WINTER QUARTER 2001 SAAC Meetings

• January 30, 2001 SAAC Meeting
  
• February 13, 2001 SAAC - Faculty Senate
• February 27, 2001 - SAAC

January 30, 2001 SAAC Meeting

Update on advising report. Since the council’s last meeting Janine, Cathleen and Devorah have met with the Council of Academic Deans, department chairs and Faculty Senate in order to solicit feedback from a broader constituency. Some themes and concerns have emerged from these meetings and faculty feedback on the plan
Mandatory advising. How do we mandate advising? How do we give the plan "teeth"? In earlier discussions the council expressed discomfort with using a registration hold as a way to enforce mandatory advising. As the advising plan is implemented the council will look for effective incentives. Initially students who resist the advising requirements will simply be urged to seek advising through phone calls and letters. If this does not prove successful, other measures will be explored.
Implications for faculty. If faculty are required to advise, what are the implications for workload? How will faculty advising be supported by the department? Bryan stated that faculty feel comfortable providing disciplinary advising but don’t do as well with general education. Dan responded that the plan provides for students to receive basic information from professional advisors early in their college career so that by the time they meet with their faculty advisor, the students will have an understanding of the general education requirements. Also, departmental liaisons will be available to answer questions that may arise as faculty advise. Michele stated that she believes this multi-phase approach to be one of the report’s strengths.
Resources. The concern about faculty workload is coupled with the belief that a portion of the new resources, earmarked to add advisors in IASC, should go to the departments to support advising. Robert stated that the plan asks faculty to do more work without additional resources, and does not adequately address the burden on faculty. Walt stated that the council attempted to allocate the resources to areas that would have universal application and the most impact, adding that there is not enough money to make a substantial impact if it is divided among the departments. Dan stated that if money is given to departments, then the advising system becomes more decentralized. Dick Pratt fears that the resources will be spread so thin that nothing is accomplished. One of the strategies discussed was withholding a portion of the funds to be designated at a later date, after the initial implementation of the model is assessed. Dan stated that withholding these funds will affect the implementation in that it will be necessary to scale back a portion of the plan, e.g. the departmental liaisons will have less time to work with departments or less time to spend advising.
Process. Much of the discussion centered around resistance to the plan in Faculty Senate. Janine stated that the Faculty Senate believes there has not been adequate faculty participation in the process. Robert agreed, adding that faculty feel they were presented with the proposal after the fact, thus not participating in shared governance. He believes this feeling has some roots in the way in which the University Studies program was presented and implemented with faculty feeling they did not have adequate participation in that process. In referring to the motion drafted by Ansel Johnson, he stated that faculty don’t feel they will have a fair hearing in the allocation of resources without "ultimate approval" over the plan. Walt pointed out that there is much common ground in what faculty and the council are recommending. He fears that if the advising plan and allocation of resources are taken on by a senate committee then the plan will get bogged down in the committee process, putting off implementation for another year. Walt added that the senate needs to acknowledge that there has been faculty representation on the council throughout the entire process.
Faculty Senate Motion. The council reviewed the motion, drafted by Ansel Johnson, that will be presented at the next Faculty Senate. This motion is still in the process of being revised. Devorah shared the president’s opinions about the motion with the council as it was reviewed. Both the council and the president expressed concern with the sentence stating, " Since most academic and career advising is now and, under any system, will continue to be performed by the faculty, the faculty believe it is within their purview to substantially participate and ultimately approve, through the actions of the Senate, the development and implementation of any University-wide undergraduate advising plans." There was confusion as to the meaning of this sentence. Maureen wondered if this meant that all departmental advising plans would have to go to Faculty Senate for approval. Dan believes this sentence means that Ansel wants senate approval for the advising plan, not all departmental plans. Janine stated that the confusion indicates that the sentence should be revisited by the group drafting the motion. Additionally, Devorah mentioned that she had asked that this sentence be removed due to the objections of the president, but that Ansel had not removed it. Dick is troubled by the motion, stating that it sends a negative message to students that we "don’t want to do anything, just study it some more." Walt stated that the council should commend the senate for taking an interest in advising and the work of the advising council, adding that the council needs to further recognize the effective advising being done by faculty and professional advisors. Additionally Janine expressed her concern that the council has given the impression that there isn’t quality advising happening right now. She hopes the council can clearly express their appreciation for the work of faculty and professional advisors at the next senate meeting. Robert believes that it is of vital importance to include the academic units and Faculty Senate in further planning and implementation of the plan.
Suggested Changes to the motion. In reviewing the motion, the council made suggestions in terms of the language in some of the bulleted statements. They suggested (in order with additions underlined):
The adoption of an advising model where all students are initially advised through a central advising office, and upon declaration of a major, are advised by faculty or professional advisors in their major department.
The adoption of a developmental approach to advising; a multi-step process incorporating life goals and career exploration with major selection and course scheduling. This methodology and information will be provided to faculty advisors through a central advising office.
Strategies for next Faculty Senate. As the council reviewed the feedback and motion, several strategies were proposed for the next meeting of Faculty Senate. The council hopes to find a way for Faculty Senate to participate without starting all over again. One suggested strategy is to propose that the plan go forward in the pilot departments and simultaneously roll-out the measures that benefit all students, while reserving some of the president’s funds to determine how these funds would have the greatest impact. Walt suggested that the council request Ansel’s motion and further deliberations be tabled until the March senate meeting so that the advising council can meet with members of Faculty Senate to discuss the advising plan, and to demonstrate how and why the council reached its conclusions. The council agreed to this strategy. Walt will let Ansel know of the council’s plans and will send the council a proposal to be handed out at Faculty Senate. Devorah emphasized that it was important for the council and senate to work together on the advising proposal.

