FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO. 2
TO ORDER: The 2nd meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2006-2007
was called to order at on
SENATORS AND MEMBERS
PRESENT: M. King, K.Alwes,
R. Spitzer, P. Quaglio, D. West, L. Anderson, J. Governali, J. Hendrick, D. Sidebottom,
J. Sitterly, V. Marty, D. Ritchie, S. VanEtten, J. Walkuski, C. Schacht, K. Boyes, M. Scala,
E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, W. Shaut, J. Cottone, D. Ritchie, D. Kreh
SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Zarate, J. Casciani, B. Tobin, M. Ware (class conflict Fall 2006), P. Schroeder, R. Peagler, G. Clarke
GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, N. Aumann, R. Franco, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, E. Caffarella, Y. Murnane
II. SENATE ACTIONS:
There was a vote to approve the following nominations from the Committee on Committees: College Curriculum Review, one representative from Math/Science (2006-2008), Nancy Meagher; Committee on Teaching Awards, one representative from Professional Studies (Spring ’07 sabbatical replacement for Bonni Hodges), Regina Grantham. (Passed)
There was a vote to amend the charge to the GE Committee regarding Campus Based Assessment [SEE Below] to change the deadline the report and recommendations due to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee from October 24 to October 10, 2006 (Defeated; 5/13/0)
There was a vote to approve the charge to the GE Committee regarding Campus Based Assessment as follows: The Faculty Senate charges the General Education Committee to look at the GEAR Response to the Strengthened Campus Based Assessment of the General Education Plan paying particular to; 1) the idea of credit or no credit for students who participate in classroom assessment, and; 2) the idea of assessment of the infusion or non-infusion of critical thinking in different classes. The report and appropriate recommendations are to be delivered to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee by 10/24 (Passed)
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes from
IV. CHAIR’S REPORT:
There was no Chair’s report.
V. VICE CHAIR’S REPORT:
No report (absent)
VI. SECRETARY’S REPORT:
VII. PRESIDENT’S REPORT:
President Bitterbaum gave a brief report. He began by indicating that next week would be the Vice President of Institutional Advancement Search. He thanked everyone in the group for their involvement. He also thanked Ginny Levine, Nancy Aumann and everyone else who agreed to participate.
The President then reported an issue which has been brought to his attention from Ed Caffarella regarding a major study and report entitled Educating School Teachers. that was published on Monday by Arthur Levine, former President of the Teacher’s College of Columbia University. The publication contains very derogatory comments about Master’s Level institutions, in the area of teacher preparation, which contends that our faculty are very undistinguished. Art Weiss, President of NCATE, has already issued a public rebuttal, Bitterbaum reported. The Association of State College’s and Universities has also responded to some very strongly worded essays. Ed Caffarella has already started working with Pete Koryzno on SUNY Cortland’s behalf with an Op Ed piece to contradict what Arthur Levine has stated. Bitterbaum gave an example eluding to the fact that a typical teacher has to do 100 hours observation and 640 hours in a classroom setting. President Bitterbaum stated that, although there are probably a few weak programs out there, Levine wants us to shift our 5 year programs, along with other initiatives. The President reported that the campus would probably be hearing about this issue in the next couple of weeks. Bitterbaum reported that the administration wanted to respond very publicly and share their reaction.
In the next item of business President Bitterbaum announced that SUNY Cortland has an amazing exhibit at Dowd Fine Arts Gallery called the Passion of Porcelain, consisting of decorative arts. Bitterbaum reported that a friend of the college has lent us the collection. He reported that it is actually so valuable that a former police officer has been hired to guard because there are some very valuable jewels and decorative pieces in the collection. Bitterbaum explained that these pieces are very extraordinary in their ornateness and urged the campus to take advantage of it.
J. Walkuski asked President Bitterbaum a question regarding the Levine report as to where it emanated from and who it was issued to.
