Welcome to the Feb General Assembly!

Extending Student Input into the ITS Priority Setting Process

Sue WorkmanVice President of ITS and CIO of CWRU

CWRU Major Project Prioritization

Overview for 2015

Goals

• Include a broader constituency• Increase input from faculty and students• Streamline process • Enable increased participation of stakeholders by

leveraging Adobe Connect to present and review project information

• Create standardized scoring rubric to assist with recommendation and evaluation of projects

Purpose

• Recommend annual investment priorities• Review, prioritize and recommend significant proposals

for large technology projects with broad institutional impact

• Monitor the portfolio of projects and recommend strategies to resolve major resource conflicts

• Not engaged in approving small projects, required maintenance or operational decisions

Participants

• President’s Council• FSCICT• GSS• USG• ITS• CFOs• CTOs• ITSPACProcess will be administered by ITS Project Management Office

Inclusion Threshold for Review

>= $100,000or

>= 750 ITS FTE hoursor

University-wide impact

Projects meeting the criteria will be included in the governance process

November - December Capital budget approved

DecemberSend Request to ITSPAC Subcommittee Leaders to request project submission

January Project proposals prepared and submitted by EOM

FebruaryProposals shared and evaluated

MarchFinalize proposed list and roll up the recommendations to the EITC

MarchRecommendation shared with the EITC

April EITC feedback on project list

April Project List shared with ITSPAC

JuneProposed list and assign funding finalized

Planning Cycle

Schedule 2015

• Week of Jan 19• Notification that project submissions are now being

accepted• Feb 13

• All projects submitted• Feb 16 – Feb 25

• Projects presented during pre-scheduled webinars• Archives maintained for on-demand viewing/reviewing

• Feb 27• All scoring rubrics submitted

Accreditation Update

Donald FekeVice Provost of Undergraduate education

Graduate Student Senate meetingFebruary 4, 2015

Accreditation Update

Donald Feke, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education

CWRU’s Institutional Level Accreditation• Is granted by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of

the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools• Maintenance of accreditation status is important because

• It certifies that CWRU complies to minimum standards for institutions of higher learning

• It enables CWRU to award federally based financial aid• It affords certain privileges to our students (e.g., the ability to

transfer course credits)

Institutional Accreditation - background• CWRU is accredited (since 1967, and even earlier)

• Accreditation maintenance:• Annual report (financial and non-financial)• Change requests (as needed)• Reaffirmation process, which occurs on a

ten-year cycle• CWRU was last reaffirmed in 2005• HLC mandates, dual purposes of accreditation:

(1) assure quality; (2) help institutions improve.

New Accreditation Model – Pathways

• Previously, institutions were required to perform a lengthy self-study (with the themes of quality assurance and quality improvement intertwined), to gather and organize many supporting documents, and to host an extensive site visit every ten years.

• The HLC wished to make the accreditation process more efficient and valuable for the institution, and needed to respond to external pressures about accountability for institutions of higher education.

• The Pathways model separates the quality improvement component from the quality assurance part both conceptually and temporally.

HLC Quality Improvement Project • “Stretch project” for the institution, broad in scope,

appropriate to mission.• Concept for CWRU’s QI project was derived from the 2008

strategic plan – Strategic Interdisciplinary Alliances.• Project proposal reviewed and approved by the HLC (2010).• Has been used by the HLC as a model Quality Initiative.• CWRU’s Quality Initiative report was submitted in June,

2014.• Satisfaction of this accreditation requirement judged by

“serious effort.”• HLC reviewed and accepted CWRU’s report in September,

2014.

HLC Quality Assurance• Within Pathways, institutions no longer perform a self-study.

Instead, the institution presents evidence that the accreditation criteria and federal compliance regulations are met, and writes an assurance argument that guides the reader through the evidence.

• The assurance argument is a set of web documents, much shorter than a self-study (35,000 words maximum, with hyperlinked evidence files) and is reviewed remotely by the accreditation team. No expectation of preparing a document “Resource Room.”

• The accreditation team is smaller than previously (5 members vs. 12-15 in the past).

• The accreditation visit is shorter than previously (1.5 days on campus vs. 2.5 days in the past). CWRU’s accreditation visit is scheduled for April 13-14, 2015.

HLC Accreditation Criteria –Focus on good practice

CWRU must show that it:• is clear about its mission• operates with integrity, is truthful in how it

presents itself, follows its own rules, is responsive to all of its constituencies, etc.

• has the resources, support structures, and planning processes to carry out its mission.

• verifies that it is succeeding

Federal Compliance Requirements – Focus on accountability

CWRU must demonstrate that it:• awards academic credits and degrees

appropriately• responds to student complaints in a timely

manner• properly verifies the identity of students in

distance education programs• satisfies reporting requirements

Quality Assurance – Preparations to Date• A task force comprised of representatives from each

school/college, working in 2011-12, compiled school-based evidence that may be useful for the assurance argument.

• Potential evidence documents from central administration reviewed.

• Gap analysis – areas where CWRU needed to develop more evidence (processes, policies, data, and reports).

