Date post: | 27-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | garry-greene |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Extending Student Input into the ITS Priority Setting Process
Sue WorkmanVice President of ITS and CIO of CWRU
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
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)
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: [email protected]
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.
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- [email protected]
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 ([email protected])