Bitterbaum explained that the report is one of four reports, the first of which has to do with how we train principals and building administrators and was been published over a year ago. He further reported that the first report didn’t get much notice but said that the recent one will get a lot of notice, due to the subject matter referring to the training of teachers, because a lot of our students are trained as teachers in public institutions. Bitterbaum explained that he was unsure of Levine’s current professional status and asked Caffarella if he had anything to add.
E. Caffarella responded, in agreement, that Levine has been really critical of teacher training courses, particularly at the Master’s level institutions, for years. He reported that Levine’s project has been in the works for the last four or five years. Caffarella also indicated that Levine did the principal study in Spring 2005 and one more about18 months ago. Caffarella stated that he’s gone through the report and there will be an Op Ed piece that will be going out as a result of it. He also has produced a one page briefing paper showing Levine’s findings and then what SUNY Cortland looks like against those findings. He indicated that there are a number of places where he may be describing teacher preparation programs across the country and what the “local education path” looks like. Caffarella stated that Levine talks about teacher preparation programs, with students being 100 points below the national average on standardized tests, although in reality Caffarella said “our students are 50% points above the national average.” He said Levine refers to the faculty in language that is very discouraging along with remarks about faculty at Master’s 1 level issues supposedly coming from less distinguished doctoral institutions. He said, in response, his office has gone through and looked at where our faculty come from, and his research indicates they come from very distinguished institutions. As a result, the one page briefing paper has been drawn up so that faculty can use it to answer questions. He indicated anyone wanting the paper can obtain it as a PDF file as a 150 page document.
J. Walkuski asked how he could obtain a copy and Caffarella instructed him to send him an e-mail.
R. Franco added that Pete Koryzno, in consultation with Ed Caffarella, has prepared a press release, which he is holding, waiting to see some network and press coverage, in order to provide a very thorough response.
P. Koryzno indicated that his office would be sending the Op Ed piece out the next day.
VIII. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Educational Policy Committee – J. Cottone had no report from his committee. Cottone gave a report, as requested by the Steering Committee members. He explained that at the first Steering Committee meeting one of the items that came up for discussion was whether or not the policy regarding switching the class times to 20 minutes between classes from 15 was ever revisited. After some research he found out that actually a follow up was done, explaining that in 1999 a committee was formed to look at the amount of student tardiness that occurred between classes. He further reported that in the Fall of 2000 the actual class schedule was changed to reflect 20 minutes between classes. In spring 2002, after a 15 minutes discussion, the Faculty Senate voted to change back the time between classes from 20 minutes to 15, with the change in the proposal having been approved by a vote of 8 to 6. Then in May of 2002, President Taylor informed the Faculty Senate in a letter to Jeffrey Swartwood, that he would not support the change at that time, indicating that there were enough issues involving faculty concern with the change that he felt it was not warranted. Cottone indicated that no action was needed on the report explaining that the report was a request from the Steering Committee for informational purposes only.
Student Affairs Committee – No report (absent)
Faculty Affairs Committee – No report (absent)
College Research Committee – No report.
General Education Committee – M. McGuire had no report.
IX. SUNY SENATOR’S REPORT:
No report (absent fall semester due to class conflict).
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Committee on Committees – E. McCabe reported there was a request from J. Barry to approve the following nominations from the Committee on Committees: College Curriculum Review, one representative from Math/Science (2006-2008), Nancy Meagher; Committee on Teaching Awards, one representative from Professional Studies (Spring ’07 sabbatical replacement for Bonni Hodges), Regina Grantham.
XI. OLD BUSINESS:
The GE issue regarding Strengthening Campus Based Assessment was discussed. M. King read the charge: The Faculty Senate charges the General Education Committee to look at the GEAR Response to the Strengthened Campus Based Assessment of the General Education Plan paying particular to; 1) the idea of credit or no credit for students who participate in classroom assessment, and; 2) the idea of assessment of the infusion or non-infusion of critical thinking in different classes. The report and appropriate recommendations are to be delivered to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee by 10/24
E. Bitterbaum stated, before the discussion commenced, that due to the urgency of the matter he had offered in a Steering Committee meeting to sponsor breakfast meetings to accomplish the task due to the urgency of the charge.
