*Handout with Recommendations Circulated

iLab Meeting Minutes Friday, September 11, 2015 9am – 11am; University Hall Present: Jeanne Loftus, Liz Ametsbichler, Charles Janson, Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Larry Abramson, Peter Baker, Julie Cahill, Claudine Cellier, Brian French, Nancy Gass, Effie Koehn, Samuel Panarella, Nader Shooshtari

With regrets: Abraham Kim, Bill Borrie, Trey Hill, Mary Nellis, Marja Unkuri-Chaudhry, John Matt

*handout with recommendations circulated

Jeanne opened with a summary of the recommendations and explained the steering committee submitted the report to the administration. Now iLab is waiting to move forward with approval. The floor was opened for comments on the recommendations.

Claudine: Expressed recommendations were summarized and reflected the study well Effie: It was a valuable process, over 100 people were involved Sam: Inquired, what’s next?

Summary: The steering committee met last week and sent an advance report to the administration. The final recommendations were presented to the board. The following questions were asked:  Funding – what was the base budget  Follow up with President Engstrom’s strategic plan – include internationalization when revamping the UM strategic plan  Recruitment with Brazil and China

Paulo – 1) budgeting: support basic services, send lists to administrators and advisors, directly reward & soft money for base budget 2) China and Brazil financial crisis, can’t plan for those events, definitely impacts recruitment when recruitment focuses on 3 major countries (Brazil, China, Japan).

Charlie: Faculty expressed a complaint about the support/compliance for faculty led programs from admin. Afraid details will be cryptic/lost in a large 190 page report

Larry: Some action items are too vague, the board needs action items so those recommendations don’t get buried in the report (for example diversity, or academic travel)

Jeanne: clarified report sections – some items can move forward without admin approval, asked for suggestions on getting admin to push forward for items requiring admin approval

Brian: Asked if items were prioritized on the list submitted to admin. Suggested using a priority list, not wanting to overshadow important element, but hoping to gain moment on few items within the fiscal year.

Charlie: explained compliance for faculty means paperwork, seeing faculty ideas through to fruition – not just the idea stage. Need admin support for faculty led trips, needs someone to advise on risks, money, credit bearing courses and business services

Jeanne: there needs to be a full time position to achieve those duties Sam: Is there money? Or is this just spinning windmills? Is there any money allocated for this type of budget – there is no support or communication with the faculty and there needs to be transparency. Is it best to tell faculty there is no budget but there’s a list of resources to help with faculty led programs?

Larry: In response to Sam – the purpose of the self study is to identify areas needing improvement and to set goals. We need more money so we need to tell leadership to make iLab a priority and allocate the funding.

Paulo: We’re hopeful to get a person to support faculty led study abroad programs, a request has been submitted from international programs

Larry: Named targets/scholarships money in departments – is money coming out of the foundation: accounts are important and valuable

Effie: Recruitment efforts overseas is attractive, we should focus on how this can help enrollment

Sam: a big draw to the law program is the China study abroad attraction

Charlie: moving back to priorities, we could emphasize one full time employee. Admin might bite on consensus if that one FTE strategically could benefit all involved parties – ideally 3 people but that’s not realistic

Jeanne: restructuring items: internships, portions of job in business services, would the position change?

Charlie: sounds like we should restructure the subcommittee and report

Nancy: the list isn’t prioritized because we don’t want the admin to respond to 1 point and consider everything all done – they need to decide the priority based on the report

Brian: hopefully they’ll be more flexible over time, maybe the admin can work on 2 to 3 each year. The greatest impact would be on enrollment so international recruitment should be the number 1 recommendation as it’s the biggest investment

Julie: One FTE can’t do everything, if there are more students from enrollment, there needs to be more support to process all of those applications. She referenced the case with Michigan State when 4,000 new international students enrolled in under 3 years and the university had to rise and meet those demands – there is nothing stopping that from happening at UM.

Paulo: The UM could permanently station people in host countries to help with recruitment efforts. They would operate contractually.

Julie: Again, we need people on the receiving end to process the applications, I-20s, and other documents. Paulo: Try recruitment without additional money, less students would equal less money. We could aim for a larger recruitment with the same budget. Other universities do 15% for their international recruitment.

Claudine: I agree with all of this, we’re not in a position where admin will say do it. We need to identify what’s feasible and how to move forward

Effie: Lou transitioned to OIP, half of the job transferred, so that’s not even 1 full time employee on international recruitment.

Jeanne: Summarized the second handout, the proposal was grouped into four categories for the iLab to move forward on this year (wraps up in June). We need feedback on the handout, somethings can’t move forward without the admin but there’s a green light on the strategic plan.

