I. Approval of the Agenda for the November 8, 2006 Meeting
II. Report of the Interim Provost
III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 13, 2006 Meeting
IV. Approval of the Minutes of the October 11, 2006 Meeting
V. Report on Main Classroom and other Construction
(Report No. 7, 2006-2007)
VI. University Curriculum Committee
VII. Admissions and Standards Committee
VIII. Report of the President of the University
IX. New Business
PRESENT: Barrow, Bathala, Beasley, Belovich, W. Bowen, Cagan, J. Dean, Doerder, Duffy, Ekelman, Elkins, Gelman, Gross, Hollinger, Loovis, Lundstrom, McCahon, K. O’Neill, Rashidi, G. Ray, Reichert, H. Robertson, Spicer, Steinberg, Welfel, Ziolek.
Barlow, Boyle, Dillard, Dolton, Droney, B. Green, Heinrich, Margolius, Markovic, Mass, Mills, Nuru-Holm, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Spiker, Thornton, Tumeo.
ABSENT: Barlow, Boyle, Dillard, Dolton, Droney, B. Green, Heinrich, Margolius, Markovic, Mass, Mills, Nuru-Holm, M. Saunders, M. Schwartz, Spiker, Thornton, Tumeo.
C. Alexander, Bonder, Bufford, Hanniford, Humer, McLoughlin, Mearns, L. Mooney, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, Sadlek, Scherer.
ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Sutton.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman called the meeting to order at 3:07 P.M.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that a revised amended Agenda was just distributed as people arrived for today’s meeting. Senate President Gelman announced that there are two guests at Senate today and they are Mr. Hugh Holley, a construction manager with the Office of the University Architect and Mr. Jonathan Erdmann who is a mechanical engineer with the Architect’s Office and they will describe the Main Classroom project which is beginning. Also, he noted that if Senate approves this revised Agenda, he will immediately ask for unanimous consent to move the Report of the Interim Provost up to the second place since Dr. Mary Jane Saunders has a flight and will have to leave soon.
Acceptance of the Revised Agenda for November 8, 2006 was moved by Professor Michael Spicer, seconded by Professor Connie Hollinger, and approved.
Senate President Gelman asked for unanimous consent to move the Report of the Interim Provost up to the second position. There were no objections.
Interim Provost Mary Jane Saunders said that she would talk casually today about a few items and then answer questions. She emphasized again our commitment to retention and the importance of faculty in engaging our students and coming up with some interesting and thoughtful ideas about what we can do to make this a terrific educational experience for our students, to challenge our students, and to keep our students interested in completing their degrees at Cleveland State. With that in mind, Dr. Saunders reported on several things happening on the administrative side. She also invited suggestions that can be emailed directly to her. She will be talking to the Deans and Chairs as well.
Interim Provost Saunders noted that we are part of a National Survey on Student Engagement and we were also part of the survey in 2002. So, now we have a comparison of 2002 and 2006. The survey is very detailed and it benchmarks the University against what it defines as a peer group, the peer group defined by the Carnegie Status of Institutions. It was discovered that in our students’ engagement process, the best areas that we have are that students work with other students on projects inside class, they have tremendous contact with diverse peer groups and we actually had a gold star on writing more than a twenty-page paper as part of their experience. Our lowest performing areas, however, are also in the writing area. Students were writing relatively few papers of less than five pages or less than 20 pages and that showed up in both the freshmen survey and in the senior survey which also showed that they had not read more than ten books during the academic year. Those are things that can be worked on. Another area on which we formerly scored much higher and had a very dramatic decrease in the scores from the students was the fact that the seniors reported that they had no capstone experience, no thesis, no senior seminar, no practicum or internship. That is again something that we have within our own hands as faculty – to look at curriculum and think about getting a senior level experience that is a little different then just the classroom experience. Interestingly, the freshmen response from 2002 to 2006 showed improvement in many areas whereas the senior response was virtually flat. That new class of freshmen coming in has perhaps a different view of the institution and what it is offering by way of services, whereas, that group of graduating seniors in 2006 perhaps are still under some of the old models. So, she will be talking to everyone about this and hopefully use this for good information to build programming in the future.
Interim Provost Saunders also reported that she also has recently received a formal proposal to start the University Scholars Program. This was something talked about as part of the Honors Program – going down to that next tier of students that are not qualified under our current qualifications for the Honors Program but are very high performing students. These would be students with an ACT of 25 and above and a high school GPA of 3.2 or a high school GPA of 3.5 and an ACT of 21. There are between 125 and 150 of our students who fall in this category. This will be under Professor Barbara Margolius in the Honors Program and will be called University Scholars and it is going to start up this spring term with implementation beginning next fall. Professor Margolius will, of course, be happy to answer any questions that anyone has about the program. What we want to do with that program is enrich the educational experience of that group of students as well as we have done with the Honors students.
Interim Provost Saunders noted that a Task Force on Developmental Education has been started. Unfortunately, of our entering class of about 1,000 students, about 730 are in either developmental mathematics or English. What we really need to do is to look at the content of these courses, how we are placing students into these courses, and the transition of these courses into the freshmen level, the 100 level courses. We have that Task Force looking at that and we also have both the mathematics and English departments working on proposals to help integrate the developmental courses that are in our freshmen level curriculum. That is something on the table right now.
Interim Provost Saunders reported that there are already many proposals for this upcoming summer for programs on campus. Many of these proposals are tied to the Ohio Core project which is raising the academic standards for high school students in the State – there is some retraining of teachers, retraining of students, and some accelerated work for the students. There are several of these going on and one of those is linked, again through Professor Barbara Margolius, to our Honors Program with a Summer Scholars Program and a second program for students in the Cleveland Municipal School District to come to campus and take mathematics and science courses.
Interim Provost Saunders commented that as everyone knows, at the last Senate meeting she announced the Title III Grant received by Dr. Gitanjali Kaul. She now has a proposal almost ready to go to be circulated to the faculty for faculty self-nomination to work on this process of developing learning communities, of clustering courses together, and of some inter-disciplinary teaching. So be on the lookout for that. Dr. Kaul is coordinating this with both the Gen Ed Task Force and the University Curriculum Committee. This will be tied to the proposed changes to Gen Ed coming up so that there is a smooth transition and so that it fits within both the kind of Gen Ed we offer now and the potential for Gen Ed in the future.
