Date: December 5, 2000
Time:
1:00 – 3:00
Location: McHenry Library – Room 481
1. Welcome
Members Present:
Francisco Hernandez, Tom Vani, Karen Eckert, Lynda Goff, Lan Dyson, Kathy Jefferds; Barry Bowman; John
Tamkun
Staff Present:
Betty Rush, Ernie Hudson
Guests: None
2. Agenda
Discussion of Narrative Evaluation System –
Presented by Lynda Goff
Discussion of the Report on the Colleges – Presented
by Lynda Goff
3. Narrative Evaluation System
Lynda Goff discussed the progress related to the possible purchase of a software package that might be helpful to faculty in the delivery of narrative evaluations. Barbara Rogoff and Lynda Goff are working with the Toronto based company that produces the software “Gradebook” in order to see if the software can be modified to accommodate text to support the campus’ Narrative Evaluation System. Faculty may be enlisted to do a Beta test this Spring. The development cost for the new system is $90,000 and $13,000 is for annual maintenance. The system is PC, MAC and Web enabled.
There was much discussion about the proposed new Narrative Evaluation System “Gradebook” including: how to promote and publicize the new system; how to train faculty/staff to use the new system; who should be responsible for the training; what department/division should be responsible for maintaining the new system; how much will the new system cost; who will pay for the new system; will “Gradebook” become an additional option for submitting narratives or the only option; how will narratives entered via “Gradbook” be included in the campus database; does “Gradebook” raise questions regarding securities, permissions and access?.
There were also requests from the committee for information about the current narrative evaluation system: what support mechanisms are currently available; what is the cost for the current narrative evaluation system; speculation of current faculty time spent on narratives; etc. The Registrar’s Office conducted a study on Narrative Evaluations a few years ago that will be reviewed by the Committee.
The Academic Support Planning Committee will
continue discussions of the Narrative Evaluation Process at future meetings in
order to present recommendations to the Campus Provost.
4. Colleges – Discussion of the Report of the
Advisory Committee on Colleges– Fall 2000
Lynda Goff presented the Report of the Colleges
Advisory Committee. In July 2000,
Campus Provost Simpson convened an advisory group to examine the present state
of the UCSC Colleges and to make recommendations to guide their future
development as the campus grows to 15,000 students.
The report has gone to the Campus Provost, CAOs, and
the Academic Senate for review and suggestions. While the recommendations of the College Advisory Committee are
displayed below, the Academic Support Planning Advisory Committee (ASPAC)
discussed its possible role/roles in determining the future for the Colleges
and felt that it will have a great deal of input. Terry Korett will attend a future meeting of the ASPAC to discuss
the complete report.
Report recommendations:
1. Explain the college system to the campus and
reaffirm the commitment to organize UG student life in collegiate units.
2. Set enrollment targets for the Ninth and
Tenth Colleges that will allow the current colleges to limit enrollment to 1500
students.
3. Determine how many additional UG colleges
must be built on the northwest campus site currently designated for Colleges
Eleven and Twelve.
4. Develop guidelines for assigning entering
students to colleges so that current colleges can be limited to 1500 students
and the size of their entering cohorts capped at a manageable size for college
facilities.
5. Review college staff positions and budgets
to insure that they reflect the required FTE and support funds to serve
affiliate populations of 1500 students.
6. College academic affairs staff should
continue to provide advising for undeclared students and monitor the academic
standing of all affiliated students.
7. While taking the model of one CAO and one
college provost per 1500-student college as the desirable default, thoroughly
investigate the consequences of suggestions that CAOs or College Provosts might
supervise more than one college team in some cases.
College
Faculties
8. Clarify the college affiliations of
faculty. Convene college faculties to
gauge interest in reviewing current college requirements and course offerings.
9. The Committee on Educational Policy should
review current core courses.
10. Develop alternative models for serving
students who have not passed the Subject A requirement at admission.
11. Allow the current formula funding for
college core courses to be used by Provosts for alternative models developed
with college faculties.
12. Clarify expectations of the role of faculty
in mentoring undeclared and pre-major students.
13. Re-examine the job description and procedure
for evaluation of college provosts in light of current administrative
arrangements and anticipated changes in college programs.
14. Endorsement of the creation of some sort of
graduate college to support community among graduate students.
15.
Space for academic administration and classrooms should be provided in
new colleges but future faculty offices and research space should not be
incorporated into them.
16. Existing Colleges should collaborate with
Divisions but not be subsumed by them.
Residential communities should not become divisionally homogeneous.
17. Long-term financing of the maintenance of
college houses should be resolved.
18. Consider expanding length of first-year
orientation and enhancing its academic character.
19. Searches for future college provosts should
be conducted in light of these
recommendations.
Lynda Goff also reported that there has been
reporting restructuring in the colleges regarding the Provosts. The College Provosts will now report to
Lynda Goff instead of to the Deans.
4. Next meeting January 16,
2001. Agenda to be announced.
(Meetings scheduled for December 19 and January 2 were
cancelled).