1 / 8

Academic Program Priorities

Academic Program Priorities. Context(s) Updates Next Steps. Context: Revision of the 1991 Document (09-11). Task Force created to develop draft (C. Taylor & M. Lee chaired ) Faculty Senate recommends revision to President in S11 ( FS 10-71/Ex. ) President Gonzalez responds (memorandum)

aideen
Download Presentation

Academic Program Priorities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Academic Program Priorities Context(s) Updates Next Steps

  2. Context: Revision of the 1991 Document (09-11) • Task Force created to develop draft (C. Taylor & M. Lee chaired) • Faculty Senate recommends revision to President in S11 (FS 10-71/Ex. ) • President Gonzalez responds (memorandum) • Provost prepares revision based upon the President’s memo (draft) • President requests Senate response by mid-September

  3. 3 Documents • Revised 1991 Policy: (FS 10-71/Ex. ) • President Gonzalez’s memo • Provost’s draft applying the President’s recommendations

  4. Provost’s Draft-Main Features(response to President’s memorandum) • Editorial Revisions designed to improve clarity and flow • Other Academic Programs: Section “V.  Priorities Within Other Academic Programs” has been deleted. • Prioritization Criteria: Section III and IV need to be more intentional and explicit with regard to the university’s core mission – quality instruction and student progress toward graduation. 

  5. Editorial (these appear throughout) Designed to improve clarity and flow without altering the original recommendation, for example: • Quartile placement, which originally took place later in the document is moved up to the second paragraph. 

  6. “Section V :Non-Degree Granting Units”Deleted • The proposed criteria do not apply very well to “non-degree granting units” such as the Library, et al. • Evaluation of “non-degree granting units” should occur under a separate policy and separate criteria

  7. Proposed criteria to be used for prioritization(Section III and IV) • Criteria now categorized as to Primary and Secondary • PrimaryCriteria: those addressing university’s core mission • SecondaryCriteria: all others, including those in original Senate recommendation • Weighted Criteria • 60% Core Mission Criteria • 40% Secondary Criteria

  8. Next Steps—by Mid-September • Discussion here and EC • EC forwards draft response to Senate • Senate reviews and acts • President reviews

More Related