Interim Provost Saunders reiterated the need to look at some different solutions for retention of students and if anybody has any ideas, please email her. She will also be talking with the Deans and Chairs about how to get students engaged while they are here.
Finally, Interim Provost Saunders reported that she had attended the opening of our Men’s basketball season. She thought Lee Reed might be at Senate today. But, she wasn’t aware, and she doesn’t know how many of Senate members are aware of the fact that there are special deals for faculty and staff on tickets where you can buy one and get one free. So she brought along informational brochures on the season ticket plan and also the men’s and women’s basketball schedules and she will leave them at the door so people can take them when they leave the meeting. Interim Provost Saunders added that it is a lot of fun and it would be nice to have faculty and staff there to help support our athletic teams.
Interim Provost Saunders stated that she would be happy to answer any questions.
Professor Joanne Belovich inquired if the scholars’ program is something that has gone through the Faculty Senate. Interim Provost Saunders said that she did not know. Professor Barbara Margolius responded that it is still in the Honors Council right now. Professor Belovich stated that she was a little concerned that a 21 ACT is defining someone as a scholar and that is barely above average or the mean of the ACT and that really demeans our mission. Professor Margolius responded that the 3.5 GPA actually is high. Professor Belovich commented that this is meaningless. She has seen the high school GPAs of students who have high GPAs and to her that is rather meaningless and then to call them scholars, we have to be careful. Interim Provost Saunders replied that Professor Margolius is struggles with this problem of identifying the next tier down that is going to be academically strong here. That is part of the plan. Again, we will wrap it up in standards as we move forward. Professor Margolius noted that the cut-off is actually kind of based on where we are. Professor Belovich stated that if we publicize too many things and call a person a scholar when they are barely in college, you have to be careful. Professor Margolius stated that our intent is not to be tied at that level. That is our idea for the initial class. For the initial class when students apply, send them a letter and say congratulations, you are eligible for this program. If they are not able to continue in it, then they are not able to continue in it. Hopefully over time, we can raise up the level. We want to get the top ten percent or so of our incoming students and hopefully raise their level of preparation. She doesn’t want to stay down there either but if we had a higher cut-off than that, we would have virtually no students from the Cleveland Municipal School District. And, you may think that this is inappropriate but she said that she didn’t think so. Part of the difference between students coming from a system that has fewer placement classes, has teachers who go on leave and are not replaced, etc. essentially puts the students maybe a couple of years behind but they are still very capable, at least some of them are very capable. So we don’t want to rule them out of the box but they probably… If they are not able to meet the requirements of the program, then they wouldn’t be able to graduate with that distinction but we don’t want to exclude them from a chance. We are not throwing money at these students as we are with the honors students. The honors students get a full ride. These students will qualify for other merit-based university-based scholarships but one is not yet part of the scholar’s program. One of the drawbacks of the honors program is that it is not scalable. So we are looking for something which is scalable but will help us to fill in the gap between our mean ACT score which is somewhere around 19 to 20 and students in the Honors program where the mean and mean are both around 21 to 28. Also, this fall we are raising the admissions standards for honors so that the ACT cut-off is 30. We don’t want to lose those other students so we are trying to give them some prestige associated with it and some academic features and not lose them.
Professor Peter Meiksins suggested that since these questions are likely to arise, perhaps it would be prudent of the Senate’s Admissions and Standards Committee which is a standing committee of Senate which routinely discusses questions like this when we changed the entering TOEFL scores and when we create any kinds of admissions standards in the university, we typically ask the Admissions and Standards Committee to discuss it. It is not to prevent the program from happening because most people probably feel it is a good thing to retain good students but perhaps at least we can say that we have talked about these things and come to a collective decision about precisely the questions Professor Belovich asked.
Professor Paul Doerder inquired if the results of the National Survey on Student Engagement were available. If they are, he doesn’t recall seeing them. Interim Provost Saunders replied that they will be available to everybody next Monday. Professor Doerder asked where they will be and will there be an announcement. Interim Provost Saunders said that there will be announcement.
Interim Provost Saunders noted that they are also doing an analysis of where we stand with it and Jeff Chen in Dr. Gitanjali Kaul’s shop is doing that now and she would be happy to share those results with Professor Doerder.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the September 13, 2006 meeting was moved by Professor William Bowen, seconded by Professor Kevin O’Neill, and approved.
Acceptance of the Minutes of the October 11, 2006 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.Senate President Sheldon Gelman reported that about two weeks ago, Professor Bob Mensforth, the chair of the Senate Committee on Academic Space and he attended a meeting organized by the Office of the University Architect along with participation by Fred Kantz of the Provost’s Office and perhaps others. He noted that he found the meeting very helpful. He was grateful to be invited. He was also impressed by the scope of the work that is about to be done at the Main Classroom and it occurred to him – and the Academic Steering Committee agreed – that it would be a good idea to have a similar presentation for the Senate at large. Mr. Hugh Holley, Construction Manger, and Jonathan Erdmann, Mechanical Engineer, agreed to do that and he introduced them to Senate.
Mr. Hugh Holley thanked Senate for inviting him and Jonathan Erdmann to Senate to give everyone some kind of idea of what is going on with the Main Classroom building and some other things as part of the University Master Plan.
Mr. Holley reported that work actually started this week. A fence is going up around the Main Classroom building. Basically, the area from the North end to the South end of the whole plaza level will be torn up and a new shell will be put around it. That is the first phase of this project. This will be an inconvenience for a lot of people who work in the Main Classroom Building. A new fire protection, fire suppression system will be installed. New fire alarms will be put in that won’t be quite as bad because they will mostly be in the hallways but the big part is that we will be installing sprinkler systems throughout the whole building. To give an idea of the scope of the work, over 500 new sprinklers will be installed on the second floor, 620 sprinklers on the third floor, and over 900 sprinklers on the fourth floor. It is quite extensive and it will impact every room. While the work is going on downstairs, there will also be work going on upstairs. The good news is, as far as he is concerned, it will help everyone here because the majority of this work will be done at night so it won’t impact most Main Classroom Building activities and classes. This is kind of a lesson learned from the North Tower and the project that is going on right now. Fewer classes were disturbed and for the earlier disturbance he apologized. He stated that they don’t want that to happen again. They want to keep everyone’s class going. The idea is to build a better facility for everybody.
