From:Lynn Hamilton

Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 11:25 AM

To: raom@nmc1.msun.edu; barber@nmc1.msun.edu

Subject: Report to Regents following MSUN forum

 

The following is an e-mail I sent this morning to my fellow Regents, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. I meant to cc: you both, but hit the send button prematurely!

I attended the Program Review Forum at MSU-Northern last evening and the following is a brief summary of comments and issues that came from both faculty and students. I'm guessing there were about 50 people in attendance and MSU-N faculty member Kevin Brown served as facilitator. He did a fine job keeping the discussion focused on productive input and Chancellor Rao and Provost Barber did an excellent job dealing with questions about the process, organizational structure and their role in program review. There as agreement that the dialogue will continue and faculty in many of the affected areas have already begun the process to evaluating curriculum to bring forward new program proposals. These faculty members also agreed to meet with students to make sure they were included in the process. Kevin kept a flow chart that is better organized than my notes. I requested a copy and will share that information with you when I receive it.

Student newspaper editor Rob Everingham identified six issues of concern: 1.) students left out of the process, 2.) Regents don't have to approve all of the new programs the campus may put forward, 3.) faculty role is to propose curriculum and there was little response to the January deadline, he hopes the faculty doesn't miss the July deadline, 4.) biology is a new program (3 yrs. old) and the curriculum is very different than the IDST option offered prior to the change to biology, 5.) water quality minor is a subset of the major so why drop the minor (resource allocation), 6.) Northern gave so much so the Regents would like us (MSU-N).

A non-traditional student read a statement to the effect that program review is "just a business decision" and "a university campus is a sacred place of learning" where students place their trust in faculty and administration. He also felt students should have been included in the process.

The science club president testified that "science and math go hand in hand. How can we prepare teachers for rural schools if they don't have these basic skills."

An international student stated he was attracted to Northern by the metals tech and manufacturing programs and reiterated the high demand for a trained work force in these areas. He also suggested these programs need to be better marketed and questioned whether the programs had been around long enough to be successful in this area. Other students addressed the inter-relatedness of various degree programs and future market demand for graduates in programs that are being cut.

A number of students questioned the criteria that trigger program review (number of graduates) and said many of the programs slated for elimination had good enrollments. There was a general feeling that criteria should be different for smaller campuses. Chancellor Rao did an excellent job of explaining why the same standards are applied to all campuses, but this was a rationale many didn't want to hear or accept.

There was additional discussion about Northern's "primacy of mission" as a regional university. Students testified that they were place-bound and "place-discriminated" (lack of resources in a variety of areas not flowing to Eastern Montana, including education).

The issue of "process error" also came up as students questions the fast-track from submission to action agenda. I attempted to address their concerns and explained that the meetings are generally run by Roberts Rules of Order but we do vary from those rules, for example using Masons rule for voting, and those exceptions are made to for reasons of efficiency and time management. I shared with the group that it is not unusual for items to proceed through the agenda at a fast pace, moving from submission to action at one meeting, to accommodate the needs of the campuses; that we program review from the UM campuses had been fast-tracked in January at the request of administrators, and that there was not reason for the board to question a similar request from administrators at this meeting.

The forum also addressed possible courses of action. Those included 1.) suggesting the program was not reviewable because it is a new program, 2.)restructuring and re-submitting the program to serve future students 3.) submitting data on the FTE enrollment in programs 4.) requesting probationary status for programs, and 5.) supporting the Regents decision.

Despite some wild comments from one or two unhappy faculty members, I felt the forum was very productive and set a positive direction for action. It did bring up some policy issues that dovetailed with discussions Margie and I had with the accreditation teams. I'll share those thoughts in a later e-mail.

Thanks for taking the time to wade though this and if you have any questions, give me a call. 

Lynn