Thursday, January 26 – ASH 208
Members Present: Dan Formanowicz, Tom Ingram, Tony Sol, Alba Ortiz, Dean Neikirk, Elizabeth Heise, Bobbette Morgan, Murray Leaf, David Cordell, Carl Lieb,
UT Student Assembly - Tim Allen
Review of November BOR Meeting –
The FAC discussed the issue of asking again for a Faculty Regent. Faculty support having a representative, but the process for selecting the representative is the challenge.
The taskforce on Post Tenure Review has modified the revisions to RR 31102 that include many of the issues raised at the Sept FAC meeting in the resolutions. Copies of the revised proposed policy were distributed for the FAC to review.
Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa
David Daniel is chairing the search committee for the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
The meeting the Chancellor had with President Obama included discussions on student debt, while focusing on excellence in education.
There is good progress on the framework. The framework has resulted in several working groups – lowering student debt lead by Scott Kelly, Student advising and using technology in advising led by Pedro Reyes, and a group about student evaluation of faculty led by Pedro Reyes.
How can we augment the office of Federal Relations in Washington DC. How do we develop more liaisons with the federal agencies, NIH, NSF, DoE etc. We will increase the video conferences to Washington.
Scival and Academic Analytics is a bibliographic search looks for books published and articles published and citations. They take into consideration the impact factor of the journals. These are more comprehensive than other citation indexes. These are being considered to help with workload documentation.
Is it possible for System to look at the past decade for tuition per FTE, state appropriations, considering inflation rates, removing TRB’s etc. Then compare the campus’ to the peers?
We continue to update the post tenure review policy for the Feb BOR.
Unwinding the partnership for UT Brownsville and Texas Southmost College is a top priority.
Q – Has anyone looked at the students who attend CC and what the impact has been on the 3rd and 4th year of education of these students?
Q- General point – Dan, Tim and Murray have visited UTB and it is a gem of a campus with a – How often do you get to start over a campus? It will take the chancellors full attention over the next few months.
Q- What is the vision for developing a medical school in the RGV and Austin?
We will not move forward with the Austin med school at the expense of South Texas. The revenue streams are going to be different because there are different levels of philanthropy and taxing base. No one entity can solve the funding by themselves and we don’t want to do anything to impact the other schools.
Q – Have we overcorrected in terms of student debt in the discussion? The students need to have skin in the game. The students need responsibility for their role in education.
Q- Another issue is to shorten the time to graduation by having undergraduate education prepare students for medical professional programs. Is this a move to eliminate the science depts. at the HSC’s?
Q – Post tenure review can you comment on the resolutions passed at the previous meeting?
Q – The use of “may” rather than shall can cause issues on campus’ where the campus leadership takes the minimum.
The STARS program has focused on persons who were within 5 years of election to national academies. The rising STARS portion has been introduced for younger scholars. The awards can go to persons eligible for the national academies, leaders in translational research or for outstanding teachers.
The faculty at the Health campus’ thank the board and Dr. Shine for getting the awards for the health campus’.
The Cyberinfastructure group determined that connecting each campus with 10 Gigabite so they can participate with the national network. All will be at 10 Gigabite by June
Pilot project for data storage for joint research. The data is redundantly stored at UT Arlington and the TAC. This starts on Feb 15.
Price Waterhouse is going to do a roadmap plan for all IT needs at all of the campus’ in the next 6 months. They will visit each campus in Feb and March and meet with representatives of the faculty. The CIO’s will coordinate.
Q- We need to make sure that we have policies in place to make sure that the faculty have control of their own data.
Q – Are the consultants going to consider how we can collaborate with other systems?
There will be a RFP on Feb 15 for 2 system-wide pilot projects for faculty to learn how to compete in innovation. The process’ for developing an idea into a product. There will be courses and seed money for developing the ideas.
Transformation in medical education – begins with undergraduate education for medical education. This program will take students in 6 years from HS to medical degrees.
There is a new initiative for systems engineering for health. The program involves faculty from the academic and health campus’. The idea is to improve the care at the hospitals and make the operations more efficient.