Mr. Holley stated the entire project for the shell itself will take six and one-half months and that includes the fire suppression system. That is about the magnitude of time to be on the second, third and fourth floors of Main Classroom. Once they get through that phase, there is a build out phase (indicated on posters). This will include new offices for the Bursar’s Office, for Campus 411 – eventually everyone in University Center will end up moving over to the Main Classroom Building.
Mr. Holley noted that another project they will be working on is the 12 th floor in Rhodes Tower. The Admissions Center will be moving to the 12 th floor. There is a lot of juggling and people will be transient for a while until everything is settled down. The main point he wanted to make today is to let everyone know of the University Architect’s web site, csuohio.edu/architects. His name and number are posted on the web site and Mr. Jon Erdmann’s name is posted as well. Mr. Erdmann will be handling the fire suppression part of the work. He helped work with the designer on that. The key is to have everybody get involved. If there is an issue, they want to know about it. Basically, the working hours will be from 10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. They hope to be out of the parking garage and off the site by 8:00 A.M. By the time classes begin, everybody should be out of there. They are trying to make this convenient for everybody as well as for the students. The workers will be working four ten hour shifts. The work will begin on Monday night and go till Friday morning. Mr. Holley noted that there will always be access from the Main Plaza to the Health Science Building and to the Chester Annex ground level. The Chester Bridge will be closed down for a period of time probably starting around the Christmas break going through the Holiday break to the next break. It will be rebuilt and will be tied back in to the Chester Building. Some fire protection work is going on in the parking garage on the lower level. There is a lot of work and activity going on. Again, they are going to try to minimize the impact to the students and to the classes.
Mr. Holley indicated that if anyone has any questions or concerns, they should contact the University Architect’s office.
Mr. Jon Erdmann noted that the reason he and Mr. Holley were at Senate today was to respond to any questions members might have.
Mr. Holley responded to a question Senate President Sheldon Gelman had concerning Main Classroom 105 and 106. Those two classrooms will remain. They will be shut down for a while during construction of the shell. They will be available the following fall semester, 2007. The nice part as members can see on the drawings is that there will be a nice atrium out front that will really dress up the area near the Clock Tower.
Dr. Cheryl McCahon inquired how long the construction will take on the new front of the Main Classroom building on Chester Avenue. Mr. Holley replied that this work should be completed around February 2007.
Dr. Beth Ekelman commented that she knows that the work on the fire and sprinkler systems will be done at night but wondered if those rooms would be useable. Mr. Holley responded that those rooms should be available during the day. They will try to let everybody know and will try to have backup rooms available. He would say that 99.9% of the time those rooms will be available the next day. Now there may be open ceilings and the tile may be missing and the acoustics might not be perfect but the rooms will be useable. He added that they will try to do as much of the work as possible even during the day during the spring break.
An unidentified Senator stated that he had heard that this structure ( University Center) will be torn down and wondered how far along are the plans to relocate everything in this building now. Mr. Holley replied that he was correct about University Center being torn down. He noted that the Main Classroom building is the main area where everyone from University Center will be relocated. If everything in this project is done on time, they are shooting for July but by the end of fall semester 2007 everybody should be out of University Center and demolition will begin in fall 2007.
Professor David Elkins inquired how long the fire suppression activity will take place. He wondered when it will begin and when will it stop. Mr. Holley responded that it should begin within the next week or two. He will have a coordination meeting with the contractor and they will walk around to get him familiar with the rooms and the room heights etc. They have six and one-half months roughly so it will be around mid or late May when the work should be done. Professor Elkins noted that the work will be going on through all of spring semester 2007. Mr. Holley replied that Professor Elkins was correct. He went on to say that by summer 2007 the fire suppression should be totally completed. There will still be activity on the Plaza level where there will be new offices. That is the area they are trying to complete by July 2007.
Professor Beth Ekelman asked if they are planning on leaving the LCD projectors in tact where they are installed on the ceilings. Mr. Holley relied that those will stay in place and the work will be done around them. The plan is to work around everything that is in the classroom. Again, there may be missing ceiling tiles and some things may be moved around but he will try to give everyone notice in certain office areas. He will try to make sure that the contractor has a sequence or plan. Right now the contractor anticipates working on one floor at a time – the second, the third, and then the fourth floor. That is the sequence the contractor gave Mr. Holley a few days ago.
Professor David Elkins asked if the fire suppression devices would be visible. “Once they are complete will faculty, staff, and students see these devices or will they be obscured by panels or something like that?” Mr. Holley responded that they would be visible but they will be recessed in the ceiling. Dr. Elkins inquired if they will be tamper proof. Mr. Holley responded that they would be tamper proof. Dr. Elkins then asked whether a student or someone else could set these things off. Mr. Holley responded that it would be possible. When one of these sprinklers goes off, the fire alarm will also go off. Dr. Elkins wondered then if water would descend from the ceiling as well. Mr. Holley replied that the water would descend from that one sprinkler and not throughout the building. Mr. Jon Erdmann stated that if you look inside the sprinklers there is a little mercury thermal fuse set at a certain temperature and if it gets hot enough where flame reaches it, it will set off that sprinkler head only. In addition, there is a flow switch on the piping system that will activate the fire alarm and then the police will be dispatched in response to that alarm. He added that they are trying to bring up the level of safety in the Main Classroom Building. We are building up the Plaza Level and we are packing in more people over the same space so we have to bring the building up to certain standards.
Finally, Mr. Hugh Holley noted that six new conference rooms will be located in the Southwest side of the building near East 22 nd Street. It will be a glassed in area and those rooms will be available. There will be very nice amenities in that building when the construction is done.Senate President Sheldon Gelman thanked Mr. Hugh Holley and Mr. Jonathan Erdmann for making their telephone extensions available if anyone has any problems or concerns about the construction.
