skip to main content ISU bar University Faculty Senate Approved October 12, 2006 October 05, 2006 Minutes Indiana State University Faculty Senate 2005-06 GC#4 Present: W. Barratt, M. Boyer, B. Corcoran, H. Chait, B. Frank (Senate Liaison), A. Gilberti, M. Haque, C. MacDonald, L. O’Laughlin, Absent: C. Mayer, T. Siefert (SOGS) Ex Officio: D. Collier (student rep), J. Gatrell (AS), J. Kuhlman (Interim Graduate Dean), S. Powers (Ed), G. Maughan (CoT), L. Romero (student rep) Guests: M. Murphy (Program Prioritization Task Force), K. Schmid (Ac Af) 1. Call to Order: C. MacDonald called the meeting to order at 9:02. 2. Agenda was adopted by consensus. Move Program Prioritization to top of list. 3. Minutes unanimously accepted. 4. Unfinished/Ongoing Business a. Grad Assistantships and Fee Waivers: discussion postponed until next meeting. 5. New Business a. Program Prioritization (report by M. Murphy) i. Original aim to identify $2 million for reallocation to other programs has proven difficult. While money can be identified in the General Education program, significant funds are hard to find through the elimination or consolidation of other academic programs that have scored the lowest in the prioritization report. ii. The Task Force’s final effort is to develop a process using original guidelines to modify plans to eliminate/consolidate programs. The Task Force will then report to the university community the total dollars extracted and where they are moved to. iii. One area of rapid learning: university planning has been done on a program-by-program and course-by-course basis. Though quality has been maintained by regular evaluation, these procedures need to be evaluated to ensure a broader, more long-term view of program development. We have snapshots of programs only. And, unfortunately, accreditation usually suggests even more resources are needed. For example: Gen Ed has a huge array of course options, but the resources are spread over too many sections (9000 seats unfilled—consolidation needed). However, we can’t make decisions on basis of section size; we have to look at academic integrity. Gen Ed needs to be reevaluated by overall community. iv. M. Murphy recognizes K. Schmid as co-chair organizing process and gathering information. W. Barratt also recognized for his contributions. v. On Programs and Resources: some programs need to be removed from books (an administrative approach) because they are not functioning. For Example, some MA Ed degrees for teachers are underserved because of changing state requirements. Some of these courses are being taught on top of load and this costs money and time. Research is being potentially sacrificed. Are offered programs giving us the maximum in return for our efforts? We need to think not only in terms of the programs that are highly touted but also in terms of the programs we are NOT adding. By way of example, University of Southern Indiana is expanding programs and some of their funding is coming from ISU’s decreased enrollment. USI, because of increased enrollment, can develop new programs, which is exactly what ISU needs to do. vi. How does USI operate with such better finances if they have a lower cost per student? They have fewer small sections and more part-time faculty. Consequently, they are not seen as a model or ideal. vii. B. Frank asks: if we can’t find the $2 million, where does it come from? Some of these resources will not be reflected in dollar sums but found through other metrics. Some resources will be recouped from Gen Ed, but not $2 million. viii. In total, 500 sections have 2-9 students. ix. Conversation between Deans and programs is necessary. Many programs to be possibly eliminated claim they use no resources and/or need more. x. K. Schmid: We must cut low-enrollment programs. Reshaping will be the first thing to do. We have 216 programs and typical institutions of our size have about half. (But this depends on how “program” is defined.) xi. Need to track programs/positions affected by Prioritization. xii. Hiring this year affected by knowledge of Program Prioritization. xiii. M. Boyer: Has anyone run model of what we should ideally looked like? On Gen Ed side models have more to do with what we should not be doing, but we have had little conversation about what we should look like. Somebody should run such models…. if campus values x, this is its appearance; if campus values y, this is what it looks like. No holistic approach exists. Grad School could offer an object lesson of such discussions. xiv. B. Frank: Have we looked at models that allow us to respond quicker to changing trends? Two year cycle to ramp up is not responsive to changing needs. There are advantages to broader degrees as well as risks associated with increased specialization. xv. Bottom line: state will not give us any more money. Staying at level funding will be best-case scenario. xvi. 90% of students enrolled in half of programs. Real dollars tied up in such programs. xvii. According to Provost, the $2 million is non-negotiable. This will be found. xviii. Some of best programs will require significant additional funds to ramp up enrollment. However, there is a logic to keeping such programs small. xix. 23 Graduate Programs to be cut. xx. 95 of 216 programs are Graduate. xxi. Problem is with separate tracks having separate course requirements; such unique courses become a problem. 6. Reports: a. Chairperson (C. MacDonald): b. Senate Liaison’s Report (B. Frank): i. Announcement made that Senate has approved the motion that faculty cannot take courses from their colleges. This does not apply to faculty in Arts and Sciences. Provost allows for an override of this rule. Concern is expressed that AS is treated differently than other colleges; the argument is that because of the size and diverse array of AS offerings, there will be less risk of faculty sitting in classes with their own students (principle rationale for the rule in general). c. Administrative Report (Interim Dean Kuhlman): i. Dean’s report will be delivered by email in future. ii. Search for a new Full-Time Assistant Dean of Graduate School has been approved. iii. A Part-Time technology position for Graduate School has also been approved. iv. Enrollment from two weeks ago: the “official” enrollment of GS is 2031. However, actual enrollment is 2073. v. GS “wish list” to be passed out and discussed next meeting. 7. Upcoming Business a. Discussion of Graduate Assistantships and Fee Waivers 8. Adjournment – 10:06 am Respectfully submitted, Brendan Corcoran Secretary Last modified: March 03, 2009  Copyright © 2009 by Indiana State University.