• Five gaps were identified

Quality Assurance – Gap Areas

• Assurance of integrity for distance learning • Complaint logs – evidence of systematic attention to

student complaints • Retention and persistence rates – all programs • Access to syllabi (including learning objectives, and

justification of credit hours awarded if taught on non-standard schedule) – all courses

• Outcome assessment – all programs

Quality Assurance – Preparations to Date• HLC Assurance Argument Committee

• College of Arts and Sciences – Peter Whiting• Case School of Engineering – Gary Wnek• FPB School of Nursing – Jaclene Zauszniewski• Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences – Zoe Wood• School of Dental Medicine – Sorin Teich• School of Law – Dale Nance• School of Medicine – Patricia Thomas • Weatherhead School of Management – Jennifer Johnson• Outcome Assessment – Susan Perry• Institutional Research – Jean Gubbins

Quality Assurance – Current Status

• Draft of the assurance argument completed. Currently being reviewed by the Assurance Argument Committee.

• 26 documents• ~575 evidence documents

• Federal Compliance report being compiled.

HLC Site Visit Team • Dr. Jan M. Murphy (team chair)

Professor of Human NutritionIllinois State University

• Dr. Mary Ann DanielsonAssociate VP for Academic Excellence & AssessmentCreighton University

• Dr. David L. GradyAssociate Vice President and Dean of StudentsUniversity of Iowa

• Dr. Elizabeth HamiltonAccreditation and Planning OfficerWest Virginia University

• Dr. Andrew Ihielu NwanneChief Academic Officer and ProvostNew Mexico State University, Carlsbad

Quality Assurance – What lies ahead?

• Request broader campus input on the assurance argument and Federal Compliance report drafts

• Incorporate feedback and finalize documents. (March 16 is the “lock date”)

• Solicit third-party comment from CWRU’s constituencies (January – February)

• Conduct HLC’s student survey (February)• Inform campus about the accreditation process and site visit• Plan details of site-visit with team chair (early February)• Host site visit (April 13-14)

Questions??

How can the GSS assist?• respond to requests to provide input on the

assurance argument or federal compliance report

• be aware of the accreditation process; inform others

• take part in the HLC Student Opinion Survey• take part in the site visit (e.g. at an open

forum)

Relay for Life

Stipend Task Force

– Thank you for filling the survey out and giving feedback!

– Addressing senator’s main survey concerns• Anonymity

• Personal nature of some questions

• Lack of Qs for those without stipends

Stipend Task Force

– Distribution of the Survey & How Senators Can Help• Fill it out (if you haven’t already)!

• Post flyers in your department

• Hand out cards and put them in students’ department mailboxes

• Forward emails

• Spread the word

• Provide feedback

• Attend upcoming task force meetings

– Next Steps• GSS Resolution—feedback welcome!

• Next meeting:

Task Force on Travel Funding

– Goal: Vote in April to pass a GSS resolution on travel and research funding.– Objectives of resolution:

• 1. Ask upper administration to direct a university task force on graduate student travel funding.

• 2. Request that development funds (as part of the capital campaign) be used to target new funding for graduate student travel and research.

• 3. Identify a long term goal for travel and research funds independent of department’s resources.

• 4. Establish travel and research funding as a priority for the Alumni and Development Office, and guarantee a graduate student presence on committees and task forces charged with fulfilment.

– February: Collect data from stipend survey, benchmark peer institutions.– March: Draft resolution, meet with upper administration, and distribute resolution

for senators to review prior to vote.– How can you help?

• Make sure you and your constituents take the stipend survey!

• Assist with benchmarking peer institutions.

• Raise awareness in your department—get people talking at grassroots level.

– Questions? Suggestions? Email Ray Horton: rlh137@case.edu

SGS Graduate Student Travel Award

– SGS currently supports a travel award, worth up to $500 for U.S. and $1,000 for international travel. Departments required to match.*

– Recently, this has been depleted very quickly. (This year, gone by mid-October.)

– One problem: frequently being used for international travel ($1,000 max), when majority of potential beneficiaries would use for U.S. travel ($500 max).

– Possible solution: eliminate the $1,000 option and cap award at $500, regardless of travel destination.

• This would allow more students to access the award.

• It would also be more equitable for students whose travel needs arise later in the academic year.

– SGS interested in our opinion: vote during March GA.

Intergovernmental Task Force

NeetuChair of Intergovernmental Task Force

International Spouse Support Group

Cami, International Student and Scholar LiaisonArlene, Volunteer at ISF

Tobacco Free Campus Committee

Jessica Slentz, Graduate Representative Marketing and communications subcommittee

Grad Student Sustainability Council

– Recruiting Grad/Professional Students– Are you interested in sustainability?– Interested in how the campus can reduce, reuse and recycle

waste?– Contact Didi Mamaligas- aam45@case.edu

Case Cycling Club

– Spin session: • Monday @ 5pm, Thursday @ 6pm, Saturday @ 10am in the Veale Spin

Room • Spin-only dues are $20 for unlimited sessions, or $5 per session • First time is free for students

– Website: www.casecycling.com & www.facebook.com/CaseCycling– President: Matthew Swartout (matthew.swartout@case.edu)

New Business

• New Business– Comments on the Year?– Announcements?

• Motion to Adjourn?– Second?