September 6, 2001
Attendance: Michael Hummel (p) Mary Hall (p)
Keith Blundell (p) Mark Henry (p)
Peggy Brockenbush (p) Jerry Scheerer (p)
Jackie Cole (p) Joe Sekul (p)
Marty Domke (p) Fred Spaulding (a)
Larry Garrett (p) Marjorie Stewart (p)
Gary Hall (p) Mark Zafereo (a)
Call To Order: Hummel called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.
Introduction: Hummel introduced Sandy Bohac as the new secretary for the SACS Steering Committee.
Minutes: No corrections were made to Minutes from the August 16, 2001.
Section I: Sekul reported that his group was moving along nicely and identifying problems. He stated he was in the nudging process. He said he needed clarification on curricula area and much discussion followed. Also Microsoft Office 2000 does not work with Microsoft 97, which he and others have at home. That impedes their ability to work on SACS business at home. He understood that each division could purchase a copy of Office 2000 for $25.00 and division members could use these on home computers to complete work. Hummel said he would check into it. Sekul stated his group had to turn in their materials on the 10th of this month.
Section III: Domke reported that her group was going pretty well. She divided her section into sub-committees and they all had copies of their section of the manual. Her committee’s next meeting is set for the 14th of this month.
Section IV.1;IV.2.2-2.5;IV.6: Cole reported that she has assigned members of her subcommittees into teams of two that will meet together in September to come up their plans of action.
She asked if wording in the Criteria Manual concerning
instructional techniques and methods of instruction applied to each instructor
or to types of instructional delivery. The consensus was that it
applied to individual teachers. Should this criteria be addressed by using
student evaluation of instruction forms, separate survey questions, or Division
Chair evaluations? The consensus was that all were acceptable.
Does the term “non-traditional courses” apply to interim only or also to ITV, on-line, and flex-entry-and-exit courses? The consensus was that it applied to interim and flex-entry-and-exit courses.
Clarification was needed on SACS’ definition of “curriculum.” Consensus was that it applied to specific courses, not to degree plans or programs, which are covered in other criteria.
Discussion followed on the role of the Academic Council as
well as completion requirements for courses. The terms “appropriate” and “adequate” were discussed
with the consensus that if we have a formal process involving qualified
personnel then that would be considered “adequate” or “appropriate.”
Section IV.2.1; IV.4; IV.7; IV.8; IV.9: Stewart reported that her committee also had some definition problems, particularly concerning what constitutes substantive change. Hummel will get clarification from Donna Wilkinson. Discussion followed concerning the use of other self-studies as a reference and where they are available. Hummel gave Sheerer some information he received from Donna Wilkinson and Tim Rampey regarding other institutions that have recently been through the process and he asked Sheerer to check on the availability of self-studies from those colleges. Stewart stated that her sub-committees are meeting to develop questions that need to be asked and are using the Criteria Manual to generate the questions.
Section IV.5: Spaulding was absent
Section V.1: Blundell reported that he has divided his committee into groups of three. They were to meet Friday afternoon. He felt positive they had a handle on what they need to do. A question was discussed concerning what the terms “libraries” and “other learning resources” mean. Blundell stated the study refers heavily to standards for libraries. Discussion followed concerning the ACLR standards and if this was to be the bar for measuring library adequacies. The question was asked if the library has a report that compares libraries and Stewart said yes and such reports would be useful tools for the Committee.
Section V.2; V.3; V.4: Garret reported that he has assigned two different areas for each sub-committee and that as of today all sub-committees will have met. He has set October 2nd as the deadline for his subcommittees to identify what documentation will be needed
and December 6th for them to turn in a rough draft. He has already received a rough draft from Bill Byers. Discussion followed on how to hot link references into the report.
Section VI: Henry reported all but one in his section have met. He has received only one question so far. He stated his concern about trying to find a common time for all to meet.
Resources Update: Scheerer reported that a link to the Amarillo College Self-Study Report has been established and minutes of the Steering Committee as well as the Board of Trustees for the last three years are now on the web. Hummel and Scheerer will try to locate The Victoria College’s 1982 Self-Study including recommendations and responses. Questions and discussion concerning the upcoming questionnaire followed. Hummel asked that all questions for the questionnaire and focus groups be written down and submitted to Scheerer. Hummel has set the deadline for questions to be turned in for the end of October.
Comments: Hummel noted that in Steering Committee minutes, those points typed in italics represent items that have been assigned or decided and will make it easier to follow-up on those assignments. He reviewed italicized items in minutes of May 3, 2001 and August 16, 200l and noted that all had been addressed.
The Committee reached a consensus on the Interview form.
Discussion followed concerning a way to make it easier to make reference to specific “must” and “should” statements. Within each subsection, “must” statements will be identified sequentially by capital letters and “should” statements by lower case letters. For example, 4.2.3.C is the third must statement in 4.2.3. Likewise the second “should” statement will be identified as 4.2.3.(b)
Hummel emphasized the importance of telling interviewees
ahead of time which must statements will be addressed in the interview. All
interviews must be reported on the Interview Form and be sent electronically to
Sandy Bohac.
The Self-Study Plan and Manual were discussed. Hummel stated that we are behind schedule and must move aggressively to complete them and asked that Mary and Gary Hall meet with him immediately after the meeting.
Hummel reminded members to keep alternate dates for meetings reserved.
A question concerning when to begin interviews was discussed with the consensus to begin immediately.
A question concerning whether there would be a conflict of interest if committee members from the area being addressed are working on a must statement. Consensus was that all faculty will be involved in areas related to their work and that as long as they are not the team leaders it would not be a conflict.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m.