Case Study: Partnering with Faculty on Education Policies

1. Case Study: Partnering with Faculty on Education Policies Michele Gross, Director University Policy Office 10/15/09

2. The University of Minnesota • Established in 1851 as a land-grant institution • Five campuses • President: Dr. Robert Bruininks • 66,099 students • 19,274 employees* • $619.2 million in sponsored awards *Not including student employees

3. U of M policies policy.umn.edu • 89 Board of Regents policies (umbrella) • 193 U-wide administrative policies • 292 administrative procedures • 280 appendices • 29 FAQs • Categories • Research, HR, Finance, Information Technology, Education and Student Life, Administration and Operations

4. …but we couldn’t touch the Senate policies… • Enhanced our library, our process, our organizational alignment, and our tools in 2007 • Major effort to convert all administrative policies • Launched a comprehensive review of all existing administrative policies • Cautioned about “Senate” policies

5. The startingpoint… • “Senate” policies were housed on the Senate website • Many were extremely outdated • Duplicate or conflicting content existed in multiple policies • No consistent format or writing style • Appeared as though few faculty knew they existed • Implementation or enforcement was “hit” or “miss”

6. The “before” picture Approved by the: University Senate - February 20, 1997Administration - June 16, 1997Board of Regents - no action required Interpretation approved by the:Presented for information to the: Educational Policy Committee - Fall 2002University Senate - October 31, 2002 POLICY ON EXAMINATIONS FOR CREDIT AND PROFICIENCY The University of Minnesota offers "proficiency examinations" and "special examinations for credit" to currently registered undergraduate degree-seeking students which are given at the discretion of the appropriate academic department. In addition, the University, with the concurrence of the appropriate academic department, also recognizes and awards credits based on examinations which are taken as a part of the Advanced Placement program, the International Baccalaureate Program, and CLEP program. Once special exam credit has been awarded, the credits will remain on the student's transcript unless the credit was awarded in error. 1. Proficiency Examinations shall be administered ….

7. The “before” process • A policy issue was raised, discussed, and handled within one or more of the faculty governance groups. • There was limited involvement with the administrative policy owner. • There was no alignment with the University-wide policy development and maintenance process. • No coordination with the University Policy Office.

8. Needs redefined • Faculty launched an effort to improve the policies. • The original goal was to simply reformat to the standard administrative policy. • Once started, the need for major overhaul was recognized and the goal was redefined.

9. Quest for success • 43 policies were reviewed in detail • Policy drafts were created, in partnership with the Policy Office • Reviewed with the Faculty Senate • Multiple open forums were held • Presented to key constituent groups • A 30-day open comment period was offered and advertised

10. The outcomes • This effort improved clarity and filled in identified gaps in existing educational policies. • By moving the documents to the policy library, it provides ease of use and accessibility for all users of the policies. • Faculty are finding, reading, and commenting on the policies! • The effort aligned with the University’s broader initiative to improve policies that govern the operations of the University.

11. The “bonus” outcomes • The policies are current. • All administrative policies, including those on education, appear in the same format and structure. • Historical components are tracked, with effective dates, due to the tool used with the other administrative policies.

12. Even more bonuses! • Administrative owners are identified for each of the policies, and responsibilities clarified. • Concerns/suggestions for improvement go directly to the units that can evaluate and incorporate them. • The success of this effort is launching similar work at each of the coordinate campuses. • The faculty governance is now requesting that other policies, not currently in the library, be added (e.g., student athlete policies).

13. The “after” picture

14. The “after” process • Policy issues are raised and discussed in one or more of the faculty governance groups. • The administrative policy owner decides if the proposed change should be made. • If this is a new policy or a major change to an existing policy, it is reviewed by the Policy Advisory Committee, and approved by the President’s Policy Committee. • There is close coordination with the University Policy Office.

15. ..and now, the rest of the story. • The relationships are strong and cooperative. • Policies and related information are getting to the target audience (faculty, staff and students). • Faculty and students have a means to comment or ask questions.

16. University of Minnesota Policy Office http://policy.umn.edu policy@umn.edu Michele Gross, Director 612-624-8081 m-gros@umn.edu