Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook

23rd Edition, 2013 Version


Chapter 3: Organization of the Faculty and Academic Staff

3.4  Policies, Procedures, Processes and Guidelines

Article I Purpose

The purpose of this section of the Handbook is to record all policies,
procedures, processes, guidelines, and related items that are not
recorded in the Constitution, By-Laws, or other sections of the
Handbook.  This section is not intended to replace any other section of
the Handbook, but to supplement them."

AND the motion shall empower the Senate Vice Chair to incorporate all
existing policies, procedures, processes, guidelines, and related items
that have already been approved by the Senate but are not recorded in
the Constitution, By-Laws, or other section of the Handbook.

3.4.1 General Committee Responsibilities

3.4.1.1 Committee Motions guidelines
[FS 11/12-21document]

All Senate committee motions must conform to the following guidelines:

  • Is the committee’s proposal changing or adding existing language?  Provide both the new and old (if applicable) language.
  • Is the motion changing or adding language to the Handbook?  Identify the specific location(s) in the Handbook that are being changed (if applicable).
  • When is the proposal to take effect?  (i.e., immediately upon approval, or at a specified date after approval:  _______).

3.4.1.2 ad hoc Committee Guidelines
[FS 11/12-22document]

All proposals for ad hoc committees must include the following:

  • Name
  • Charge(s)
  • Membership: numbers, status requirements (e.g. divisional affiliation), and voting status
  • A clear statement of the committee's obligations to report and or make recommendations to the senate
  • Termination date (i.e. the date upon which the ad hoc committee must either be reauthorized by the Senate or terminates)

3.4.1.3 ad hoc Committees
[FS 11/12-23document]

A. Sustainability

  • Motion
  • Charge
  • Members

B. Strategic Planning

  • The following ad hoc committees were established by Faculty Senate motions by August 23, 2011.
  • Coordination Group: One member of Executive Cabinet appointed by the Chancellor, one tenured academic administrator appointed by the Provost, the Faculty Senate Chair, one additional faculty member to be appointed by Faculty Senate, an Academic Staff Member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council.
  • Environmental Scan: One member of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Group, one faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate, one member appointed by the Chancellor, one student appointed by Student Senate, an Academic Staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council, 2-4 members at large to be appointed based on their expertise in the field of strategic planning in general and one of the task forces in particular.
  • SWOT Analysis: One member of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Group, one faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate, one member appointed by the Chancellor, one student appointed by Student Senate, an Academic Staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council, 2-4 members at large to be appointed based on their expertise in the field of strategic planning in general and one of the task forces in particular.
  • LTP Review and Support: One member of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Group, one faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate, one member appointed by the Chancellor, one student appointed by Student Senate, an Academic Staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council, 2-4 members at large to be appointed based on their expertise in the field of strategic planning in general and one of the task forces in particular.
  • Mission/Vision/Values: One member of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Group, one faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate, one member appointed by the Chancellor, one student appointed by Student Senate, an Academic Staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council, 2-4 members at large to be appointed based on their expertise in the field of strategic planning in general and one of the task forces in particular.
  • Assessment: One member of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Group, one faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate, one member appointed by the Chancellor, one student appointed by Student Senate, an Academic Staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council, 2-4 members at large to be appointed based on their expertise in the field of strategic planning in general and one of the task forces in particular.
  • Communications and Events Planning: One member of the Strategic Planning Coordinating Group, one faculty member appointed by Faculty Senate, one member appointed by the Chancellor, one student appointed by Student Senate, an Academic Staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council, 2-4 members at large to be appointed based on their expertise in the field of strategic planning in general and one of the task forces in particular.
  • Strategic Work: Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, Chair, Faculty Senate, Vice Chair, Faculty Senate.
  • Sunset: May 28, 2012

C. Veteran's Recognition

[FS 11/12-13document]

  • Charge: Identify potential appropriate methods/venues to recognize veterans’ service
  • Membership: Two members appointed by Student Senate, two members appointed by Faculty Senate (one of whom will serve as chair), two members appointed by the Chancellor
    Sandy Ellis, Chair Dennis Cooper Blake Fry Nicole Lillis
  • Sunset: November 1, 2011

D. New Faculty to Shared Governance

[FS 11/12-14document]

  • Charge: Identify possible mechanisms to orient new faculty to shared governance
  • Membership: Three faculty members appointed by Faculty Senate (one of whom will serve as chair)
    Wes Chapin, Chair, Michelle Parkinson, Marshall Toman
  • Sunset: December 1, 2011

E. International Laboratory Working Group

[FS 11/12-31document]

  • Charge: Functioning as a sub-committee of the International Programs Committee, conduct a review of the university’s goals for internationalization focusing on faculty development, curricula, infrastructure, and related issue areas, and to report and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate through the International Programs Committee
  • Composition: Three Chancellor appointees; five faculty members, one of whom will serve as chair, appointed by the International Programs Committee and subject to approval by Faculty Senate; and a student member as approved by Student Senate. Faculty members of the subcommittee need not necessarily be members of the International Programs Committee. The International Programs Committee will solicit potential faculty members from the general campus community. 
    Marshall Toman, Chair, Pat Berg, Sylvia Kehoe, Ozcan Kilic, Gay Ward, Carolyn Brady, Shelby Rubbelke, Megan Learman.
  • Sunset: March 29, 2013, unless reauthorized by the Faculty Senate

F. Strategic Plan Progress Committee (SPPC)

  • Motion [FS 11/12-74document] (see also motion [FS 12/13-1document])
  • Charge: Manage, assess, and communicate progress in implementing the 2012-2017 strategic plan; Monitor, assess and report progress on goals and initiatives, including measurable outcomes/key performance indicators; Identify specific initiatives of the strategic plan that should be prioritized on an annual basis, and to articulate responsibility, timelines, and specific work products for the priority initiatives. These priority initiatives will be submitted to Faculty Senate for vote and the Chancellor for consideration/approval; Manage documents related to the strategic plan goals, initiatives, and accomplishments; Facilitate strong and regular communication of strategic plan progress to the campus and broader by:
    Developing and ensuring the implementation of a plan for regularly updating the campus on progress, including recognizing and celebrating success, on at least a monthly basis (during the academic year)