M. McGuire said, “We’ll make every effort to do that.”
K. Alwes stated that as a result of the Steering Committee meeting where the urgency was discussed that she did contact McGuire who promised that the GE Committee would make every effort to fulfill the charge as soon as possible.
E. Bitterbaum expressed the administration’s appreciation.
S. VanEtten said, “I would like to reiterate on that. I have been part of all of the discussions. It’s critical to get it done as quickly as possible. If the plan comes back again without being approved then we run into problems with me selecting the sample of classes and notifying faculty according to guidelines by the end of this semester. So that’s quite an issue.”
J. Governali asked for confirmation that the charge comes to the Faculty Senate on October 24 with a report and recommendations?
M. King responded in the affirmative.
J. Governali clarified that if the charge comes to the Faculty Senate two weeks after October 24th then it would not be acted on until November.
M. King replied, “Yes. The earlier will be better but this is the best….”
J. Governali asked if there was any way that the process could be expedited so that the Senate can act on it sooner. He explained that he was not referring to the report but in terms of the Faculty Senate.
D. Kreh explained that it could be fast tracked referring to the two week period in-between.
King responded, “We are likely to do that. So we need to approve this.”
S. VanEtten said, “Just again, to reiterate the dates, we need to be able this period is the time of assessment, the syllabi. In the past when we have not been able to notify them (the faculty) there has been an outrage on campus. I am still very concerned with timing, that’s when we notify participants. I would like it to be noted that the sooner that’s done the better but if it isn’t going to be completed that could be problematic for spring assessment.”
M. King asked Van Etten, “Is there anything to prevent you from making sample selections now and informing those people who might be involved?”
S. VanEtten replied, “The issue is we don’t know how we’re going to be sampling, whether it’s going to be chosen across the categories. So, we could send out an e-mail saying everyone could potentially be sampled, any course in the GE…so it’s an issue.”
D. Berger asked, “Is this sampling for spring classes?”
S. VanEtten responded, “The Spring, but according to the plan that was approved at the Faculty Senate last semester, I am supposed to notify them by the end of the semester previous. So at the end of the fall semester I am to notify who has been selected as representing it.”
D. Berger asked, “How did you do this last time? Did you just choose some classes to be involved in the sample rather than everybody’s classes?”
S. VanEtten replied, “Well, previously the entire population was selected. The last two times we moved to a much smaller sampling, as we moved to data and reliability being established, and then based on different sampling, based on making sure different majors were being represented, basically moving towards 20% being reported by system or the GEAR Group.”
D. Berger said, “I would like to talk about, at some point, the way reliability is established. But right now the issues involved, as I see it, are a matter of negotiation and compromise. Because, on the one hand, we appreciate the fact that there’s some time urgency for this, and we would like to try and accommodate the time urgency that you and President Bitterbaum and the Provost have asked for. On the other hand, we are concerned, as faculty, about academic freedom and what goes on in our class, what’s our responsibility. We need time to respond to it without the time pressure about (it being) just get it done. So, there are two sides and we are trying to balance it, (the Steering Committee) that’s what we are trying to (do is) accommodate both needs.”
S. VanEtten said, “I am very aware of this. I sit as ex officio member on GE and I am very supportive of faculty taking the time in hashing this out, but it’s six of one, one half dozen of the other. So we are dealing with this issue right here. But other faculty members across campus faculty would be up in arms if they were selected after they planned their spring syllabi for spring semester, and again, this gets reflected back towards me, as a previous faculty member I would appreciate at the last minute being told to figure it out….”
J. Walkuski asked, “Is the issue that we have to get the plan for the GEAR group as soon as possible in case they ask for revisions in the assessment plan? Because the actual assessment won’t take place till spring 2007, is that correct?”
S. VanEtten responded, “We have already pushed it….It was supposed to be done this fall and so we have already pushed it to the spring and that’s the last time, all other assessments were supposed to be done the following year.”
