FACULTY SENATE 2005-06

MEETING MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING FOR NCA REPORT REVIEW

March 2, 2006

RSC 217, 2:30p

PRESENT: Chip Beal, Dave Carroll, Orv Clark, Maria Cuzzo, Martha Einerson, James Holter, Laura Jacobs, Marshall Johnson, Peter Nordgren, Chuck Reichert, Cecilia Schrenker, Chad Scott, Ralph Seelke, Gloria Toivola, Faith Hensrud, Deb Nordgren ,Deborah Schlacks, Joel Sipress

ABSENT: David Kroll, Susan Loonsk

EXCUSED: Michael Waxman, Matt Faerber, Nick Sloboda

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 21, 2006. Clark/Nordgren moved to approve. Unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

I. NCA Academic Service-Learning (S-L) Report. Dr. Faith Hensrud

Carroll thanked the presenters for all their hard work. Faith Hensrud

distributed an executive summary of their ASL report. ASL group wanted a clear definition of service-learning. Their focus is not on community service, rather academic service-learning, so that active learning takes place in a community service, and includes a high degree of reflection. This is more than simply volunteering in the community, and includes coming back to the classroom and reflect on the service--how did the learning connect with the objectives of the course? This campus has a connection with Campus Compact, a national group which includes engagement at the institutional level, and instills civic responsibility in students. We are a member of Wisconsin Campus Compact since 2002 (see Executive Summary). Engagement includes internships, volunteerism, continuing education, and we need to focus on the link to curriculum. They conducted a service-learning survey on campus with 44 responses, and approximately 52% of the respondents use some aspect of service-learning in their courses (15 faculty across 11 disciplines). Of those who do not use S-L, 62% said they have an interest in doing so. This group also conducted a Service-learning Institute with 23 participants.. Hensrud summarized their 3-stage model, which specifically does not simply add community service as a component.

They recommend campus implement at least at Stage 2, and preferably Stage 3. Stage 3 implementation is really where we should go if we want to embrace S-L and truly make this a part of our public liberal arts mission. They learned that S-L can link to multiple disciplines.

The key component to implementation is that it cannot be done half-way. We must create a commitment and carry through.

The second page of the summary includes the strengths of S-L along with an internet link to learn more about S-L.

Toivola asked if this would be a centralized process? Yes, Hensrud suggested that the expertise of an individual could help individual faculty and departments make connections to the community. Definitions of S-L vary.

Carroll asked Hensrud to address the breadth of interest and participation across campus. Hensrud stated that interest varies, dependent on the department. She does not believe every single discipline and course should be required to do S-L, however, this campus should come up with what S-L means to the institution. Carroll is not clear if this group is in favor of a graduation requirement. Hensrud said that this component is vital to a liberal arts education, however, they do not recommend a specific graduation requirement.

Seelke asked what we would not do so that we could do S-L. Hensrud suggested that institutional support was key. Sipress stated that initially hard monies were vital, so that grant monies could be sought for specific initiatives later. Hensrud is the campus liason for Campus Compact, and she understands how much work is involved in simply sharing the information. Recently, she helped write a proposal for some federal funds to implement S-L.

Nordgren asked what other alternatives to counting hours of community service? How do we assess if a student has been successful? Hensrud answered that there are books written on assessment of S-L, so resources are plentiful.

Cuzzo asked what Senate is supposed to do with this? Carroll answered that Senate will incorporate their recommendations, and a sense of the Senate’s view on all four (4) reports. We could follows AAC’s model and NOT make formal recommendations. Another possibility is an attempt to combine by ranking the proposals. He is concerned that Senate should be quite clear about what we believe on each proposal. When he and Sipress met with Jan Hanson, they discussed the possibility of writing a DIN based generally on our liberal arts mission, and the five 5 initiatives taken together would allow us to enhance our mission. Sipress added that by March 24^th, a proposal will go to System for an increase in base budget to fund initiatives related to our public liberal arts mission, and we want to know if Senate supports all 5 or some of them, and if we are in favor of full recommended funding to be included in the DIN proposal. Sipress would like a formal message from Senate, stating which items should be included in the recommendations. Carroll added that we should decide if we want to carry out all of these initiatives. If we are in favor we should make a motion on each, as we go along. He suggests that this is the best way to make the final job clearer. Sipress suggested we discuss that if we could get a base budget increase, is this something we want to do?

Cuzzo is concerned about the money being requested in base budget, so that we should avoid rank ordering until we absolutely have to, and wait to see what funding comes forward. We have selected these already, according to P. Nordgren.

Cuzzo/Beal moved to adopt a 3-stage implementation strategy for academic S-L provided that we receive additional GPR base funding and FTE positions, through a DIN request or other request.

Holter expressed concern about how this can go forward, given the cost and efforts required. Johnson stated that if we have decided this is important, we should formalize it and institutionalize it. Toivola brought up the need for an additional DIN for more positions and increased faculty salaries, including increased FTE. This was added to the original motion. Holter again expressed concerns about the additional positions and salaries requested. Jacobs stated that we are talking at slightly crossed purposes, and the ASL proposal offers one model of how we can proceed, and the overlap between reports suggests that we can integrate coordinators/director positions between the recommended reports. Toivola echoed this support.

A vote was taken on the motion, 11 yes, 1 no.

II. NCA WAC Report. Dr. Deborah Schlacks

Deborah Schlacks distributed an executive summary of the WAC report. She presented some introductory remarks. She stressed the centrality of a Writing Center (WC). There is lots of research on this topic, and they examined a good deal of this research. The WC here is only partially funded, and the director is limited in what she can accomplish, however, the WC does already exist. She further summarized their report, stating it would be difficult to not have a program coordinator. Many programs also have an advisory committee to assist the coordinator. Campus-wide buy-in is important. The Student -Centered model emphasizes the WC as the hub. This group recommends a UW-Superior hybrid model, which integrates components of all three (3) models. She finished her summary of the full report.

Toivola asked about the budget, and asked if full funding of Freshman English mean ad hocs or full faculty. Schlacks means they don’t want to see Freshman comp courses suffer in any way. Toivola further asked if the resources would be well placed--for tutors. Einerson stated that infusing the WC felt premature given that no program would be in place. Jacobs stated that library staff have anecdotal evidence that students need the WC more than it’s available. Beal suggested we request the full amount, rather than the first year funding only. Carroll clarified that phased in funding (over 3 years, for example) and additional funds are possible, even likely. Sipress clarified that the Student Development Model is straightforward and a good place to start, and then spend a year or two to fill in the other models.

Cuzzo/Toivola moved to implement the WAC proposal, as specified in the summary report, provided that additional GPR base be provided and FTE positions requested be funded.

Schrenker expressed concern at the emphasis on “provided,” suggesting that nothing will go forward without external funding. Carroll stated that at this point our considerations are internal. Nordgren stated that we are acting on the proposal in front of us for all practical purposes. Should we not get the DIN, we would have time to act before the final NCA report is complete. Beal stated that the last NCA visit demonstrated we were not who we said we were, and as a result of their evaluation, we clearly were not there yet. We need to affirm this, and this body can send a message that we must have this funding. Toivola stated that regarding the DIN, we’ll know if System approves, yet we won’t know if we have the funding for a while after that. At the end of this process, we could resolve that we will attempt to move in these directions as best we can, in the event of insufficient funding. Cuzzo called the question.

A vote was taken on the motion above, with 10 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention.

ADJOURNMENT

Adjourned, at 3:55p.m.

Respectfully submitted this 13^th day of March, 2006.

Martha J. Einerson, Faculty Secretary