    Producing and Annual written assessment report that is submitted to Faculty Senate and the Chancellor, and is communicated to the campus community in an effective and transparent manner

    Plan and host an annual strategic planning retreat to review and discuss progress and challenges on the strategic plan, and to inspire ongoing and broad ownership of the plan
  • Membership (annual terms with goal to have some members serve multi-year terms to ensure continuity):
    1. One member of the Cabinet appointed by the Chancellor (Chair)
    2. Faculty Senate Chair (vice chair)
    3. One additional faculty member to be appointed by Faculty Senate
    4. One tenured academic administrator appointed by the Provost
    5. One academic staff member appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Chair of Academic Staff Council and approved by Faculty Senate
    6. One student appointed by the Student Senate
    7. One support staff (ex officio, non-voting) to manage meetings, materials, follow up (invited by the administrative chair)
  • Sunset: Not stated, presumed to be 2017

G. Committee on Graduate Studies

  • Motion [FS 11/12-79document], [FS 11/12-101document], [FS 12/13-17document]
  • Charge: Conducting a review of the existing governance and administrative structures and processes used at UWRF for Graduate programs; recommending appropriate organizational structures and processes for the administrative purposes of graduate programs (i.e. administrative functions); recommending appropriate structures and processes for graduate programs related to the "academic and educational activities and faculty personnel matter" that are consistent with both State statutes and the UWRF Constitution, that will be codified in the Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook (e.g. Constitutional By-Laws)
  • Membership: 3 At-Large faculty, 3 faculty with graduate faculty status with experience on the Graduate Council, and a faculty chair (all appointed by the Senate); an ex officio non-voting member (Associate Vice Chancellor)
    1. that the Graduate Studies administrator chair the Graduate Council. The Graduate Studies administrator should be a member of the Deans Council at a level parallel to a Dean
    2. that the Graduate Council become an administrative committee parallel to the College Executive/Chairs Committees that currently exist on campus. Membership should consist of the Graduate Program Directors or their designees.
    3. that the Faculty Senate develop a Graduate Studies Curriculum Committee for the purpose of:
        a. providing a forum for the critical reading of, and response to, new graduate course proposals and all substantial changes to existing course proposals

Graduate course proposals would initially be approved at the department/program level, and subsequently approved by the College Dean, Graduate Studies Curriculum Committee, University Curriculum Committee, and Faculty Senate.

        b. Providing a forum for the critical reading of, and response to, new graduate program proposals and all substantial changes to existing graduate programs.

Graduate program proposals would initially be approved at the department/program level, and subsequently approved by the College Dean, Graduate Studies Curriculum Committee.

  • Sunset: April 9, 2012; extended to April 30, 2012 by [FS 11/12-101document]

H. Committee on Program Prioritization and Program Audit Review (PP-PAR)
    PP-PAR Overview Triaddocument                 PP-PAR Scoring Sheetdocument

  • Motion [FS 11/12-121document]
  • Charge: Working through the details of PP-PAR using as the framework the combined Program Prioritization and Program Audit and Review (PP-PAR) tool (below in two parts) and reporting to Senate by December 1, 2012.
  • Membership
    1. Controller or Budget Director
    2. Director of Institutional Research
    3. Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee
    4. Chair of the Assessment Committee
    5. Chair or member of the URSCA Task Force
    6. Chair of APP
    7. CIO or Information Systems project lead
    8. Representative from Student Affairs or Career Services
    9. Director, Survey Research Center
    10. Associate VC for Academic Affairs/ Chair of the Program Audit & Review Committee
    11. Chair of Faculty Senate or member of the Fac. Senate Executive Committee
    12. Faculty Member At-Large
  • Sunset: February 15, 2013

I. Committee on Implementation of Tobacco-free Campus Policy

  • Motion [FS 12/13-84document]
  • Charge: To implement effectively and efficiently a tobacco-free campus, effective July 1, 2013, to ensure that all students, faculty, and staff know policy and are provided with infor4mation on available resources to help them
    adapt to the policy.
  • Goals:
    • Communication of the tobacco-free policy campus wide.
    • Communication of available resources to help the community adapt to the policy.
    • Ensure tobacco-free policy concerns/issues continue to be addressed after the policy goes into effect.
  • Membership:
    • 4 faculty: (1 from the College of arts and Sciences, 1 from the College of Education and Professional Studies, 1 from the College of Business and Economics, and 1 from the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences)-appointed by Faculty Senate.
    • 2 students one of whom is self-identified as a tobacco non-user-appointed by Student Senate.
    • 2 academic staff-nominated by Academic Staff Council and appointed by Faculty Senate.
    • 1 classified staff- appointed by Classified Staff advisory Council
    • Student Health and Counseling Services Director (ex-officio, non-voting, will serve as co-chair along with a faculty co-chair to be appointed by the Senate from among the four faculty members)
    • Health Education Coordinator (ex-officio, non-voting)
  • Assessment: By March 1, 2015, the Senate Executive Committee and Chancellor will assess the composition of the
    body and recommend a permanent body.
  • Sunset: July 1, 2015, or earlier if a permanent body is approved.

J. Committee on Online and Related Content Delivery


  • Motion [FS 12/13-101document]
  • Charge:
    • Consider the effectiveness of online and related content delivery (e.g. MOOC's and MOCC's).
    • Review the profile of UWRF students to ascertain the probability that various content delivery approaches will be successful.
    • Report / make recommendations to the Faculty Senate by December 1, 2013.
  • Sunset: December 1, 2013.