J. Walkuski asked, “And the issue was (that) we were informed by GEAR about this in May after the last Senate adjourned for the year, is that correct?”
Provost Davis-Russell replied, “In June, what I received was in June.”
M. McGuire stated, “Just addressing Shawn for a minute, it seems to me your larger concern is the infusion or non-infusion for the timing for spring, is that correct?”
S.VanEtten said, “That is correct.”
M. McGuire replied, “It seems to be also the issue you are dealing with. Maybe we could deal with that first maybe and deal with the more contentious issue about whether or not faculty are required to give credit?”
Provost Davis-Russell said, “I would like to make a comment that touches on David’s question, Dave Berger’s question, and about why couldn’t Shawn sample now? He could not because we do not have an approved plan and we need an approved plan before we can proceed. In other words, GEAR has not approved our plan, so to proceed with parts of that plan would not be appropriate.”
J. Governali asked, “Do we need to know the percentage of faculty members who are required, who are giving credit, as opposed to those who are not giving credit? I mean, is there a big difference?”
S. VanEtten remarked, “Being designated as Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee assessment poll, I have given…the whole GE Committee…pulling it together…they are fragmented assessments not in one data base. I have already done some analyses, you know, a few thousand students there was a class based (assessment), one particularly in the year 2003, there were about 5,000 students here, 400 didn’t receive any credit, and their average, on a 6 point scale was 3.5 versus almost 4 for the 4 credit groups. So, it’s almost a half a percentage point in that one small group. So I’m hoping to provide that for them to review. I am hoping to have that together by the end of the week.”
J. Governali said, “So the majority are giving students credit for it?”
D. Berger stated, “You just reported a difference. Is that a statistically important difference?”
S. VanEtten: “I misstated, Senator Berger, I was just saying preliminarily I was just pulling something together. I was working on a report.”
D. Berger: You said 4 as opposed to 3.5. Let’s not frame it as a difference unless it’s statistically larger.”
S. VanEtten remarked, “I said difference of .5 on a 6 point scale. I didn’t say….These are just statistics I am pulling up right not. My attempt right now is to pull up all the data since we started the assessment back from the spring of 1999, pull together all the credit, no credit, make statistical analyses and share that with David Miller. Mary can share that with the committee.”
K. Alwes said, “All of these data and numbers are part of the reason the GE Committee needs time to go through this, but with their promise that they will go through this with as much elacricity as possible, with arrangements where we can do it as fast track or a special meeting. I don’t think we’re going to have a problem with the end of the semester, I really don’t. I think we can finish, as Mary said, we can do the more contentious issues after, the infusion issues, and I think we can have this finished by the end of semester. I am almost positive of this. So I don’t think we are going to run into any problems.”
M. King: asked, “Are we ready to vote on this?”
M. Scala stated, “Just from the student’s perspective and I can also bring this up in Student Senate as well, if you offer extra credit to a student for this in my experience it’s more likely it will get done and done more efficiently, if you offer an incentive.”
K. Alwes said, “A small correction about the language. We’ve got be careful. We are calling it extra credit. If we call it extra credit, it is voluntary…I think what we are talking about it’s class credit….”
M. Scala said, “Sorry.”
K. Alwes said, “No. It’s been called that before, Mike. What we are calling it, what we are saying…because extra credit means you are doing outside of class credit so we are really talking about simply credit or no credit.”
S. VanEtten added, “Only since we have been doing SUNY based tests. Previously it was voluntary. That’s why they make the distinction.”
M. King asked the Senate if they were ready to vote.
J. Walkuski: I have another question, sir. The date 10/24 is that when report is to be delivered to Steering Committee? Why 5 weeks? I am just curious? Can be it be done in 3 weeks?”
M. King said, “It will be done in 3 weeks.”
J. Walkuski said, “Then shouldn’t we amend the motion to say it’s that critical, this is a critical issue for this campus?”
