... ) on student instructional evaluation issues and wondered what the charge to the UCAP is? Is it to design a process for publishing the results of such evaluations? To design University-wide evaluation forms? To react to others’ proposals?
    Professor Wald answered that, in order pro-actively to address students’ desire for information, we need to report on what we think a public evaluation form should be. Last year it was noted that there are two purposes served by evaluations: to assess the way faculty members do their jobs, and to inform students about professors. So do we need two forms? One form? One form with some optional questions? If we use just one form, can we opt to publish just part of it? The UCAP subcommittee on student evaluations should try to answer such questions. Jacobs pointed out an IDEA document summarizing much research and making recommendations, and said the subcommittee was likely to use it as a basis for their report.

The meeting not being official for lack of a quorum, adjournment at noon was also unofficial – but real and effective anyway.

W. Wilkinson, acting secretary