Article II

3.4.2 Administrative Decisions and Shared Governance


2.1  Administrative Decisions affecting Academic and co-curricular programs and Share Governance

Prior to adopting any policy changes on campus that might in anyway impact programs or co-curricular activities, administration will seek input from stakeholders and conduct an analysis of the effect that the proposed policy would have upon those programs and/or activities. Communication will be initiated between affected stakeholders and administrators to resolve concerns before implementation.  Examples of where such policy would be helpful in avoiding negative impact to campus programs and students include:

  • Changes in classroom assignments that affect the quality of classroom instruction.
  • The decommissioning of 15 passenger fleet vehicles (without replacement) that are necessary for programs that require travel as part of the curriculum.
  • Arbitrary reassignment of courses to classrooms that are not equipped/formatted for the teaching of certain disciplines.
  • Unilateral decisions to limit financial aid to students based on 6 credit load in contrast to the former (and national) standard of 5 credit load during the summer session.

 

Section 2.2 New Faculty and Staff Orientation

The new faculty and staff orientation day that occurs each fall shall include a timeslot of
approximately one hour devoted to faculty governance. This ‘governance session’ will be
organized and led by the Faculty Senate Chair and the Executive Committee. New faculty
and academic staff will be provided a graphic representation of the role of Faculty
Senate in UWRF decision making, and a hard copy of the most recent edition of the
Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook. All institutional employees will be welcomed to
attend Faculty Senate meetings, and encouraged to serve as substitutes when needed. 
The governance session should be followed by an invitation from the Executive
Committee to new faculty, instructional academic staff, and non-instructional academic
staff to at least one brown bag lunch, or similar activity.

Section 2.3 Renaming Academic Departments and Units

[FS 12/13-88document]

Renaming academic departments or units shall be initiated by the dean(s), who will provide a description of the change(s) and appropriate rationale.  For informational purposes, the proposal shall be provided to the curriculum committee(s) of the affected college(s) and, if applicable, to the Graduate Studies Curriculum Committee.  The proposal will be submitted to the Academic Program and Policy Committee for its consideration, followed by the Faculty Senate and the Chancellor.

 Article III: Appointments



 Section 3.1: Committee Chair Appointments:


Chair appointments for several committees include reassignment time [FS 09/10-36document]:

Academic Policy and Program (0.25 for one semester),
Assessment Committee (0.25 for one semester),
Faculty Welfare and Personnel Policies Committee (0.25 for one semester),
General Education and University Requirements Committee (0.25 for two semesters), Information and Instructional Technology Council (0.25 for one semester), and
University Curriculum Committee (0.25 for two semesters).  

Appointments to these assignments will be made near the end of the fall semester preceding the appointment year, or as soon as practical in spring semester, to allow departments to modify course schedules and/or hire replacements appropriately. [FS 11/12-11document]

 Section 3.2: Faculty Appointments to University-Level Committees


All faculty members of university level ad hoc and permanent committees must be appointed by the Faculty Senate.

 Section 3.3: Faculty Appointments to University of Wisconsin System Committees


All UWRF faculty members appointed to University of Wisconsin System committees must be appointed by the Faculty Senate.

Section 3.4: Faculty Appointments to Regional and other non-UWRF and non-UW System Committees


All UWRF faculty members of regional and other non-UWRF and non-UW System committees representing the University in roles related to the primary areas of faculty governance responsibility must be appointed by the Faculty Senate.

 Article IV:  Assessment


Section 4.1: Assessment Plan Elements for Evaluating Assessment Plans

 ACADEMIC PROGRAM ASSESSMENT  PLAN ELEMENTS

The following are four elements that are to be included and updated in an academic program's assessment plan. These are the elements that will be evaluated by the Faculty Senate Assessment Committee when review an academic program's plan. It is the program's responsibility to fully discuss each element. For organization of the plan, or element specific questions, please contact the Chair of the UWRF Assessment Committee. [FS 12/13-143document]

I.       Program Learning Outcomes 

Learning outcomes are focused on 'a graduate of the program/major will be able to ...'

Learning outcomes are measurable.

Learning outcomes are linked to UWRF Strategic Goals and Initiatives.

Learning outcomes meet the professional and intellectual needs of graduates. 

Learning outcomes reflect the needs of external stakeholders.

Broad learning outcomes are supported by specific content/skill learning outcomes, if relevant.

Have differentiate and measurable learning outcomes for each of the different options in a major, if applicable.

II.     Profile of where Learning Outcomes are being Achieved 

Courses are identified for each program learning outcome.

Course maps clearly indicate different levels of learning and skills development as relevant to the program.

Out-of-classroom learning opportunities are identified and linked to program learning outcomes to show their impact on the outcomes. Plans also address how out-of-classroom learning opportunities serve the needs of external stakeholders.

Ill.     Venues for Assessing Learning Outcomes

Indicate what venues, tools, artifacts, and methods will be used for direct assessment for each learning outcome. Indicate in which course these will be used. Include rubrics used for assessment in the plan.

Indicate what out-of-class learning opportunities will be assessed using what tool, artifact, or method and how they will be evaluated. If relevant indicate how the out-of-class learning opportunity supports UWRF strategic initiatives. Include any documents/rubrics that will be used for assessment in the plan. 

Indicate what indirect methods of assessment will be used, e.g. students, alumni, professional stakeholders. Include instrument[s] in the plan.

IV. Process for Assessment

If applicable, indicate external professional accreditation and their assessment standards. 

Indicate the assessment cycle.

Describe the accountability structure for developing the assessment process [faculty, committee, assessment coordinator, students, external stakeholders, etc.]

Describe the process used for reviewing, aggregating, and analyzing assessment findings.

Describe the process used for maintaining data and documenting actions across the assessment cycle.

Describe the process used for the development, implementation , and reassessment of a) the changes need to maintain desired students learning and performance and b) improvement of student learning and performance.

Identify where internal and external stakeholders can obtain assessment results and action plans.