M. King stated, “If you’d like to amend it you can make a motion to amend.”
J. Walkuski said, “I would like to make a motion that report
be made to the Steering Committee be switched from 10/24 to
M. McGuire said, “If you want there to be input from faculty at large, if you want us to be able to get input I don’t think it’s feasible. I need to organize a committee, which I will attempt to do in the next couple of days. We need to get numbers from Shawn. I think that’s putting too much time pressure, we need time to get real input.”
D. Berger said, “May I yield the floor to David Miller?”
D. Miller stated, “I am, hopefully, going to be chair of this committee and it will take a week for Shawn to get the preliminary data. It’s going to be very difficult but we will try, but the 24th is more realistic for me.”
J. Governali asked, “Can I get a better idea of the kind of data you are trying to gather?”
D. Miller stated, “I’ve asked for analysis of certain types of data that we apparently have. I’d like to see a longitudinal analysis of the data with respect to credit, no credit, what these numbers look like and what the difference is when credit is offered versus no credit. I’d like to give a sense to everyone on the committee pertaining to that information.”
S. VanEtten said, “I will have it by close of business Friday.”
D. Miller remarked, “Another case will be an online survey of the faculty and perhaps the students, with respect to their opinions about the issues. It will take time to set that up and take time to analyze the data. I have done this before. I was on the Tardy Student Committee and think that was a pretty good effort. It was a very clean process, and we’d like to replicate that.”
K. Alwes explained that she and Mary McGuire had a long discussion the week prior and Alwes indicated she was swayed by her reason as to why her committee would like to accomplish their charge as soon as possible, “…but to put a date of 3 weeks instead of 5, she felt that was very difficult to do because of all the things they plan to do for the charge.”
M. King took a vote for those in favor of the amendment for changing the deadline date for GE to report back to the Senate Steering Committee from 10/24 to 10/10.
J. Walkuski asked for a show of hands for the record.
M. King asked for a vote with a show of hands on the
amendment which was defeated (
D. Berger said, “May I just comment that does not mean we will not do it sooner.”
K. Alwes expressed her agreement.
M. King conducted a vote which was approved.
Provost said, “This is a plea from your Provost. I would like to put what just happened into broader context and to say that oftentimes I am the person at the frontline with system or the state in matters pertaining to academic policies, etcetera. And I realize that the shift of this process is one of give and take in that it requires time. I ask the Faculty Senate to consider often the positions in which I am placed, in which I have to respond to system in a timely manner, and in scheduling the activities to please keep that in mind. For instance, the letter came when faculty were away so I could not bring this to Faculty Senate and brought it as early as I could, I asked your cooperation and indulgence in trying a some point in the future to try and expedite so that the campus is best rep in the best way.”
XII. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no new business.
XIII, AREA SENATOR’S REPORTS:
J. Hendrick asked, referring to the Minutes, if there is any way they can be put on the web including attachments in PDF versions of things on there. She indicated that they refer to reports that are not there and can not be found..
The Chair responded that he thought there was some say to accomplish that.
XIV. STUDENT SENATOR’S REPORTS:
M. Scala explained that he was distributed a package of committee information regarding student participation on such committees. He explained that SGA recruited senators for these committees, informing the Senate that each student senator has to serve on two committees and that there are senators who have served on multiple committees in excess of their requirements, which he was very pleased with. He reported that if anyone has a committee they need representation on those individuals can have a copy of those student’s names and their contact information.
K. Boyles further explained that SGA is still adding to the committees, so if someone is on a committee that is still not filled to please contact them.
Y. Murnane added that the Graduate Faculty Executive Committee needs a graduate student representative.
D. Ritchie reported that there is only one student whose name is listed for the LRPC and his committee requires two and asked Scala how to proceed.
M. Scala responded that SGA is still in the process of recruiting more students this week, in addition to working on bulletins across campus to get the word out. He explained that in the next month, hopefully, they would be able to fill not just one extra rep, but hopefully initial reps, for those committees that still need students.
The meeting was adjourned at .