Effie: We should identify faculty members to be advisors for international students in their departments and use an international student directory for momentum.

Jeanne: Would those advisors support domestic students going abroad as well?

Brian: No, it should only focus on international students, the requirements are different for study abroad and ELI. Comparing domestic and international student requirements are like comparing apples and oranges.

Peter: Is there an outgoing address? Nothing is present in the strategic plans but the international education section stands alone.

Paulo: It goes beyond structure, faculty program development, building tracks, major things an office can’t do alone. Should we add an enrollment and support item then?

Brian: It could factor into the general education reform – I can take it to the committee: there’s the foreign language requirement, encourage study abroad; it relates to cultural emersion, it could be 10 credits – language vs. abroad

Liz: explained testing out of a language and how spending one week in a country does not equal the same classroom experience of learning a language

Jeanne: We need to encourage study abroad

Liz: yes, let’s encourage students to start in their first year, not to wait

Larry: recommended a Gen Ed Global learning study abroad credit, the language credit should still be required

Nader: There could be up to 6 credits for studying abroad –a counter point is disadvantaged students so credit should count as an elective. The departments could make efforts to credit study abroad Effie: it’s easier for sophomores to go abroad because credits transfer best within gen ed, but not so well within majors.

Paulo: Pre approve semester abroad so all students can take advantage within their major

Nader: Faculty fights everything not in the core curriculum

Claudine: global century education – what does it mean – we need to define it

Brian: Liz is a major asset for Gen Ed

Charlie: We could have the dean tell the chair to tell the faculty in a meeting to sit and discuss and make something happen

Jeanne: Need the Provost Input

Charlie: Departments can review standards anytime

Liz: But it’s a hassle, you do it every two years

Nader: Target the sophomores to go abroad

Jeanne: Let’s decide working groups and we can survey for participation. 1) UMT Standards, 2) Global Education Requirement, 2) International Recruitment & Support 4)+______

Peter: What’s the difference between the working group and the strategic plan?

Paulo: There is a steering committee to make up the strategic plan, and there are 4 working groups that report to the steering committee. Small yield of applications & enrolling students – not necessarily less apps, big issues in enrollment apps are up on both sides.

Jeanne: External people for subcommittees? We could do that for the working groups?

Paulo: We need a clean slate – establish ideal, we need a number of people for each working group, and one of the four steering committee members in each working group.

Jeanne: iLab enough people?

Paulo: Same task force, head hunt people – set unit standards and use the campus network. Global learning outcomes, global education, learning abroad is a component.

Nader: Hard to push from the bottom up

Liz: CBA issue – int’l component, union to get international bargaining

Charlie: Require unit standards with language

Nader: Try both approaches and carry forward Nancy: voluntary from the departments

Paulo: enrollment working group – items: recruitment, program development, pathways, new/develop/changing programs. How can internationalization bring more students (int’l & domestic). Orientation – source for recruitment, law school example, the China program impacts with the international dynamic

Brian: Gen Ed: study abroad – indigenous/global same requirement? All departments study abroad, major elective – gains credit, faculty led/global credit, in major required to study abroad. Guaranteed to count ASCRC Goes under faculty group

Nancy: find area where you fit to help move in daily life

Paulo: International task force, 4 working groups, 5-8 people per group, 2 people on international strategic plan committee

Jeanne: new working group: enrollment program development, pathways, international recruitment, 2 12 Ums, aboard, IBGLI, High school

1. Campus network 2. Education abroad – global learning 3. Added enrollment and support 4. Admissions

How to recruit: send announcement, new stage want to be involved? Task force to working groups  working groups chair

Board representation / requirements from all over, business school, some people who added interest

Come back – nominations, steering committee decide for accurate representation

Official commitment June 2016 (academic year)

Most important part ACE iLab is next campus visit: Leader to do what’s been laid out, come in & read steering committee report issues/what’s delaying it – Michigan state iLab coming spring semester – President & Provost, give view: ACE – accreditation similar, lean on top admin, ACE provide report after site visit

Change of working groups: Standard template -action plans -exclusion plans -review recommendations - move forward within power -faculty led programs more seamless -5 year priority plan (long term) -action items to achieve plan -tell this to strategic plan -implementing as well  not just stop

Note of caution: start making things happen but also introduce chaos, structure of offices to do things, example: curriculum change – it needs to go to committee, but can propose the idea there! Hire ups need to get on board – bottom up doesn’t work well.

Get representation in working groups to help with implementation.

Submit report next week with plans for this semester – get that out by June strategic plan!

Go Team!