Academic Affairs and Standards Council s1

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND STANDARDS COUNCIL The purpose of the Council is to provide direction for the College president in all matters included in academic affairs, including course outlines, award requirements, academic standards, course and program components, and the inventory of course and program offerings.

Friday, November 14, 2014 MINUTES

PRESENT: Cristen Cox, Kurt Dershem, Barb Embacher, Don Hermanson, Lori Hood, Ryan Langemeier, Shayne Narjes, Brad Schloesser, Darci Stanford, Dr. Susan Tarnowski, Jay Wendelberger, Absent: Candy Mortenson-Klimpel, Diann Marten, Peter Wruck Guests: Gale Bigbee

1. Call Meeting to Order: Jay called meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Adoption of Agenda  Remove #9, no update Motion to Approve: Darci Stanford with removal of #9; Motion Seconded: Don Hermanson; Motion Passed Unanimously

4. Approval of Minutes (October 24, 2014) Motion to Approve: Darci Stanford; Motion Seconded: Shayne Narjes; Motion Passed Unanimously

5. Committee Reports - Oral &/or Written Q & A (30 Minutes) a. Curriculum – Gale Bigbee (Oral)  New process is in place, more business work is accomplished before the meeting  More thoughtful discussion at meetings  Concern was shared about having Star ID showing on WIDS o Lisa worked with WIDS and this will be removed with the new year upgrade DRAFT minutes are on the web  Curriculum Committee motioned to move issue of goal area decision to AASC b. Faculty Professional Development – Lisa Lamor (Written) c. Online Education / Quality Matters – Deb Salmon  The online education committee (plus other faculty who expressed interest) met last Friday, November 7th for a 3-hour retreat to plan for the committee’s work for the next couple years. Jane Greathouse facilitated the meeting and is currently in the process of recording and organizing all the information discussed. Notes will be on AASC web when available d. Student Engagement – Beth Danberry (Written) e. Student Learning – Wayne Whitmore (Written)

6. Department Chair Discussion (5 Minutes Each)  Ryan Langemeier: working on adjuncts’ schedules for spring; working on program review for completion in mid-December; Carpentry/Construction Summit with businesses and industry on December 4 at Faribault  Lori Hood: posting information for English instructor will be forwarded to HR Academic Affairs and Standards Council Minutes November 14, 2014 Page 2

 Shayne Narjes: no news is good news; Foundation event at Chankaska was wonderful, great partnership with Chef Mike and Tami Reuter  Cristen Cox: working on transition of Nursing and Allied Health Director from Barb Embacher to Michele Brielmaier; working on adjuncts for spring semester  Don Hermanson: 300+ FFA members on campus today competing in events, leadership training, etc.; 35 ag businesses interviewed students last week at SCC, NM  Kurt Dershem: no report  4 Department Chairs’ positions will be replaced for 2015-2016; per previous vote at AASC, names need to be presented to President’s office in order to be announced by May 15, per faculty contract  Shayne Narjes offered to serve another term  Chairs can only serve 2 consecutive terms, maybe more with a break in service  A question was raised of whether to request agenda items from Department Chairs or continue round-robin sharing at meetings o May give more time to review an issue or concern or question o Ok to suggest agenda items to Dr. Tarnowski or Jay or Darci

OLD BUSINESS: 7. Curriculum Committee Discussion – Gale Bigbee  On-going discussion on process of who has final decision on MnTC goal area  Gale shared MnSCU guidelines on this issue o Some suggestions were shared on how to justify final decisions by viewing guidelines and using the proposed cross-walk review, etc. o Need to confirm that 51% of competencies are in the CCO to be in a goal area  Need AASC approval to implement this revised process  Signature by Department Chair currently means they endorse the course as being in a MnTC goal area o A concern was shared of offering too many courses in some of the goal areas o Need to look at overall schedule of courses and what is offered in every goal area  Need to consider what is required in technical courses  Curriculum Committee may forward the CCO in question to AASC for review and endorsement or generate a response to the faculty if denied  With the new process, Chairs would no longer have veto power, signature would note review of CCO and cross-walk  Discussion on whether all Department Chairs should have a voice on all goal area discussions and actions or should LAS Chairs make the decisions for LAS courses  If a CCO is approved it does not guarantee that the course will be offered  Good idea to include ideas from non-LAS Chairs  Invite faculty to AASC meeting to hear and respond to concerns  Some Communication classes are offered in goal area 5 at some MnSCU colleges  Per MnSCU guideline: If justification needs to be elaborate, maybe should not be included in the proposed goal area Academic Affairs and Standards Council Minutes November 14, 2014 Page 3

 Would like to formalize a process to bring contentious Curriculum Committee issues to AASC Motion to Approve process/handout; if all LAS chairs or Academic Dean do not sign, faculty member can present request to AASC: Shayne Narjes; Motion Seconded: Darci Stanford; Motion Passed Unanimously

8. Grade of ‘C’ (vs. C-) as Passing Grade  Lots of differences in prerequisites in CCOs, would like consistency  Some show a pre-requisite of a passing grade, grade of C, or grade of C- o Would like to clarify and standardize what is a passing grade  Some faculty don’t calculate + or –  In some instances, passing is anything other than an F  Because our current policy allows for shaded grading, per MSCF contract/intellectual properties, cannot say that all faculty must grade on A,B,Cs  Would have to change policy to change ‘shaded’ grading  Need to make faculty aware of what the consequence are to receive a ‘-‘  Should departments determine pre-requisites?  Per Ryan Langemeier – his program requires C or better in prefix courses and a passing grade in LAS courses  Per Shayne Narjes: ask Department Chairs to check what grade would move you to the next level; some would move on with a C and not a C-, but others might mean that C- would move ahead – need to be consistent, regardless of who is teaching the course  At SCC grade ranges are on syllabus, some differences in programs  SCC does not have a standard grading scale – need to supply consistency for students

9. DHS Background Checks  No report

10. Campus Input on Credential Reports – STANDING AGENDA ITEM  Nothing since SCC shared a response on Ag requirements / no formal response from MnSCU at this time; Don Hermanson was at a meeting on November 6 / no action was taken and the issue was moved to their December meeting

11. Policy Review a. Credit Life Span  Dr. Tarnowski discussed with JoAnn Simser at MnsCU  Concern was shared regarding the 5 year limit for technical credits o If a student takes a technical course at SCC and then transfers to a 4-year college, those credits then have an indefinite life span o Major differences in areas such as computer careers and heath fields, etc., with so many changes in technology  Request for exception can be processed – may need a better process Academic Affairs and Standards Council Minutes November 14, 2014 Page 4

 Departments need to document how individual programs handle accepting credits beyond the 5 year limit  Should SCC develop procedure to add to this policy, add a ‘link’ in policy to move to the procedure o Dr. Roan will review what is in place for possible update or work on wording for a procedure o Current process works, just need an easier process  VPAA will draft proposed changes on a policy, then work out details and review for approval at AASC meetings  New numbering process is in progress for all policies Motion to Approve new wording and procedure: Don Hermanson; Motion Seconded: Ryan Langemeier; Motion Passed Unanimously

NEW BUSINESS:

 Jay asked if Michele Brielmaier will be added as a member? Currently have 11 faculty and 5 non-faculty members, per MSCF contract  Could there be a non-voting administrator to balance the membership?  Could rotate voting aspect on non-faculty members  Could search for an at-large faculty (Department Chairs and MSCF reps receive compensation and at-large member would not)  If AASC is academic – should Dean of Students be the non-voting member?  Invite Michele and then discuss this issue / present to Deans and Directors and AASC

Adjourn at 2:56 p.m.