Minutes Were Recorded by Rose Ann Lennon

MOCC Agenda Thursday, April 5th, 2007 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm, CST 605-773-2307; password: 4625# Minutes were recorded by Rose Ann Lennon

Main Agenda:

1. Introductory items:

 Role call Present: Pam Thomas, Sandy Anderson, Sharon Kienow, Barb Dolan (joined meeting in progress), Matt Aschenbrener, Don Ticknor, Rose Hansen, and Trudy Zalud. Absent: Sharon Sopko.  Agenda modifications None  Approval of minutes from March 16th meeting Approved

2. Coding of students interested in teacher education: Paul Turman

Background – Paul: Precision in the teacher education accountability reports is critical. Last fall, the accuracy of E-coding was questioned (note: students who have been officially accepted to a university-specific teacher education program should receive the E code). The meeting in November (held at the BOR office in Pierre) addressed this issue, and it has been resolved. The meeting also encompassed discussion of D-coding: in accordance with MCR 26A, students who express interest in teacher education should be assigned the D code. Although thoughts and ideas were exchanged at the meeting, no concrete decisions were made. The issue remains: students who entertain the idea of teaching should be identified (ideally, at the point of admission) and then tracked to determine the evolution of – and rationale for – career choices. This information is important to not only teacher education accountability reporting, but also NCATE and Title II reporting. Currently, tracking students who convey interest in teaching presents a challenge to the campuses. These questions beg answers: what happens to students between admission to the regental system and formal acceptance to a teacher education program? Are students aware of the various routes to teacher certification? Are they appropriately advised? Do they ultimately apply for admission? If not, what factors discourage them? What career paths do they eventually pursue? An effective tracking system will assist campuses in finding answers to these questions. The leading thought is to attach a pre-education tag to programs of study: this would be assigned during the admissions process and then inactivated when the E code is added.

Discussion – Group: There is a place in Colleague for tracking cohorts, such as athletic cohorts. At USD, the Athletic Department proofs a prepared list of student athletes who receive financial aid; following this verification, the information is batch loaded into Colleague. Might this work for teacher education?

Yes, this presents a promising option.

Is the point of admission too early for identification of these students?

No, one of the major recommendations stemming from the system-wide review of teacher education is that we work on recruitment of solid candidates; early identification of interested students will assist with this process. In essence, it’s never too early. For example, SDSMT doesn’t offer a teacher education program. However, the Project Select program at BH has been very successful in working with degreed students to complete requirements for teacher certification. The folks at BH will want to make contact with Mines students who express interest in teaching prior to graduation.

Will these plans preclude current applications of the D code (specifically, at NSU and DSU)?

No, this will be a beneficial supplement to established practices.

A logical next step is involving the DA’s. NSU may be using the cohort function. Joann will be able to speak to this.

What is the level of complexity with this proposal?

Currently, there are no available fields in Colleague for such documentation. That void will necessitate problem solving.

Decisions regarding where to house the information and how to code must be made. For example, how will assignment of transfer students to cohorts work?

Don will take the issue to the next UDA meeting for discussion and brainstorming; the group will meet on Wednesday, April 11th.

3. Technology Update: Don

 Web Advisor: suggestion for immunization information and features

At USD, Laura Crosley receives numerous calls from distance students about the immunization policy; they see the Web Advisor message pertaining to immunizations and panic. Here is the wording: “Your immunization records are not up-to-date for on-campus registration.” Although impacted students are permitted to enroll in off-campus classes, this message is lost. The technology groups have struggled with the perfect wording, but so far, it has eluded everyone. Laura suggested a link to a web page that explains the policy, provides forms, lists waivers/exemptions and the qualifying criteria for each, features special information relevant to distance students, etc. This resource would be helpful not only to students, but also to those who serve students, such as advisors and continuing education staff members. An immediate dilemma is that Web Advisor is not set up to be campus-specific. Consequently, the website must be designed to be system-specific. It could include a link to each student health office. Trudy will discuss this proposal with the immunization sub-committee of MOCC, and Don will refer it to the DA’s.

 Other

o Production box: migration took place on March 22 and 23; the process went very well. USD experienced a few glitches, but these were resolved. The transition should expedite the running of slow reports. o A maximal number of Colleague users caused problems today; around 11:00 am, RIS fixed the problem. o R18 conversion: scheduled for June 23-25. Suzanne recently returned from DUG – she received a number of discouraging reports concerning the transition process. Consequently, she offers this advice: don’t plan any student events in the two days immediately following the conversion. Northern has scheduled new student orientation on the 25th; Sharon will follow up.

4. MCR 27: Double majors

 Report from Technology Module: Don The DA’s initiated discussion of this complex topic. The group identified two primary questions: o What is the impact of adding a new degree type (example: ADDMAJ)? o Can completion of additional majors be recorded at the top of transcripts (with the pertinent date)?

The most significant concern relates to modifying financial aid rules to create a fit. This facet requires additional investigation. We may need to incorporate spec in order to effectively communicate with the financial aid folks. Transcripting presents another rigorous challenge. The DA’s can’t figure out the perfect fix to the problem. This may require a change to the program that prints transcripts. Such a modification would surpass the capabilities of South Dakota programmers; we would need to involve Datatel experts.

Did the group consider the proposal delineated by ASCC on page 20 of MCR 27?

No, but it looks like it could work.