Reviewing Academic Program Assessment Plans. A copy of the complete rubric is located on the Campus Assessment Webpage. The assessment committee will review all program assessment plans.

Element

Exemplary

Well
Developed

Developed

Developing

Under
Developed

Undeveloped

Program Learning Outcomes

 


   
Profile of where learning Outcomes are being Achieved

 


   
Venues for Assessing Learning Outcomes

 


   
Process for Assessment

 


 


ACADEMIC PROGRAM  ASSESSMENT  REPORT ELEMENTS 

In order to examine the efforts of an academic program's assessment of student learning and the campus expectations regarding assessment, programs need to collect, analyze, and maintain the results from the activities identified in their assessment plans. This is an ongoing process. An assessment report will need to be generated and submitted to the campus as part pf the assessment cycle identified by UWRF for each program. The following are four elements/areas that are to be included in the assessment report. It is the program's responsibility to fully address each element/area.

  • Assessment Activities [across the stated time period]

Identify the assessment time frame covered in the report.

Discuss by learning outcomes for the major and different options in the major the assessment activities that the program has engaged in during the time period covered by the report.

Describe the assessment activities the program has engaged in during the time period covered by the report.

Discuss any engagement with internal and external stakeholders regarding assessment processes, out-of-classroom learning experiences, or learning outcome currency/relevance.

Discuss the role of out-of-classroom learning experiences and how they were assessed relative to the learning outcomes/option outcomes that were measured.

Discuss any changes to program learning outcomes, evaluation methods, or changes in linkage to UWRF strategic goals and initiatives that have occurred since the approved assessment plan was implemented. Attach a new assessment plan to the report.

Discuss the status of the action plans presented in the prior assessment reports.

  • Assessment Activity Results

Clearly present the direct assessment performance/evaluation findings related to each program/option learning outcome. This is not the detailed reports that may be developed by faculty at the course level but rather summary findings across selections/courses.

Clearly present the indirect findings from student, alumni, employer and/or other external stakeholders. [Note: This could replicate the data that chairs collect from graduating seniors each semester. For assessment reports, this should be presented as trend data].

Discuss the significance of the findings relative to program and/or external stakeholder expectations. Program are to be specific in discussing were performance is or is not meeting program expectations and clearly identify actions that will be taken to close performance gaps.

Identify specific actions with change/implementation time frames, accountability assignments, and review time frames. In addition to direct course-embedded and indirect assessment, actions should also address out-of-classroom learning, links to UWRF strategic goals and initiatives, and addressing external professional stakeholder needs as relevant.

Clearly state how internal and external stakeholders can obtain assessment report findings and action initiatives.

  • Action Plans

Discuss how the actions identified in the prior report were implemented, modifies, or removed.

Based on the results in the current assessment cycle, discuss specific actions the program will take to enhance its process for assessment of student learning in the major/option.  Actions can reflect curricular changes, revision of the courses and/or artifacts, used for assessment, rubric venues/opportunities, revision to the assessment process, or other action identifies by the program.

  • Attachments

Assessment Plan [with update/changes if made during the report cycle] is required.

Additional support material identified by the program.

Reviewing Academic Program Assessment Reports.  A copy of the complete rubric is located on the Campus Assessment Website.

http://www.uwrf.edu/facultysenate/upload/UWRF-faculty-senate-motion-2012-13-80.pdfdocument

Element

Exemplary

Well
Developed

Developed


Developing

Under
Developed

Undeveloped

Assessment Activities in
Report Cycle
       

Assessment Activity Results

       

Action Plans

       

Attachments

       


 

ASSESSMENT SCORING AND PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION/AUDIT AND REVIEW

As part of the program prioritization process, each program  will be scored based on the extent to which it meets University Assessment Plan and Report expectations.  The Assessment Committee will review program  plans and reports.  Based on the review of both documents, an aggregate score will be determined using the Senate adopted 10 -60 point score range. The score will be sent to the Program Audit and Review Committee. Programs with external accreditation may have this accreditation serve as the review for program prioritization.

[12/13-142document], [12/13-143document]

Section 4.2:  Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness

[FS 12/13-18document]

The instrument below (Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness) is to be administered to assess teaching effectiveness for all courses (traditional classroom and online courses) as required.  The instrument is to be administered online via Qualtrics or other electronic means (not in the classroom) with the results to be collected and disseminated by the Survey Research Center or appropriate administrative offices.

     I.     Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness
        Questions:  These questions are to be responded to using a 1 – 6 Likert Scale.
            1.    The instructor displayed thorough knowledge about the material being taught.
            2.    The instructor treated me fairly and with respect.
            3.    The objectives / learning outcomes for the course were clear.
            4.    I felt comfortable asking questions and / or expressing opinions.
            5.    The instructor was available for meetings and consultations.
            6.    The required tests, quizzes, projects, papers, reports, and other activities allowed me to
                   demonstrate my learning.
            7.    The instructor provided effective and timely feedback regarding exams, quizzes, and other
                   assignments.
            8.    Course concepts were presented in ways that helped my learning.

        For instructor feedback only:
            9.    I was satisfied with the technical assistance available, i.e. helpdesk, online tutorials, etc.
                   If not, please explain.
            10.  What did you like best about the course?
            11.  How could your experience have been improved?
        These questions are open ended.

Article V: Athletics

5.1: Procedures for Terminating or suspending a varsity sport

[FS 10/11-53document]

The principal responsibility for initiating a recommendation to review a sport for possible termination or suspension rests with the Athletic Director.  