A. Proposed Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy
(Report No. 8, 2006-2007)
Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee presented the committee’s new proposed Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy. There is a lengthy proposal in the meeting packet. This is approximately one quarter of the full proposal that the UCC received which contained appendices and various other things which are required by the State. Obviously a great deal of work went into preparing this proposal. The context for this proposal is essentially that the standard in the field has moved towards the doctoral degree and institutions that want to offer a program in physical therapy and to train people to function in the community as physical therapists are under pressure because of this to ramp up their program to the doctoral level. We have a rather vigorous physical therapy program on campus and it’s currently capped at the MA or the Masters level and this is a proposal to raise it to a doctoral program. If effectively replaces the existing Masters program with a doctoral program which adds approximately another year to the students’ course work. It is not a Ph.D. program; it’s a doctorate of a different kind and that is a recognized distinction in the State’s view. It doesn’t contain a research component so for those of you who were looking for that in this proposal, it is not there because it is not supposed to be. There are several people here at Senate representing the program – Professors John Bazyk and Ann Reinthal and they can answer questions. Professor Steve Slane is also present and he also knows a lot about this proposal. The UCC considered it and asked a lot of questions about it. The committee talked about it for a long time and in the end the UCC recommended it unanimously. The UCC presents this proposal to Senate.
Professor Andrew Gross stated that he had no problem with the content but he humbly suggested that a five page summary is adequate. The hundred page document with a hundred entries for a single author, bibliography included there needed not be sent out to each Senator thereby saving our national forests. Professor Meiksins stated that Professor Gross’ point is well taken. He is not quite certain who would be the person to perform the abstracting that Professor Gross was proposing but he would certainly would encourage programs, when they submit proposals, to submit executive summaries so that we might save a few trees. That is certainly a good suggestion.
Dean Mark Tumeo stated that in that regard there is a summary. He provided everything to the Senate. There is both a summary and everything is also on line so that paper is not necessary if the Senate does not want it.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman stated that the Academic Steering Committee discussed this very issue and in fact the decision to duplicate everything and impact the forests was his and Steering didn’t disagree. He was not confident that they reached the right accommodation, but we excluded much more then we included. We are not on line here and although Peter Meiksins has an unbroken record of producing proposals that never elicit any substantive discussion, it is possible that one day someone will want to discuss the proposal. Having the proposal on line will not help if we don’t have access to the on line data base in this room. So we had to arrive at an accommodation which reflected the interests of this body as a deliberative body. But any case, it was Senate President Gelman’s decision and Steering’s rather than Peter Meiksins’ to reproduce the material.
Professor Stephen Duffy stated that he appreciated the fact that the program isn’t a research oriented doctorate degree but he wanted a little clarification. It is mentioned on page 5 of the Summary, which he thought was very well prepared, that it is not a research program, it is not designed to prepare therapy researchers but, at the same time, they need to be critical consumers of the scientific literature and be able to use research data to design and manage the processes of individual and organizational care. So they have to be able to interpret the literature and then apply the empirical research findings that they have identified. They are going to take a couple of courses on research design, statistics, informatics, etc. and do two applied clinical research projects. It also mentions on page 3 that there are prerequisite courses, 14 in number, primarily sciences. Now, would that include the statistical methodology, research design, etc. It looks to him that you would not need a Masters degree going into the doctorate. You just need these 14 courses.
Professor Ann Reinthal responded that you would need an upper level research design statistics course as an undergrad prerequisite coming into the program. You are admitted to this program with a Bachelor’s degree. You need a prerequisite course, and one of those courses is a research design statistics course. Professor Duffy added, “At the junior, senior level, undergraduate level.” Professor Reinthal responded that Professor Duffy was correct. She went on to say that on top of that in the DPT, you would take a course that is a more advanced statistical analysis research design plus a course on evidence based practice applications. Those are in the first semester of the program. Then that is followed through as part of the other courses in terms of utilizing research evidence throughout the additional course work in the program. Then in the clinical sorts of applications with those research projects that have to be done, that we would expect them to be doing as clinicians.
Professor Duffy asked, “When students take a course in the clinical area, will some of the research that relates to that topic that they are being lectured about or trained to do, will some of the current research be integrated into those courses even though they are not statistics methodology courses?” Professor Reinthal responded that the current research in the field will be integrated into all the courses in the curriculum and certainly into those applied projects they are doing, that has to be integrated as well.
Professor Duffy asked if there is a comprehensive exam that is required at the end of the program. He noted that it says that it runs for nine to ten consecutive semesters besides the projects that are due. Professor Reinthal replied that they have been and probably will continue to offer a comprehensive practical exam that they do at the end of the academic semesters before the last clinical semester and they will continue to do that. Then they also give students, at the moment, a practice board exam at the time that they are graduates and that is after the last clinical so that would be right before graduation. There may be a requirement that students pass that. At the moment, they haven’t decided to do that. Then the students have to pass their boards before they can practice. So, that in itself serves the function of a final comprehensive exam. They won’t be allowed to practice without that.
Professor Stephen Duffy asked if this program is going to be approved by the Senate. Professor Peter Meiksins responded that in order for the program to be sent to Columbus for State approval, it requires that it go through our process. The next step in our process is this body’s making a recommendation about the program and it then goes to the Board of Trustees after which it goes to Columbus. Professor Duffy asked if a motion is needed for approval. Professor Meiksins said that the UCC is a standing committee so by definition his presenting the proposal constitutes a motion. Professor Andrew Gross seconded the motion.
Professor David Elkins inquired if this program would require any new faculty members to implement it. Professor Ann Reinthal replied that the budget was included on page 104 to 106. There are two new faculty positions to cover the additional hours in the classroom. Professor Elkins asked if these have already been budgeted and are they engaging in a search now. Professor Reinthal said that they were not. Assuming that this goes through all levels of approval, the first class wouldn’t be admitted until 2008 and we wouldn’t end up having that third class in place until three years after that because it is a three-year program so we don’t need the new faculty until such point that we begin to have three. Right now it is a two-year program so we have two classes at a time in place. When we have three classes, then we will need that additional faculty.
Professor Elkins asked where the money is coming from to pay for these hires. Professor Reinthal responded that the additional tuition generated by the students coming in will cover the positions and that is in the budget. Professor Elkins stated that the program then is confident that it will get the 28 students regularly and be able to fund this. Professor Reinthal responded that they haven’t had an issue with that.
Dr. Peter Meiksins noted that the University Curriculum Committee had asked these very questions and among the answers the committee received was that the reality that the current program has been unable to admit all of the qualified students who apply, although that was not the case every in the past, but that’s the current situation so they are projecting on the basis of that and there is a significant demand for this kind of credential.