There is a system conflict of interest committee. Made up of the chairs of the campus conflict of interest committees. This is for highly placed individuals at campus’ who need their conflict of interests and looking at their conflict of interest at the campus level. Contact Ken Shine or Barry Bergdorf if there is a case that needs to be reviewed.
Q – Collaborations with medical data is a challenge for academic institutions to comply with HEPA. Will there be help
Report on student evaluations of faculty teaching taskforce
How do we as a system evaluate the faculty on a course-by-course basis with meaningful participation and valid questions?
How do we use online systems to provide immediate feedback during the course of the semester?
How are the during in-course evaluations going to be used?
Can we hire a survey designer to develop a valid instrument?
What is the scope that these data will be used for?
We should separate out during course feedback to the faculty regarding the course and end of course evaluation, too make things clear to the faculty, students, and administration.
We need to manage the perceptions of the public of how these data can be used and what they mean.
Friday, January 27 – ASH 208
Members Present: Dan Formanowicz, Tom Ingram, Tony Sol, Alba Ortiz, Alan Friedman, Elizabeth Heise, Bobbette Morgan, Murray Leaf, David Cordell, Carl Lieb,
Post Tenure Review Policy
Donald Molony moved to withdraw our previous recommendations on Rule 31102 labeled FAC recommendations. Seconded by Richard Castriotta.
There was discussion about the question - does the rescinding of the recommendations weaken the role of the FAC and or does this strengthen the relationship between the faculty and the administration?
We can modify the language of the taskforce policy and insert a reference to the model policy and strengthen the RR.
There are concerns about the annual review process. Each campus develops it’s own campus policy with the faculty governess body. These issues should be addressed with the FAC developed model HOP policy.
Tom called the question. Passed by more than 2/3.
Vote for the motion to withdraw our previous recommendations on Rule 31102 labeled FAC recommendations. 24 Yes, 5 No, 1 Abstain – Motion passed.
By pursuing a unified approach we put ourselves in a position to continue to protect faculty rights.
Richard Castrioltta moved that the UT System Faculty Advisory Council endorse the unified taskforce recommendations for revising RR 31102 with amendments as discussed by the Executive Committee on January 27, 2012 with the substitution of shall with may in section 5.6 g 4, and support Chancellor Cigarroa. Donald Molony seconded.
Linda Matthews called the question. Passed by more than 2/3.
Vote by secret ballot for the motion that the UT System Faculty Advisory Council endorse the unified taskforce recommendations for revising RR 31102 with amendments as discussed by the Executive Committee on January 27, 2012 with the substitution of shall with may in section 5.6 g 4, and support Chancellor Cigarroa. 26 Yes, 3 No, 2 abstain. Motion passed.
All of the suggested changes in language were approved by OGC by the end of the day.
Michael Crosno, CEO and Chairman, MyEdu
MyEdu is working with UT System campus’ to find a way to help students do semester planning. They are moving students off of a faculty member-based selection onto course-based selection
There was a demo of the current MyEdu and then the new version that was developed in consultation with UT System faculty and administration.
The student fills out a self-assessment of learning and studying styles.
The faculty member fills out a content and workload assessment for each course.
The star ratings are gone in the new version. The recommendations are not posted until the faculty member approves the recommendation.
Grade distribution aggregated by course are on the site. Grade distribution by faculty member can be turned off by the faculty member. There were concerns about the posting of grade distributions because of the implied endorsement of the UT System of grade shopping. Grade distribution is going to be used by employers to see the performance of recruits relative to the course grade distribution.
Sandra Woodley, Vice Chancellor for Strategic Initiatives – Report on UT System Dashboard
The Chancellor’s Framework for Excellence includes a Dashboard. The first phase is live on the System webpage.
The link at the top for Core Indicators takes a user into the dashboard. Data on Student Success, Faulty, Research and Technology Transfer, Healthcare, and Productivity.
The data can be drilled down and will automatically graphed.