  1. The Athletic Director will meet with the Chancellor to discuss and determine if the review process should be engaged. 
    a. The Chancellor approves or disapproves of the review process moving forward.  If the Chancellor approves a review process, this does not indicate approval of terminating or suspending the sport.
    b. If it is determined that a review will best serve the needs of the University, the Chancellor will inform other Chancellors of WIAC institutions that the process should proceed and invite discussion with the other Chancellors of the potential impact on conference competition.
  2. The Athletic Director meets with the Faculty Athletic Representatives and the Director of Equity and Compliance to discuss the rationale for the suspension or dropping of the sport.  If the Athletic Director elects to move forward, a meeting with the coach of the sport is held and the rationale for considering terminating or suspending the sport is explained.
  3. The Athletic Director meets with the Faculty Senate Athletic Committee and presents the rationale for suspending/terminating the sport.
  4. The Chair of the Athletic Committee will schedule an open meeting held via open meeting law where members of the coaching staff, student athletes, alumni, community members, and supporters of the sport will have the opportunity to express their perspectives and concerns to the Athletic Committee.
    a. Notification and the agenda for this meeting is sent to the President of the Student Senate and posted on Falcon Daily.
    b. Those in attendance who wish to share their support or concern, should address the eight published Considerations for Suspending or Terminating a Varsity Sport, which would be supplied to all in attendance.
    c. Those unable to attend the open forum who wish to share their support or concern with members of the Athletic Committee may do so via email with messages sent directly to the Chair of the Athletic Committee.
  5. The Athletic Committee makes a recommendation regarding the termination of suspension, and that recommendation is sent simultaneously to the Chancellor and the Chair of Faculty Senate, with a copy sent to the Athletic Director.
  6. Faculty Senate may also provide additional input to the Chancellor.
  7. The Athletic Director makes a final recommendation to the Chancellor regarding the decision to drop or suspend a sport.
  8. The Chancellor approves or denies the athletic director's recommendation.  If it is agreed to drop or suspend a sport, the Athletic Department works in concert with University Communications to make an announcement and address follow up communications.  The Athletic Director implements the Chancellor's decision as necessary.

Considerations for Suspending or Terminating a Varsity Sport (not in any priority order)

  1. Title IX impact
  2. Are the facilities adequate to support a competitive program?
  3. What is the competitive and participation history of the sport?
  4. Is quality, consistent coaching available?
  5. What are the financial implications, including the possibility of reallocating resources within and outside of athletics?
  6. Contribution to broad based programs:
    a. Balance between team and individual programs
    b. Other opportunities for competition
    Availability of intramural alternatives
  7. Effect on community involvement and service.
  8. What are the enrollment implications, including impact on the university's strategic enrollment goals?

 

Article VI: Awards

 Section 6.1 Advising Awards


1. Purpose and Eligibility
The purpose of the UWRF Academic Advisor of the Year award is to recognize excellence in the academic advising of undergraduate students.  Eligible for the award are full-time, tenure-track faculty and professional staff with a minimum of four years of academic advising at UWRF.

2. Nomination Procedure
Eligible nominators include all current students and alumni of UWRF.  An on-line nomination form will be made available through the University web site, and advertised electronically to current students and alumni.  Seniors, three, and five year alumni will receive solicitations via postcard along with their Distinguished Teacher Award nominating materials

3. Selection Procedure
The Advising Committee will collect the nominations.  The committee’s selection will not solely be based on the number of nominations received but will also take into account students’ and alumni comments in order to address disparity in advising loads in different departments.

4. Recommendation to the Chancellor
The committee’s annual recommendation to the Chancellor will consist of a single academic advisor’s name.

5. Award Presentation
Of the nominations, the only name to be announced will be the advisor selected for the award.  The award presentation will be made at the Chancellor’s Award Reception.  It is recommended that a monetary prize accompany the award.  An advisor may receive the award only once.

6. Improvement of Academic Advising
The Advising Committee will evaluate the nominations to gain insight into what students and alumni consider to be criteria for outstanding academic advising.  These insights will inform development of faculty and student outcomes of advising, tools for their assessment, and plans for their achievement.

The following is the appearance of the on-line form:

Nomination Form
Academic Advisor’s full name:
Academic Advisor’s department or program:

Nominated by:
Nominator’s university status: alumni, senior, junior, sophomore, freshman.
Nominator’s major:

For each statement please indicate whether you;
 

Strongly Agree=5, are neutral=3, or Strongly Disagree=1

My Academic Advisor............

is/was a source of accurate information regarding academic requirements within my academic program.
5 4 3 2 1
is/was knowledgeable of institutional regulations, policies, and procedures.
5 4 3 2 1
is/aware of and makes/made appropriate referrals to career, health, academic success, or other services when I needed them.
5 4 3 2 1
is/was available and accessible and communicated in a timely fashion.
5 4 3 2 1
keeps track/kept track of my progress toward academic and career goals
5 4 3 2 1
represents/represented UWRF's core values of Integrity, Academic Excellence, Inclusiveness, Community, and Continuous Improvement.
5 4 3 2 1
has/had a helpful, caring attitude toward students.
5 4 3 2 1

Please briefly explain why you feel this advisor should be recognized with this award.


1. How has this advisor met your academic advising needs?


2. Describe three qualities that make this advisor uniquely suited for this award.


 Section 6.2 Teaching Award

Information forthcoming

 Article VII:  Compensation Issues

Section 7.1:  Academic Advisor Summer School Compensation

 

  • The Department Chair or designee (separate from any paid supplemental adviser) shall be present to serve majors within that department and provide general support to the students within their respective colleges for the duration of the new student and transfer registration period.
  • All of the supplemental summer advising funds shall be allocated directly to the academic deans and vice chancellor for academic affairs based proportionally upon projected fall enrollments of incoming students.  The academic deans and the vice chancellor for academic affairs will distribute the allocations with the intended goal of achieving approximately one adviser per 50 incoming students, while assuming department chairs will also be advising.  The numbers need to be monitored and allocations adjusted annually
  • The vice chancellor for academic affairs, academic deans and/or department chairs shall have discretion to receive nominations and appoint individuals to fill all or part of the suggested allocations.
  • Supplemental Academic Advisers should be chosen that can provide broad support to the programs within their colleges as well as to pre-majors as time permits.
  • Enrollment Services shall keep Department Chairs informed as to numbers of students and their distribution throughout the advising and registration period.