Professor Michael Spicer inquired if there was any thought that lengthening the program may reduce the demand for it in any way. Professor Reinthal said that currently 78% of the programs nationwide are at the DPT level. She was just at an academic administrators meeting of physical therapy programs nationwide, and actually the applicant pool has gone up in the last two years and that is a reflection of what we can expect rather than having a problem.
Professor Meiksins stated that what is also the case is it is clear that if we don’t do this, the demand for the program will go down.
Professor Alan Reichert asked if there is a bridge for the students that are currently in the Masters program so that they would be able to take additional coursework and then move over to the doctoral program. Professor Ann Reinthal said that she was not sure where that was in the proposal but there is a plan that they are going to ask for approval for a bridge which will require the students who have graduated with a MPT to take the additional 22 hours. Is not quite exactly the same course, but it covers that coursework that’s supplemented and added in the DPT and so those students who have graduated from Cleveland State with an MPT and take the additional 22 hours and obtain that MPT criteria.
Professor Alan Reichert commented, “So approximately an additional year then?” Professor Reinthal responded that it is structured to be able to be done part-time while the students are out working. They will already be out working in the clinic so, probably whether they want to take one or two courses at a time, it depends on the student. Professor Reichert noted that the doctoral program is an evening program. Professor Reinthal replied, “No, just if they have an MPT and they are already licensed and practicing in the clinic, and they want to come back and be credentialed as a DPT – that is the only piece. The entry level DPT program will be structured in a cohort fashion the way the current MPT program is where everyone has to go full-time for the three years.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman noted that the University Curriculum Committee has proposed that the Faculty Senate recommend adoption of the proposed Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy. He then asked for a vote. The proposal was approved unanimously.
Professor Peter Meiksins stated that his understanding is that there is an electronic copy of this program in existence so we can simply transmit that to the Board which insists on electronic copies and no further trees will be felled which is a good thing.
B. Proposed Template for CSU Syllabi (Report No. 9, 2006-2007)
Professor Peter Meiksins presented the University Curriculum Committee’s proposal to create a template for syllabi at CSU something which many universities around the country have already done but CSU has not. As the cover memo tries to explain, the UCC for years has been wrestling with the tremendous variation in the construction of syllabi by different programs and different individuals and different departments around the University. Diversity in itself is a good thing but in this particular instance the problem that arises is that many syllabi simply do not contain basic information that either a student or a state committee or a university committee might require in order to assess what’s in it. We’ve seen syllabi which don’t contain the instructor’s name, which don’t contain the name of the book being used in the course, which are one half a page long, which are hand written, and we have seen many syllabi in which the list of topics covered consists of week 1, chapter 1; week 2, chapter 2; week 3, chapter 3 and so on down the line so the student really, unless they do some detective work, has really no clear idea of what the course is about, what content will be covered, etc. The practical consequence of this is that we’ve had a great deal of difficulty as a university when we bring general education courses to Columbus and seek to get them approved for the transfer module. We have had a number of instances in which courses have been rejected for the transfer module solely because the syllabus was judged inadequate. This has been an on-going problem that Dr. Jae-won Lee has had with the courses that he has brought down to Columbus on our behalf. This obviously hurts the students who are trying to transfer in and out. The course itself may be fine but you can’t tell from the syllabus and the State says no because of that. Dr. Meiksins noted that last year the UCC finally decided that it was time to try to see if there was something that could be recommended that might help to alleviate this problem and so the UCC did some work trying to identify what the components of a standard syllabus might look like. The UCC went on the web and looked at other universities’ practices in this area to see what kinds of standard syllabi they had developed and he was surprised to see if you Google standard syllabuses you get a lot of hits that are actually what you are looking for. Many universities have this in a very prominent place on their web site. The UCC also collected information from many departments and programs around CSU that already have a kind of departmental standard, the College of Business does for example, and we got theirs, a number of individual programs have them and we got theirs, and then we tried to put this together into a list. What Senate has before it is a list of things that seem to UCC as a committee to be the ingredients of the basic syllabus. Obviously other things might be included as well and how one interprets these various things might vary but it seemed to the UCC that this was a basic list of components that might reasonably compose a syllabus which would give the students the information they need to know to try to determine what the course involves and which would provide committees like ourselves with the information we need to know so as to be able to assess whether the course fits into whatever category it is being proposed for. It also provides a certain amount of protection for the instructor by making clear what the requirements of the course are. By stating exactly what is expected of the student in the syllabus, one eliminates the number one cause of complaints to the Ombudsman on campus and of grievances to various campus committees on campus which have to do with complaints about syllabi. Apparently, that is fifty percent of all of the complaints on campus he has been told.
Professor Meiksins stated that the UCC is not proposing the Template for CSU Syllabi as a requirement. We are not saying that everybody has to do this although to be honest he would like to personally. He is not interested in who is going to enforce this and he doesn’t think that anybody else is in chasing around and looking at everyone’s syllabus to determine if in fact it is consistent with this Template. But what the UCC had in mind is that if the Senate were to endorse it as a model, as an example to faculty of what might be included in a syllabus, especially for new faculty who are just learning how to put together a syllabus, that this could be put in some kind of prominent place on the University web site and new faculty could be directed to it in some way, old faculty could be as well and we could also use this as a kind of standard for reviewing General Education courses. Courses that were submitted to the UCC for approval for General Education would need to contain this information in some way so that were we to approve it, we could then send it as is to the State in confidence that the State would have before it the information it needs to determine whether it should be in the transfer module. So, the University Curriculum Committee is moving that the Senate endorse this proposal as a model template for syllabi and authorize the UCC or the Senate or whoever would do this to publicize this and make it available to faculty. We actually talked in Steering Committee about perhaps having a kind of live version of this which people could download and just put their own information into it. FARR is not a good example because it is a very bad template as we all know but that idea is a good one. You would just download the thing and put your information in the various spots if you want to. If you don’t, you don’t have to.
