ࡱ> 241` "jbjb ,|c|cdl l l l x dl. ,R l  &l l l   l 4B" l l  ml V <0l,l l ddddCommittee for Educational Policies and Planning Tuesday, October 4, 2005 Present: Matt Hockenos (chair) Muriel Poston Deb Hall Michael Mudrovic Dan Moran Molly Appel Chuck Joseph Beau Breslin (scribe) Gordon Thompson Pat Oles Sarah Goodwin The committee welcomed Muriel to the 鶹ƽ community. The minutes from CEPPs meeting of September 20th were discussed. A number of corrections to the language were proposed and it was agreed that these corrections would be made. The minutes of 9/20 were then approved. The committee decided to postpone approving the minutes for the September 27th meeting until the entire group reviews the latest alterations. Matt updated the committee on a number of invitations that have been made, or are going to be made, to individuals to attend future CEPP meetings. He said that Michael Arnush and Cori Filson will attend the October 11th CEPP meeting to discuss some concerns about short term study abroad trips. The questions at the center of the discussion are: which ones should the college support, and why? Currently, there are no guidelines for determining which short term study abroad programs to fund. Matt suggested that it was probably CEPPs responsibility to craft the guidelines and that we should talk to Michael and Cori about that possibility. Matt then indicated that Michael Arnush and Sue Layden (or Monica Minor) would attend the October 18th CEPP meeting in order to discuss the topic of HEOP advising. In preparation for that meeting, Matt reminded the committee to review the HEOP Study Group Final Report, as well as the newly revised section of the Middle States self-study that speaks to the topic. Sarah mentioned that a discussion about this topic on the 18th might be particularly fruitful because of CEPPs scheduled conversation that day about the diversity chapter of the Middle States self-study. The committee then discussed the next step in DOS restructuring. Matt suggested that CEPP focus its attention on the issues of academic excellence, rigor, and increasing academic standards as a broader umbrella under which DOS restructuring will continue to claim significant attention. He proposed that the committee resurrect the Preamble to the Vision Statement, the Retention Report, the NSSE report, and even perhaps the Student Cultures Survey and the Distillation Report as documents that will help shape the discussion. Chuck then mentioned that he would devote approximately 45 minutes of the Faculty meeting on October 7th to this very topic. He has asked representatives from various corners of the collegeincluding the Director of the Honors Forum and the Associate Dean of Student Affairsto present information on issues related to academic excellence/rigor. Chuck also mentioned that he, too, plans to use the Preamble to the Vision Statement to frame his discussion, and that he would like to have a discussion about mentoring. He will also use the first section of the Strategic Plan as part of the conversation. A discussion about academic excellence and its relation to DOS restructuring ensued. It was mentioned that there might be a general misunderstanding within the community about the details of the restructuring. Molly then asked for some clarification about what occurred at the September 23rd faculty-only meeting. Matt responded to Molly with a brief report. Chuck then mentioned that he sees his role as resuming the discussion about standards and excellence from two years ago. Muriel then reminded the committee that academic excellence and rigor are at the core of the Strategic Plan and that we should start from that document. Sarah then noted that there is a long and rich discussion about the topic as it relates to the restructuring plan and that CEPP would benefit from retracing the steps of that discussion to help inform future deliberations. Deb then asked whether we are truly a policy-making body or whether we are simply here to deliberate. At that point, Matt articulated a concern: that CEPP wont tackle the specifics of academic rigor but rather just the broad contours of the issue. It was suggested that the committee should use email over the next few weeks to identify some of the concrete and specific actions that it could take regarding academic rigor. It was then suggested that CEPP needs an extended block of time to discuss these weighty topics and that perhaps the committee should hold a retreat. Beau agreed to try to identify a time when all members could meet. The discussion concluded with agreement that issues related to DOS restructuring and academic rigor will be handled by the entire committee and not a separate subcommittee. The conversation then turned to the SGA Vision statement. After briefly discussing the need for a general rationale, Dan asked that CEPP provide some show of support for taking the statement to the faculty floor. CEPP encouraged Dan to take the next step and bring the Vision statement to the faculty. The final discussion centered on the Middle States Self-study. Sarah would like to see the self-study get to the students somehow, and it was determined that the best way to do that would be to provide a link to a .pdf file. Molly suggested that someone (Sarah?) provide brief summaries of each of the sections so that students have some sense of what they are reading. It was recommended that SGAs Executive Committee read the report. A few members of CEPP insisted that the diversity section seems out of place. It seems to speak with a dramatically different voice, as if it has a different audience. Mike then expressed some concern about the tone of the introduction in particular, and the entire document in general. He is concerned that the document is written in a less than professional tone; that it is written as a recruiting tool and not with the seriousness warranted by the moment. Other members of the committee agreed. Still others disagreed slightly, saying that the Introduction was inviting and engaging. Muriel noted that the audience for the report is both internal and external, and that the self-study will come to represent the seriousness and credibility of the college to outside audiences. She said it was critical that we capture the correct tone because others will read the study. Conversation then turned to the diversity section. Matt said he had concerns about the tone of the section, and then Beau noted that the diversity section is not nearly as strong as the other two sections in articulating a connection between the topic itself and the broad interest in student engagement. Sarah then asked the committee about the new language related to HEOP in the section devoted to the FYE. Most of the members had not read the new section. Sarah then briefly described the debate, which sparked a further conversation about the relationship between the FYE and HEOP. Gordon suggested that HEOP must adapt to the FYE and not the other way around. Others suggested that that was not entirely so. Beau noted that he thought the revised section was now one of the stronger parts of the study because it seemed to engage the debate in an honest way. Chuck and Sarah both reminded the committee that the self-study was a developing document and that many of the issues that are being discussed might be resolved in the future. oqik  " hAfH*hAf0IJiy?@3 4 p $@&a$gdAf $&d P a$$a$$a$ $@&a$gdAf@&gdAf"p q {|ef  "$a$ / =!"#$%D@D NormalCJOJPJQJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontZi@Z  Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k@(No List 0>@0 Title$a$54B@4 Body Text$a$RY@R Af Document Map-DM OJQJaJ, z z z O0IJiy?@34pq {|ef0п H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@ H@0000IJiy?@34pq {|ef0@€000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"p ""X`QWU[`dekU[dj :?r|:5e`\88^8`o()^`. L ^ `L.  ^ `.xx^x`.HLH^H`L.^`.^`.L^`L.5e        @&Zi` @UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3TimesC Lucida Grande ph4D4D1 2!>4Z@Af/Committee for Educational Policies and PlanningCITS Computer DepotDeb Hall  Oh+'0  , H T `lt|'0Committee for Educational Policies and Planning#CITS Computer Depot+Normal1 Deb Hallute2Microsoft Word 11.1@@ J@ J1 ՜.+,0( hp  '鶹ƽ College2 Z 0Committee for Educational Policies and Planning Title  "#$%&'(*+,-./03Root Entry F꣨(51TableWordDocument,SummaryInformation(!DocumentSummaryInformation8)CompObjXObjectPool꣨(꣨( FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8