 

Section 7.2: Annual Adjustment of Compensation


Each academic year, UWRF will adjust the compensation rates for Internships, Independent Readings, Independent Study, Study Abroad, Undergraduate Research, and Overload courses.  The increase will be at least equal to the percentage increase in the faculty pay plan.
 

 Section 7.3: Compensation for Education Abroad faculty


Faculty serving as leaders for short-term study abroad courses through Global Connections shall be compensated at the current per-credit pay-rates in effect for overloads at UWRF at the time of the completion of the study abroad or $1,500 per credit, whichever is higher.  Faculty leaders may be compensated up to the maximum allowed per credit for overloads or $1,500 per credit, whichever is higher, subject to the course generating sufficient revenue to cover tour expenses, tour reserve and faculty compensation. In addition, faculty may receive up to one credit for course preparation and one credit for coordination of logistics for their study tour subject to the tour generating sufficient revenue to cover these expenses. Final compensation will be determined by the Director of International Educational Programs.

Section 7.4: Compensation for Instructional Academic Staff on Senate

[FS 10/11-23document]

Instructional academic staff members who are elected to serve on Faculty Senate $500.00 in renumeration for such University Service (provided their contracts do not already include provisions for compensation for University Service) and that this compensation be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the pay plan.  

 Section 7.5: Compensation for Summer and J-Term


A Uniform Campus Compensation Policy for Summer Session and Winter Session (J-Term)

1.0    MISSION STATEMENT:
Summer session and J-term courses and programs will be offered to expand academic access for UWRF students and to allow faculty and staff to support and enhance student-learning opportunities.  Courses and programs offered will be guided by the Goals and Initiatives set forth in the University Operational Plan as well as the Strategic Plan which include, but are not limited to, Goal 1:  Create a Culture of Learning and Goal 7:  Invest in Human Resources.  Academic units will refer to the spirit of the Strategic Plan when choosing course offerings that meet the needs of various learner constituencies, such as currently matriculated students, working professionals, life-long learners, regional businesses, organizations and agencies and under-represented and minority populations.  All program and course offerings will be based on a model that is fiscally sustainable.  The procedures set forth in this paper are intended to allow UWRF to offer, over the course of an academic year, the broadest possible mix of classes to meet our diverse learner population needs, provide students greater opportunity to graduate within four years, and compensate faculty and staff in a manner commensurate with their rank.
 

2.0    OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND:
Prior to 2003 (and the development and implementation of the UWRF Strategic Plan), summer session courses were taught on a compensation model that was proportional to a faculty member’s 9-month academic year salary up to a maximum of 2/9 (0.2222) of that salary.  A full summer session load was considered to be 8 credits and course enrollments of 18 students were required for instructors to receive full compensation.  Courses with fewer than 18 students were taught at a reduced rate as individually negotiated with the respective Deans.  This policy changed in 2003, without Faculty Governance input or consultation, to a per-credit rate model with built in salary plateaus.  The result of this change was faculty and staff teaching courses for significantly less compensation as well as the introduction of a tremendous disincentive to offer classes whose enrollments were above the designated plateau levels or below reasonable compensation enrollments.  This, along with other reasons, has resulted in a stagnant summer session program.  With the introduction of the Wisconsin Growth Agenda and More Graduates for Wisconsin initiatives, it is imperative that UWRF leverage our talent and physical resources more affectively to reach our goals and expand student opportunities.  Enhancing our summer school and J-term offerings will play a significant role in reaching our objectives and better serve our student body by offering additional scheduling flexibility.
The express purpose of this policy is to align our summer session/J-term compensation policy with the overall Goals and Initiatives set forth in the Strategic Plan while specifically addressing Goal 7.1.3:  “Develop and Implement a new summer and J-term session salary schedule/model.”  It is a model that, among other things:

•    gains legitimacy as a result of percolating up through the shared governance process;
•    is consistently applied across all colleges and listed programs and simplifies administration;
•    fairly compensates faculty and staff for their time and expertise;
•    eliminates arbitrary pay plateaus;
•    modestly rewards faculty and staff for their differential time in service;
•    provides incentive for faculty, staff and administration to create a viable and vibrant summer session program that generates revenue;
•    redistributes the enrollment pressures to help relieve and address the workload creep (SP Goal 7.2.3) seen throughout the academic year created by the Wisconsin Growth Agenda and the More

Graduates for Wisconsin initiative, which currently requires units to overpopulate lectures and laboratories during the regular academic year;
•    encourages colleges to collaborate and develop a reliable and predictable summer session/J-term schedule for advising and planning purposes;
•    creates confidence in an expanded array of summer and J-term course offerings that will allow students and advisors to build these courses into their long-term plan, permitting them to graduate early should they so choose;
•    makes more efficient use of campus physical and technological resources, and;
•    should expand summer session and J-term course offerings to increase student scheduling flexibility thereby making summer session and J-term  more desirable student options.
 

3.0    COMPENSATION POLICY GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS:

3.1    Summer Session, Winter Session (J-term), including Fully On-line, Hybrid, Internship, Independent Study, Research, and Reading Compensation Policy guiding principles and requirements. 

3.1.1    Courses and programs will be offered through a sustainable fiscal model.

3.1.2    Class size during Summer and Winter sessions should be set to a similar level as those offered during the regular academic year.

3.1.3    Compensation will be based on the Wisconsin resident undergraduate/graduate tuition revenue generated. Faculty salary calculation during simmer/J term is based on student head counts in each course. Determination of head count during these sessions will be at the end of the day (midnight) at 2/15ths of the session length, always rounded up to a whole day and not to be less than two days.