A concern expressed by our campus DA is that a pseudo-degree remains on the student’s record forever. Is there another way? We should revisit the comment option.

Lesta Turchen didn’t support this method of transcripting. She felt that the array of comments used by universities would be too variable. In addition, no reports could be generated based on the comment field.

Registrar concerns include IPEDS reporting, BOR reporting, and transcript format. What the student accomplished must be clear.

Trudy will touch bases with Sam to see if his thoughts/preferences coincide with Lesta’s. Don will continue discussions with the DA’s.

 Update from Financial Aid Module: Sharon

The group consensus is that it really is a registrar decision. However, it is important to give the student both options - 2nd major or 2nd degree. It is also important for the student to understand the differences - 2nd major is NOT aid eligible, 2nd degree is. It is also imperative that there is a coding scheme established to differentiate between the two groups to allow for rule writing in financial aid to exclude the 2nd major students from aid eligibility.

We realize this is an extremely complicated issue and there are other areas affected as well - degree audit, graduating, transcripting, etc etc etc. However, we concur with the registrars that it needs to be cleaned up so we truly are doing what we say we are.

As a module, we decided that we should keep our hands out of the final decision. Our chief concern is effective communication with students: we must make sure to keep the two options open and clear cut. Colleague documentation will be critical; SPEC.ADDNL is a viable option to key off on.

 Feedback from Registrars’ Module: details on numbers of students who return to pursue a second major attached to the original degree: Sandy

The registrars estimate a total of 25 to 30 students for the regental system over the last couple of years.

5. Visitor Proposal:

 Position of Accounts Receivable Module: Pam (please see attached email)

We need to look forward, not merely attend to today. In this day and age, we shouldn’t set up a second system. We need to afford consistent treatment to our primary customers. Also, the AR module questions inclusion of visitors in student policy.

 Formal position statements from other modules? Registrars’ email chain was distributed just prior to the meeting. The module feels that doing things on the side doesn’t feel right.

UDA’s also feel that visitor participation should be documented in Colleague.

The most challenging part of the visitor proposal is monitoring CLEP tests.

Recent email communication from Sam – this addresses the rationale for maintaining separate audit and visitor options:

Two reasons. Life-long learners in general want absolutely noting to do with the academic enrollment processes (admissions, registration, billing, grades…) They want it simple (cash for service).

Cost. If we have empty seats and if we do not invest personnel time to manage those in the system, why wouldn’t we make seats available at a rate that could attract some participants. Or flipping the cost issue, people may spend $100 to set in on a class. They’re not going to spend $500.

 Status of proposal

The proposal was discussed and approved by COPS last week. It will be considered by the BOR on April 12th. They will be asked to approve the concept itself (not the mechanics of implementation) and the fee structure.

6. IP grades: research conducted by Registrars’ Module (please see attachment): Sandy

The survey included public institutions in the following states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Of the twelve responses, seven schools mentioned use of an IP-type grade; five did not. Common applications for the IP grades included research, study abroad, internships, and independent studies. Trudy will collaborate with the Registrars’ module to construct a proposal for regental use of the IP grade; it will be presented to MOCC at the next meeting.

7. Next meeting: Friday, April 27th (10:00 am to 12:00 noon, CST)

Supplemental Agenda:

1. MCR update:

 MCR #12: Readmission: Update from Barb Karen is willing to work with the MCR as written.  MCR #33: Catalog transition

o Response from Sam

Catalog represents the very foundation of student life. As a result, accuracy of catalog assignment is of paramount importance. Sam asked that we exhaust all options.

o Survey of other Colleague users: Suzanne

To investigate one possible option, Suzanne and Trudy attempted to remove default catalog from the parameters. This wasn’t permitted. Consequently, we know that a default catalog is required. Suzanne will post an inquiry, asking other Datatel users how they handle this Colleague limitation.

 MCR #34: Admit Status (please see final version attached)

o Response from Financial Aid Module:

The FA module reviewed MCR 34 on today's conference call. There were no concerns, and everyone was pleased that students who have attended any higher education institution after high school graduation will be coded as a transfer student (except summer prior to fall matriculation). This will allow for more accurate information when determining financial aid eligibility and less conflicting information that would have to be resolved.

o This document will be posted to the MOCC website; also, please distribute on your campuses as appropriate.

Update: Sam will consult with AAC at the next meeting. Please do not distribute MCR #34 until it has received final approval from this group.

2. Winter interim:

 First meeting: March 23rd

The agenda was distributed to the MOCC membership. Discussion centered on the variability of the time frame between January 2nd and the start of spring semester. Over time, it will range from four to ten days. Options were identified and debated.

 Second meeting: April 6th

The meeting agenda will be distributed.  Research: Peer institutions Following the March 23rd meeting, Sam identified three peer institutions that currently offer a winter interim session: MSU-Billings, UW-Oshkosh, and Truman State University. Trudy conducted a phone interview with the Registrar employed by each institution; the sessions ranged in length from 60 to 90 minutes. The summary of information, including notable contrasts, is attached.

Discussion: Mission is critical. We can’t be all things to all people. Consequently, we must establish what we are all about. Our mission will then drive everything else.

3. Implementation of R18: Note of caution from Suzanne

4. Other?

Summer is approaching – we need to construct our calendar of meetings. Please email Trudy with information pertaining to your availability and preferences.

Thank you!