Professor Connie Hollinger said that the one thing that came up when a couple of faculty were talking, might there be a need for a common ADA policy. You talk about the university usually being good but diverse ADA policies appearing might not be… Professor Meiksins asked if Dr. Hollinger was talking about the last item. She responded that she was. Dr. Meiksins continued stating that this is something the UCC is still kind of playing with. But many members of the UCC, and he confesses that he was not the person who was included on the list, so he is the wrong person to ask. Many people felt that this was important to put on. In Steering it was suggested that there may be some boiler plate that is commonly in use for this purpose and were we to adopt this, our intention would be to see if we can locate that boiler plate or develop something that’s consistent with ADA so that we could just provide that to faculty and they just plug it in.
Professor Michael Spicer suggested that Dr. Meiksins would want to run that by Legal Counsel because the UCC is in very tricky water.
Professor Beth Ekelman stated that she is sure that there has got to be something in the catalogue already or in the Student Handbook, the same as plagiarism.
Professor Peter Meiksins stated that if this is an issue, the UCC can remove item 10, “Statement about the rights/responsibilities of students with disabilities” off and bracket it and if we can locate some language that fits, UCC can bring it back and suggest that it can be added. Professor Spicer stated, “Either that, or refer in the syllabus to the appropriate source of information on this.” Professor Meiksins said that he thinks that is in fact… The difficulty is that students, as he understands it, have the right under university policy and under law to whatever provisions were made for disabled students but that doesn’t become active unless they inform the instructor that they are in fact disabled and there needs to be some verification that this is the case. Many difficulties arise because students fail to do that and then after the fact, after something goes wrong, say, “but I am disabled” and then a big mess results. So, the idea is to prevent that from occurring. Maybe Professor Spicer is right and the simple thing to do is to simply refer the students to the Disability Policy and hope that that takes care of it.
Dr. Cheryl McCahon noted that also if there are WAC requirements for the course, there is a standard or another boiler plate. Professor Meiksins reported that the UCC’s idea was that the General Education information that would be required on each syllabus, that that would simply be something that we could create some boiler plate as there is for the Writing Across the Curriculum and you can either print it out and staple it to your syllabus or if you want to cut and paste, you can do that or if there is a template, it would be there so that it would require no work of anyone other than just copy.
On a less substantive point, Professor Michael Spicer commented that putting the classroom down strikes him as running in conflict with the notion of getting the syllabus out on time because classes are usually shifted around during the first week according to what we normally say. Professor Meiksins responded that it is an imperfect thing. Periodically, classrooms are demolished. Nevertheless, most of the time we do have at least a rough idea of what the classroom is.
Professor David Elkins inquired if Professor Meiksins could tell him what his grading criteria is, i.e., definition of an “A” grade, “B” grade. Does that mean something like eighty percent or exceptional work? Professor Meiksins replied that the difficulty here is that the University authorizes instructors to give grades and stipulates what the categories are but they don’t say what they mean. So, what is an “A?” Is it 90, is it 95? Professor Elkins stated what is proportionate is what you are thinking. Professor Meiksins agreed and said that is what the UCC was thinking. Individual instructors vary in terms of how they define quantitatively what a “A” is and this creates a lot of confusion in students’ minds because in the last semester they had an instructor for whom an “A” was 80 to 100, and your standards is 90 to 100 and the student says, “Well I got 83, why don’t I get an “A?” So that is the sort of information that reasonably might appear in the syllabus to prevent that kind of complaint.
Professor Diane Steinberg suggested having something like an applicable clause because in some courses you don’t quantify your evaluation. If a student is writing a paper, you give them feedback and a letter grade ordinarily, at least that is usually her practice as opposed to giving a quantitative score. Dr. Meiksins responded that he hadn’t thought of that. He certainly hasn’t taught a course in which the only grade was based on a paper but if that is something in use, perhaps… An unidentified Senator stated this is done in many graduate courses. Professor Meiksins asked a single comment constitutes the entire grade? Professor Steinberg stated that this is not what she meant. But the assignments are essentially papers or an essay exam and she does use usually quantitative evaluations for essay exams but ordinarily for papers, she doesn’t. She assumes an “A” means, when you talk about defining a grade, you mean defining a grade for a single assignment as well as defining a grade for the course.
Professor Peter Meiksins stated that he was certainly willing to insert “as applicable” but on the other hand his concern would be that in Dr. Steinberg’s case, he can see the rationale. You don’t want to create a wide open door through which people don’t want to put their quantitative criteria on but it is not mandatory anyway so they don’t have to do it even if they don’t want to. He said that he would accept that as a friendly amendment if Dr. Steinberg likes. He then asked if that is something other people are comfortable with. He agreed to add the words “as applicable” after number 5 under “Content.”
There being no further discussion, Senate President Gelman asked members to vote. The proposed Template for CSU Syllabi was approved unanimously as amended.
Dr. Peter Meiksins stated that he will work with Ms. Violet Lunder to figure out how to get this put up on the web site and to make it available to people. Maybe we can develop something that would be interactive enough so that people can use it.
C. Proposed Program Development Plan Approval Process
(Report No. 10, 2006-2007)
Professor Peter Meiksins stated that the last item from the UCC is actually simpler than it appears. This is a proposal to clarify the existing process for program development plans. As the memo to Faculty Senate states, the State requires that when we propose an entirely new program, which doesn’t apply to modifications of programs and various other kinds of changes we might make, but were we to propose an entirely new program on campus, that there is a two-step process that you need to go through. The first step is called a Program Development Plan which essentially is a request to the State for permission to actually go through the process of developing a program after which, if it is approved, you then go through a second step when you actually propose and design the full program and then that is sent down to the State a second time, the Board approves, etc. It is a two-step process which is very cumbersome. This is a State rule and not our rule but the difficulty we have is that we have to figure out how to implement this rule on campus. A couple of years ago, the UCC tried to create a kind of standard approach to this suggesting that there were a series of approvals that needed to be acquired on campus to ensure that all units went through this in the same way and that PDPs were being sent to Columbus in a reasonably consistent way. That sort of worked but there have been continued variations in how it has been interpreted. A number of situations have arisen which didn’t exactly correspond to the process and this year, the UCC brought it up again and began talking about it again and brought the proposal to Steering which resulted in the recommendation that we clarify the existing process by inserting an explicit comment on what happens with Graduate programs. There is an additional step for Graduate programs since they have to go through the Graduate College. We are asking Senate to formally approve this Policy so that it would be more than simply a memo from the University Curriculum Committee – it would be something that could be posted visibly so that everyone would know what the process is. Professor Meiksins has been chair of the UCC for longer than he cares to acknowledge and he gets frequent calls from programs and department heads and what have you who ask, “How do I go about getting a new program approved?” Dr. Meiksins noted that there is really no way to find out unless either he (Peter Meiksins) or the Provost’s Office is asked because there is no recorded place where this information is located. So the idea here is to come to an agreement on what the process would be and then post that someplace so that the faculty can be directed to it in the event that they were in the process of developing a proposal for a new program. Dr. Meiksins stated that this process has been in place more or less this way for a couple of years, but the only difference is that UCC has inserted item 5 making explicit the fact that Graduate Programs have to go through Graduate Council and through the Graduate Dean’s Office. But other than that, this is what we have been doing for a while.There being no further discussion, Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked for a vote. The University Curriculum Committee’s proposed Program Development Plan Approval Process was approved unanimously.