A day is defined as a "business work" day, or week day, not including weekends or holidays. The tuition revenue does not include segregated fees, special course fees, online fees, reciprocity, differential tuition, etc. [FS 12/13-153document]

3.1.4    There are three compensation tiers to modestly acknowledge and reward differences in rank:  Tier 1 (Assistant Professor and Instructional Academic Staff); Tier 2 (Associate Professor); and Tier 3 (Full Professor).

3.1.5    The policy will apply consistently to all summer and J-term courses including on-campus undergraduate and graduate classes, as well as hybrid, fully on-line, internships, independent study and independent research/reading courses across all colleges.  The only exceptions are listed in item 3.1.14.

3.1.6     Compensation will automatically increase with tuition increases at the rate not to exceed 5%.

3.1.7    There is no $12,000 overload salary cap during summer session as academic year (9 month) faculty are not on contract per…
•    UWSA ACPS 4 (http://www.uwsa.edu/acss/acps/acps4.pdf)
•    UPG-4 (http://www.uwsa.edu/hr/upgs/UPG%204/UPG04%2007.23.08.pdf)
•    Section 16.417(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes     (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/Statutes.html) 3.1.10).
•    Note:  the $12,000 overload salary cap does apply to faculty and staff teaching during J-term as they are on contract.

3.1.8    Faculty are restricted to earning no more than a total of 2/9 of their annual contractual salary unless they receive written permission from the Dean of the college as the Chancellor designee per UWSA F29 (http://www.uwsa.edu/fadmin/fppp/fppp29.htm).

3.1.9    Deans and department chairs will offer summer session/J-term courses that complement, not displace or negatively impact, academic year offerings.

3.1.10    The minimum class size will be determined at the discretion of the Dean after consultation with the instructor and/or department chair.

3.1.11    The campus will submit a formal System request to eliminate the 6-9 credit summer tuition plateau for undergraduates within 6 months of the implementation of this policy.

3.1.12    Review Policy.  This policy will be in place for three years from the time of initial implementation.  A review, collaboratively undertaken by the Senate Faculty Compensation Committee and Administration, will be conducted following the second full year of implementation.  The objective of this review process is to assure the policy is meeting its goals which are:
Offer broadest possible mix of classes to meet diverse learner population needs.
Provide students greater opportunity to graduate within four years.
Compensate faculty and staff in a manner commensurate with their rank.
Determine the possibility of revising compensation percentages based on meeting the set goals and no decrease in budget return to campus below summer 2010 levels..

This policy, as well as the compensation levels distributed to faculty and staff, may be adjusted after year three following discussion between Administration and Faculty Governance which would provide a recommendation to the Chancellor for his/her decision.

3.1.13    Study abroad, service-based pricing and Outreach/Continuing Education offerings are addressed in separate policies.

4.0    UNIT RESPONSIBILITIES:


4.1    Deans of the Academic Colleges

4.1.1    College Deans in consultation with Department Chairs will set appropriate class numbers and size limits to meet the objectives of this policy and to assure that courses normally offered during the academic year are not negatively affected.  Deans will be responsible for covering expenditures beyond the amount collected via tuition/fee revenue.

4.2    Registrar’s Office

4.2.1    The Registrar’s office will be responsible for coordinating and scheduling all summer session and winter course offerings.

4.2.2    The Registrar’s office will post a two-year working summer and J-term course schedule in consultation with the colleges.

4.3    Outreach/Continuing Education

4.3.1    The Office of Outreach/Continuing Education will be responsible for managing only those courses offered through Outreach/Continuing Education.

5.0    COMPENSATION POLICY:

5.1    Compensation for teaching summer session, winter session (J-Term) is based on a simple formula tied to gross tuition revenue as defined under sections 3.1.4, 5.2 and Table 1.  It will be consistently applied to faculty and staff across all colleges.

 5.2    There are three compensation tiers which represent percentages of gross WI resident tuition revenue retained by the instructor:
•    Tier 1:  34% of gross tuition revenue—Assistant Professor and Instructional Academic Staff;
•    Tier 2:  36% of gross tuition revenue—Associate Professor;
•    Tier 3:  38%: Tier 3—Full Professor.

5.3    An example for establishing compensation under this policy—assuming a class of 20 students—is demonstrated below in Table 1.

 Section 7.6: Salary Adjustment Plan

Beginning with the 2010-2011 academic year, salary adjustments (other than the pay plan percentage increase) for faculty of all ranks will be made on the basis of a model to be determined that would include, but not be limited to,

1) Post Tenure Review;

2) the difference between the faculty member's salary and the salaries of faculty at peer institutions adjusted for academic discipline; and

3) years of service at UWRF.  A minimum of $100,000 shall be allocated to this adjustment fund annually.  These monies are separate from the RRF program or its UW System institutional successor.  Other compensation adjustment programs currently in existence at UW-RF will continue to exist.  This allocation shall continue at least until UWRF faculty (tenured and tenure track) salaries at all ranks reach the average of our peer institutions as determined by the AAUP Faculty Salary Survey.  This salary adjustment may be delayed for one year in the event of a significant UW System lapse and only after consultation with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate and Faculty Senate.

Guidelines to Implement the Motion:

1.  All tenured and tenure-track faculty members at UWRF will be in the initial pool for salary analysis.

2.  Distributions are to address disparities between UWRF faculty salaries and those of peer institutions as determined by the College and University Professional Association's (CUPA) National Faculty  Salary Survey for Four-Year Institutions (NFSS) and by the AAUP Faculty Salary Survey as stated in UWRF Motion [FS 09/10-25document]– Section 5.

3.  Distributions should be in the $2,000 to $5,000 range.  Exceptions to grant more than $5,000 may be made by the Deans' Council in egregious cases.

4.  A faculty member receiving a distribution will be eligible for consideration again three years after receiving the distribution.

5.  In any given year, each college (CAFES, CAS, CBE, CEPS) will have a minimum of one recipient.

6.  The data source for salary analysis will come from the College and University Professional Association's (CUPA) National Faculty Salary Survey for Four-Year Institutions (NFSS).  The base for each year will be the academic year that was just completed or the most recent data available from CUPA.