Concerns with the advising plan. Members of Faculty Senate voiced their concerns with the advising plan presented by the Council and offered suggestions for improvement. Advising Council members responded to some of these concerns.

Mandatory Advising. Marc questioned if advising was mandatory for students or faculty, stating that the report did not make this clear. Devorah responded that advising is mandatory for all entering, degree-seeking students. Marc then questioned the benefits for students in a mandatory system, further wondering who would assume responsibility for students who were mis-advised resulting in a delay in their graduation or other unfortunate circumstances. Sandra stated that whenever there is an advising error the student has recourse through petition. Jeanette asked if IASC would have the power to waive requirements if appropriate. Dan added that once a student has petitioned, the Academic Requirement Committee is authorized to waive some requirements.

Most senate members were in favor of mandatory advising with some expressing their belief that students should seek advising more frequently than provided in the report, at least once a year. They were most concerned with transfer students who often skip orientation, thus are less prepared and knowledgeable about PSU requirements. Michael stated that transfers take the most time advising and that the proposal does not deal with “nightmare” situations. Jeanette objected to the make-up orientation sessions stating that “either orientation is mandatory or not.” Some senate members expressed concern with the hard waiver option. Lois stated that she hopes those students who choose to forego advising, are marked accordingly in Banner. Janine stated that part of the budget would be spent developing and supporting an electronic advising record that would follow the student and detail the advising (s)he has received. Marc proposed that students be prevented from registering until they have met with an advisor, then they must meet with a departmental advisor upon major declaration, and finally the student should meet with an advisor before applying for graduation.

Resource Issues. Some senate members were concerned with the allocation of resources and the fee students will pay for advising under the new model.
Allocation. Several senators are unhappy that resources are to be allocated centrally, with none being given directly to departments. Gwen stated that as the model stands now, those departments with a large number of majors will be unable to handle the load, adding that if the resources are going to IASC then this is where students should go for advising. Walt Fosque stated that it will be impossible to meet students’ needs without additional resources going to the departments. These resources could be used to hire adjuncts so that faculty can hold group advising sessions. Jeanette expressed concern that the CLAS advising center would lose funding in this model, adding that she only feels comfortable sending students to CLAS advisors for general education advising. Janine stated that the plan does not take funding away from CLAS currently or in the future
Advising Fee. Some senators believe that students should not pay a fee for advising. Janine briefly described the council’s thoughts on the fee. Students pay to attend PSU and advising should be a part of what they get for their money. Allocating a certain amount to advising demonstrates the importance of advising and will aid in the implementation of measures to assure quality advising. Lois questioned whether it would be clear to students that they were paying an advising fee. Janine stated that the advising fee would be bundled with other fees.

Role of Professional Advisors. Gwen stated that she has experienced problems with professional advisors in that some do a good job and others don’t. She worries about a model that depends heavily on professional advisors because their advice is not taken as seriously by students as advice given by a faculty advisor in their major. Dan clarified the role of IASC. He stated that IASC was designed and funded to advise undeclared students, stressing that IASC advisors always refer students to the department of their major for advice on major requirements. The majority of IASC advising is spent on University Studies, but at least 25% of IASC advisees are seniors who should be receiving advising in their department. The advising plan takes a “frontloading” approach, providing students with general information, such as University Studies requirements, at the beginning of their academic career so that by the time they meet with faculty advisors, more time can be spent on major requirements and major-related information.

Departmental Plans. Barbara stated that faculty will be impacted by the departmental advising plans, and that the current impact of advising on the departments should be examined. Gwen expressed frustration that the majority of the advising she does is for the Graduate School of Education’s GTEP program. John believes that information management is the key problem in that information about curriculum changes does not get disseminated to the departments so that faculty advisors can provide accurate advice.

Next Steps. Marc summarized his concerns with the report: the meaning of mandatory, timing of advising, the burden on departments and resource issues. In response to concern that not enough opportunities were provided for Faculty Senate to meet with the Council, additional sessions will be held February 20 (3-4) and February 21 (1-2). Devorah will continue to collect feedback on the report for the Council to consider at its next meeting. Ansel suggested that the report stand as written but that modifications, including a modified implementation schedule, be added onto the report. He stated that we need an opportunity to examine departmental needs before implementing the plan.