Proposed Freshman-Entry Pathway to the BSN Nursing Major
(Report No. 11, 2006-2007)
Professor Rosemary Sutton presented the Admissions and Standards Committee’s proposed Freshman-Entry Pathway to the BSN Nursing Major. Currently students are admitted in the sophomore year to Nursing and this is a proposal that a select group of highly qualified students will be able to be admitted in their freshman year. There are several advantages to this, one of which that students will be admitted to the Nursing program at the same time they are admitted to the University or in the same year so they don’t have to worry about whether they will be admitted to Nursing later. Assuming that they keep in good standing with their grades, it is a one-step process. The Admissions and Standards Committee feels that this will be helpful. The other parts of the program are those students will be encouraged to stay in the dorms. There will be an opportunity for them to be involved in a learning community which is a hot topic these days because the Gen Ed Task Force and the money in the new Title III grant and also the School of Nursing plans to involve these newly admitted student in some of the Nursing activities. As far as we know, we are the only public institution to propose this and the Dr. Noreen Frisch, the Director of Nursing claims that everyone else will follow our lead as quickly as possible once we do this.There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Sheldon Gelman called for a vote on the proposal. The Admissions and Standards Committee’s proposed Freshman-Entry Pathway to the BSN Nursing Major was approved unanimously.
President Michael Schwartz reported that Professor Walter C. Leedy of the Art Department passed away very early this morning. His understanding now is that there will be a Memorial Ceremony a week from this Friday. He was not sure of the time yet but it will probably be in the Panel Hall in Fenn Tower. He said that he will let everybody know as time goes by. President Schwartz noted that he has a Sunday Plain Dealer piece from December 20, 1992 written by Steven Litt who was then the Plain Dealer Art Critic. The President read part of the article so that everyone could get a sense of what has been lost.
“On a cold December morning late in the fall semester, Art History Professor Walter C. Leedy, Jr. is smiling in his cramped windowless book-lined office at Cleveland State University. He is pleased, he says, because the University’s Faculty Senate rallied around a ringing defense of free speech and academic freedom that Leedy wrote about the People’s Art Show, a controversial exhibition held by the Art Department. The unjuried show, which closed December 11 th, attracted 500 art works from 300 artists that also elicited wide-spread protests largely because of a piece called ‘Angel O,’ a topless portrait of Angel Ormston, the teenager from Mentor-on-the-Lake whose body was found last week. On November 19 th the University’s Acting President J. Taylor Sims told the University’s Board of Trustees that, ‘The People’s Art Show could not be repeated in its present form and that offensive art works would have to be screened out.’ Leedy responded by writing an essay that stated, ‘The correct response on the part of Cleveland State University should not be suppression but debate.’ The essay was published in the Plain Dealer on November 30 th. Leedy objects to the idea of screening because it would impose definitions of ‘patently offensive’ commentary rather than letting viewers make their own decisions and the Faculty Senate responded on December 9 th by approving a resolution condemning ‘attempts at censorship as abhorrent and destructive of the nature and purpose of a university.’ Meanwhile a university committee is examining the future of the show.” President Schwartz said that the show is about to start again. He added, “That’s what we lost and a good deal more.” He said that he will keep everyone up to date.
President Schwartz commented on the Ohio Core. It is pretty much a college prep program as the program in all of the high schools in the State will come in the form of a bill in the lame duck session and probably with a few minor amendments it is going to pass.
President Schwartz said, now that the election is over of course a capital bill will come before the General Assembly. The Regents have asked for $450 million for higher education. Our share of that will be somewhere between $15 and $16 million which is not enough but it gives us the third down payment on the College of Education building and lets us get going on that.
President Schwartz said that he wanted to bring everyone up to date as best he can on the talks that have been going on with regard to what’s being called the collaboration among the universities in Northeast Ohio. The Presidents have met on a couple of occasions and those are always interesting meetings. There has been a meeting of the Board chairs and the Presidents to discuss all of this. As you know, CSU has passed a resolution in support of this kind of collaboration among the institutions. The University of Akron’s Board followed suit in a resolution that was not exactly the same as ours but almost. Kent State University has not. Their Board has not yet met to discuss this. Youngstown State’s Board has not yet met to discuss this and depending on who you talk to, we are more or less likely to hear from KSU and YSU in positive terms. From what he is able to tell, the Board members are more favorably disposed to this than are some of the Presidents. Some of the Presidents fear something called “a system” might emerge and they say another layer of administration is all we’d get. From time to time he tries to remind them that with a system what we might get is one less layer of administration; maybe that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world either but Presidents can put two and two together and they can guess what would disappear. In any case, these kinds of conversations are going on. This has great support or at least has been finding great support in the General Assembly and this kind of thing can happen. The General Assembly, as you know, has accused public higher education in Ohio, not from time to time, but all of the time of failing to innovate, failing to be bold, failing to have creative ideas and always saying to the General Assembly just give us more money and go away; we’ll do the right thing with it. The General Assembly does not seem particularly predisposed to doing anything quite like that. He would say that by opposition to this idea of big collaborative efforts in graduate education and research and economic development, etc. the opposition to that sort of thing, he thinks that institutions will be making the point for the General Assembly and they won’t need any more evidence and that’s very counterproductive. So, how these conversations go becomes more and more important. He added that these conversations are going on every day. Emails are flying and backroom conversations are being had and to some extent great fun.