If there are data that you would like available on the dashboard send an email to Sandra Woodley.
There are focus groups working to identify the data for the Topical Dashboards on Student Success, Faulty, Research and Technology Transfer, Healthcare, and Productivity.
SciVal already has data on MD Anderson available on the website.
There will be a Webinar with Academic Analytics
12:00 – 1:00 pm Pedro Reyes, Executive Vice Chancellor, ad interim
Thank you for working with System on the post tenure review policy with the model policy will help with the future of the working of the FAC with the System. The Chancellor welcomes the FAC input on policies.
The Chancellor’s Framework has working groups working on the different parts.
Q- Can information that is shared with a taskforce member be distributed to the rest of the FAC or is it confidental? A- of course.
One thing that we are looking at is what are the best practices in peer evaluation of faculty? There is a group being set up to study the best practices.
There is a group looking at the department chairs. We know that there are some mediocre chairs. The group will work on improving the quality of the chairs. System are looking for volunteers.
Q - UTSA has a chair development program that should be included in this.
System will be looking at the Administrations of the different campus’ to ensure that the scale is appropriate. The hope is to create efficiencies. 2 or 3 will be reviewed per year.
System is looking at ways to capture scholarship data on faculty to show a more complete picture of the faculty workload. SciVal and Academic Analytics are being looked at.
Q- What is the cost? Has not yet been negotiated. TAMU is paying $30-35 per faculty member for Academic Analytics.
The state is requiring the review of the existing all doctoral programs on a 6 year cycle unless it is being reviewed by a subject matter accreditation. The coordinating board changed the process for approving new doctoral programs now the System will review the programs and approved by the Regents prior to sending the proposal to the coordinating board for external review.
Q- Do you have any information on the Institute for Transformational Learning? A- Not yet. There will be someone hired to work on this.
UT Student Assembly
We need to establish an Ad-Hoc committee on Graduate Student/Faculty Code of Conduct. David Cordell will chair, Elizabeth Heise, Linda Matthews, David Griffith
The UT System Faculty Advisory Council recommends that the Academic Health Science Centers establish a central, collaborative core to foster development of best practices for delivery of quality care for underserved populations. We assert that by instituting partnerships with local and regional social service agencies to establish community-based clinics, it will be possible to develop models of care for indigent patients while also creating venues that will serve as training grounds for our medical, nursing, and health professions students. Doing so will address access to health care for all patients, will offer learning opportunities for our students with culturally diverse populations, will enable our faculty to model for our students ethical and professional behaviors, and will increase community health, safety, and resilience.
The FAC would like this to go the Chancellor Cigarroa and Vice Chancellor Shine and then to BOR.
It should be the policy of the UT System that faculty must have a major role in distinguishing which policies affecting faculty are addressed in the HOP and which are addressed outside of the HOP.
Policies affecting faculty that are not included in the HOP still require review by the faculty governance body.
In interpreting the OGC model policy for the HOP amendment approval process, it should be understood on all campuses that the university HOP Committee does not make academic policy and cannot override the bodies that do make academic policy.
Committee moved Murray Leaf seconded passed unanimously.
Resolution #2 – Establishment of Guidelines/Policies for Resolutions
The Governance Committee recommends that the UT FAC resolves that:
Since the UT FAC only meets three times per year, communications of events and actions affecting the FAC that occur between meetings must be robust. How do we better enable effective communication within the UT FAC and provide effective follow-up to UT FAC member requests for information?
There are concerns that the time pressures of this meeting are causing concerns about the short notice and the ability for the body to meet the one week. Also there were concerns that as a resolution this may limit the FAC’s ability to respond to items quickly.
The evolution of the policy development by the FAC has led to some challenges to communication.
Resolution from the committee seconded by Linda Matthews. Yea 13, No 5, abstain 5. Passed.
Academic Affairs and Faculty Quality
Richard Castriotta moved that FAC should make inquiries be made to UT System to set up and fund for virtual meetings when needed. Second Linda Matthews. Passed.
Move to adjourn Murray Leaf second Donald Molony