February 27, 2001 - SAAC

Advising Plan Concerns. Devorah met with Marc Feldesman to discuss his concerns with the advising plan. Marc also provided some suggestions as to how these concerns could be addressed.

• The meaning of mandatory. Marc asked that the council clarify the meaning of mandatory. For whom is advising mandatory – Departments? Faculty? Students? He also feels that finding advising incentives for students, departments and faculty is important. He questioned the consequences for not implementing the advising plan in departments.
• Transfer students. Marc feels that the plan does not adequately address the advising needs of transfer students. He proposes that transfer students not be able to register until they have attended orientation and received advising. Those students who transfer to PSU with 135+ credits should be made aware of residency requirements. Those who transfer with 108+ credits need special attention so that they can complete upper division credits in time to graduate.
• Timing of advising checkpoints. Marc believes that the advising checkpoints should happen at different junctures than those provided in the advising plan. He proposed that students get advising in IASC before registering, have a second appointment during their first year, a third at 90 credits (when he proposes major declaration be required), and a final appointment before the degree audit. Marc was unsure if this final appointment should be in the department or IASC. Additionally, he felt that resources should follow the location of the advising, i.e. if the department decides to send the students to IASC then the resources go to IASC. The Council felt that the checkpoints should remain as written in the report. Sandra stated that departments could require additional checkpoints in their advising plans

Accountability for misadvising. Marc questioned who is accountable if a student goes through all the proper advising checkpoints but nonetheless is advised incorrectly resulting in a delay of graduation or other hardship. He believes the University must help that student graduate. Sandra believes this mechanism is already in place through the petition process and feels this process should not be eliminated.
Resource Issues. Marc suggested that if the ratio of faculty advisors to students exceeds a decided upon formula then classes should be bought out so that faculty can advise. Dick stated that it would be reasonable for departments with a large number of majors to ask for help. Cathleen stated that requests for resources would be considered along with the advising plan but not in advance. Walt added that departments need to be specific about what resources are necessary to accomplish their advising goals. Dan stressed that if resources are not allocated to IASC as designated in the plan, then IASC will not be able to fulfill all of the plan’s activities. He believes that the departmental liaisons will be the first thing to be scaled back or eliminated should IASC not receive the planned resources, but stated he could have an advisor on-call to answer departments’ questions. He worries that the model is becoming decentralized. Additionally, Marc believes that each department should be given $500 to pay faculty advisors to attend orientation. There was also discussion of the designated fee for advising being removed from the plan in response to the concern that students would be paying for an existing service. Instead, a certain portion of tuition will be earmarked for advising.
Senate Strategy. Taking into consideration the comments and concerns of the Faculty Senate, the Student Advising Action Council proposes that an Advising Implementation Team, jointly appointed by Faculty Senate and the president, be formed to address critical issues. The Council suggests that the Implementation Team be composed of members of the current Student Advising Action Council who are interested in continuing work on the advising proposal; chairs of the Academic Requirements Committee, the Scholastic Standards Committee and the Curriculum Committee; and members of the Senate. The critical issues to be examined are:

• Resource issues. There is widespread sentiment that resources need to be available to departments to implement their advising plans. Many believe that a portion of the money designated for the central advising office should be distributed among departments. The implications for support of departments and students, and for the full implementation of a mandatory advising system, will need to be explored. The Team must attend to how best to objectively evaluate resource needs for the implementation of departmental advising plans.
• Issues of sustainability and potential role for a Faculty Senate constitutional committee.
• What does mandatory advising mean? The Team will need to explore incentives for students to seek advising and consequences when they do not. Although the Council thought it was not in the best interests of the students or the University to place registration holds as a sanction for not fulfilling advising checkpoints, the Team should re-examine this possibility and its implications for resources, enrollment, and student satisfaction. Departments will propose in their advising plans how they will address their advising responsibilities.
• Incentives for faculty and departments. The Team will need to address rewards and incentives for faculty who advise and ways to raise the profile of advising.
• Details of the advising report. Unresolved issues that the Team will need to address include: the number of mandated advising sessions, accountability for incorrect advising, the timing of major declaration, and advising of transfer students, especially "special case" transfers.
• Continuing to monitor the University’s progress in addressing issues associated with major identification in the student information system.
• Piloting departmental plans in three academic units.

Raising the advising profile. Cathleen questioned whether advising could be considered a separate meritorious activity. Dick responded that advising was mostly eliminated from the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, but believes it could be included in the departments’ merit rules and/or raised as an issue in collective bargaining. The Council agrees that multiple strategies must be explored to raise the advising profile including the creation of an award for excellence in advising.

Return to Student Advising Action Council Homepage