Finally, President Schwartz commented about the changes that took place in yesterday’s election in the House and the Senate. This university, in the last several years, has been doing pretty well in persuading members in Congress of the value of a good deal of the research and of the practical efforts of our faculty. We have been receiving a good hearing and because of that some earmarked funds have come to us in one way or another. Professor Duffy’s Transportation Center, which works on work zone safety, is a very good example. Congressman LaTourette got behind our efforts and was enormously helpful. We’ve gotten similar kinds of help on other kinds of projects especially from Congressman Hobson from the Dayton area, who has no real interest in this part of the State but who has come to our aid; from Congressman Regula from Canton who has done the same and who has abiding passion about things educational especially for young children; we got a lot of help from Senator DeWine on a number of these things as well. His point is that even for those members of the Congress who remain, they will lose their committee chairmanships and we will lose their ability to help us in a number of ways so no one should be surprised if when we are looking at how are we doing with the Congress, it’s going to take us a while now to rebuild the seniority and the status of the Ohio delegation which has just gone from being one of the most powerful in the Congress to one of the weakest. So that has some fairly practical implications for us but those implications tend to get washed aside on election eve. He just wanted everybody to get a good understanding that now we have to go back to work and to rebuild our relationships in new kinds of ways in Washington.
With regard to a different kind of campaign, President Schwartz said that everyone should know that Vice President William Spiker and he and a bunch of other people have been working for some time now trying to get this university positioned to do what you would call a capital campaign but which isn’t. It is a campaign for cash and whether it is capital cash or any other kind, it is a campaign for a lot of money. He believes that by spring we should know what our chances of carrying that off successfully will be and how big of a campaign we are going to launch but we are going to get going on that fairly soon. These things have to be done with rather great care. As part of that, everyone needs to know that a study was recently completed that is a feasibility study for a new building which would be the center for the Visual and Performing Arts which we have imagined as a new facility on Euclid Avenue that would connect in part to the lobby outside of Waetjen Auditorium and go down Euclid Avenue toward the College of Law building. It would encompass gallery space, art studios in a glass tower and possibly theaters inside. He said possibly because that is the iffy part of the whole project. In any case, we think that such a facility, having looked at it and using some experience that we’ve had to make this kind of judgment could be scaled back from 180,000 to about 110,000 square feet and could probably be built in today’s dollars for about $50 million. The chances of the State coming up with that, he’d rather bet on getting hit by a meteorite right here. So if we are going to do this in very large measure, this would have to be a private fundraiser. He has been having conversations with theater groups here locally and we are going to continue to have those conversations because we would like to have multiple users in this facility. We would like to have the ballet companies, we would like to have arts organizations here that are viable but they are space challenged to say the least. We would like to be able to bring them to the campus and give them a home if we could to make this a different kind of arts center for Cleveland. We are going to start bringing those folks to campus for these kinds of conversations. He had a meeting with people from one of the theater organizations today. We will have further meetings with them and again, he will keep everyone posted. He thinks that if we could pull that one off, we would do the arts community a great service and we wouldn’t hurt this institution one bit. So, while the Provost brings you basketball news, he brings news about a possible arts facility.
Professor William Bowen noted that President Schwartz had mentioned the Ohio Core. He asked President Schwartz to talk more about it. President Michael Schwartz responded that the Governor proposed this some time ago as the default curriculum in all of the high schools and it is the old college prep. It is four years of English, four years of mathematics, three years of science – it is what most of us did. The student would have to opt out of that curriculum with the permission of a parent or guardian and the school counselor so everybody does this curriculum. There is a lot of push back on it from school superintendents especially who are saying in certain parts of the State, “We can’t get the teachers to do these things.” By the way, foreign language was in there as part of all of this and that is getting watered down as we go. But in some form, the Ohio Core is going to pass.
Professor Bowen asked, “What’s the idea and why did he (President Schwartz) raise it in this context?” President Schwartz responded, “Because our admissions standards are not far off from that and, in fact, our admissions standards are 13 units of college preparatory activity. The Ohio Core would probably be more than that and it either reinforces or expands on what we are requiring for admissions. By the way, the Ohio Core also says this is what you are going to need to be admitted minimally; this is what you will need to be admitted to any public institution in Ohio. So it has gotten pretty tough and his suspicion is that it will go through and affect all of us.
Professor Bowen asked, “Implying for us changing our admissions standards?” President Schwartz said that it is going to do it for us but it is not going to make that much of a difference because we took our action early.
Professor Andrew Gross asked if President Schwartz could make a summary statement about length of courses during fall and spring semesters. There is some grapevine that this is being thought about in terms of going to short courses of five or six week duration in summer courses and, in fact, we do offer five week courses at off campus locations in Westlake and Solon and for companies and he would like to submit one point for President Schwartz’s and others’ consideration and that is when we do bring in students during the summer, many of them are from our school and/or other schools and devoting full-time to their studies. When we need students off campus say in Solon or in the corporate locations, in a five week course they are equal to putting eight hour days and 40 hour weeks and they come to class. He said that he is about to start one this Monday at Progressive and it’s a four hour on Monday nights and four hours on Wednesday nights. He has no trouble delivering the course in five weeks; he can do it. But pedagogically, he wondered what President Schwartz thought as the chief executive of our university about students being able to absorb the material. He wondered if President Schwartz would be able and willing to address that briefly today.
President Schwartz responded that it varies so much from discipline to discipline and within disciplines, and it depends on what course Professor Gross is talking about. President Schwartz said that where we can do those kinds of things intelligently, we probably don’t. If we can innovate in our delivery of courses in ways that benefit students, that is good. If we have to deliver courses and call it innovation, but really it is pedagogically unsound, that is kind of dumb. He said that he thinks the answer to this bounces around. He taught five week summer sessions and he thought this was one of the craziest things he ever tried. The basic statistics course in five weeks is a bit much but there are other kinds of courses where that will fly pretty well. It is all about experience and some understanding of what people can and cannot absorb. It is one of the reasons that four hour courses taught all in one evening, the mind cannot absorb what the tail cannot endure.
Senate President Sheldon Gelman asked if there was any new business. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.
Faculty Senate Secretary Pro Tem
[Top of Page]