7.  Peer Institutions are the schools listed in Table 1 -- ACCRA Cost of Living Indexdocument of UW-River Falls Self-Identified Peer Institutions.

Procedure:
1.  At the beginning of a new fiscal year, the UWRF Budget Office will prepare a list of all faculty members including:

A.  Name
B.  Academic discipline determination (CIP codedocument )

  1. The UWRF Budget Office will prepare a list of faculty members by department and a list of majors and the corresponding 4-digit CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) codes for each major.
  2. The list of all faculty members and the list of 4-digit CIP codes for each major will be sent to the chair of each department and the Dean of each college.
  3. The chair, in consultation with each individual faculty member in his/her department will determine an appropriate CIP code designation for each faculty member.  The list of faculty and their corresponding CIP code will then be sent to the appropriate college Dean for review and then to the Provost for approval.  The approved list will then be sent to the Budget Office.
  4. When a department or program is not identified specifically in CUPA categories or the member's academic responsibilities may involve multiple disciplines, a comparative discipline/program will be identified by the faculty member and the faculty member's department/program chair and forwarded to the College Dean for recommendation to the Provost for his/her approval.

C.  Budgeted base salary or nine-month equivalent for the current academic yearD.  Rank

E.  Time in rank

F.  Time at UWRF

G.  The CUPA median salary for the discipline and rank

H.  Percent that the faculty member's salary varies from the CUPA median salary.

 
2.  A gap analysis will be conducted based on the percentage of difference between the faculty member's salary and the relevant CUPA med

an salary by rank within the faculty member's discipline.

3.  The Dean of each college will examine the list of faculty in his/her college and prepare a list of potential recipients.  The primary factor for preparing the list will be the data driven gap analysis.  In addition, the Dean will consider other factors such as time in rank, years of service at UWRF, post tenure reviews for tenured faculty, renewal reports of probationary faculty, teacher evaluations, service to the University, and other factors consistent with Guideline 2 above.

4.  The Deans' Council will meet and agree on which faculty members will be given a salary adjustment and the amount of that adjustment.  The University Auditor will attend that meeting.

5.  All the money budgeted for this program will be spent each academic year

6.  Salary adjustments will be made retroactive to the beginning of the current academic year.

7.  The University Auditor will verify that the procedures involved in that year's decision complied with the guidelines and procedure detailed above.  In accordance with the University of Wisconsin System Policy, the University Internal Auditor shall have full, free, and unrestricted access to all University records, properties, and personnel used to fulfill the requirements of this procedure.  The University Auditor will meet with the chair of faculty senate, the chair of the faculty compensation committee, the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, and the provost to report his/her findings.  The University Auditor will prepare a summary written report that will be sent to Faculty Senate that includes the names of the recipients and the amounts awarded.

8.  Review Policy.  This program will continue until the median salary of all UWRF faculty ranks (tenured and tenure-track) reaches the median salary of our peer institutions. 

A review, collaboratively undertaken by the Senate Faculty Compensation Committee and Administration, will be conducted following the second full year of implementation.

This policy may be modified after the second year's salary adjustment distributions following discussion between Administration and Faculty Governance which would provide a recommendation to the Chancellor for his/her decision.

 Section 7.7: Salary Adjustment Plan Data to be Available to the Senate


Lists of Tenure track faculty members, their salaries, and CIP scores used as part of the salary distribution decision-making process will be released to the Faculty Senate for informational purposes.

 Section 7.8: Senate Chair Compensation


The Senate Chair will receive 0.50 reassignment time each fall and spring semester, and $3,000 summer salary.

 Article VIII: Elections

 Section 8.1:  Senate Officer Elections

Nominations shall be taken for each position on the Executive Committee (i.e. those defined in the Constitution).  Senators may either nominate themselves, or other senators.  Prior to the vote, every candidate will have an opportunity to address the Senate and respond to any questions that might be posed.  After all presentations for a specific office are completed, voting shall commence.  A majority of the votes cast is necessary for a candidate to be declared the winner.  Any ballot that results in a majority shall suffice to elect a winner.  However, if no candidate receives a majority after one round, the top two candidates will be placed onto a new ballot.  If, at any stage, there is a tie, it shall be broken by random lot (e.g. coin toss, or other mechanism agreed upon at the time of the election by the candidates involved if more than two candidates are tied).

All elections and referenda will be conducted by anonymous and secure ballot. [FS 11/12-36document]

 Article IX: Fulbright Fellowships

 Section 9.1: UWRF Policy Regarding Fulbright Grants to Teach or Research Abroad

Faculty who wish to accept a Fulbright grant will be continued in their present salary and benefits by UWRF through the mechanism of turning over to UWRF the cost of replacing their teaching services for the duration of the Fulbright.

Details
    (1) It is assumed that the faculty member on such a “Fulbright Reassignment” (a “leave of absence” mischaracterizes the reassignment and may create difficulties in maintaining the faculty member on health and pension plans) continues to work for UWRF in developing contacts abroad.
    (2) It is further assumed that the faculty member will return to UWRF at the conclusion of the reassignment to enrich the campus with the experience.  To that end, and following a similar stipulation in UWRF’s sabbatical guidelines, a faculty member must remain in the employment of UWRF for two semesters for every semester in which full salary was maintained or pay back to UWRF the difference between the teaching costs covered and the remainder of the salary paid by UWRF.
    (3) This policy is intended as an incentive for faculty to apply for and accept a grant for up to one year.  The policy does not apply necessarily if a Fulbright grantee were offered a consecutive continuation of the abroad experience, either through the Fulbright Commission or through the foreign home university.  Such cases would be subject to negotiation between UWRF administration and the faculty member.  However, the Fulbright Commission allows two life-time grants, and a second grant separated by a minimum of three years from the first, would be subject to this policy.
    (4) The current (2010) teaching replacement cost is figured at approximately $1,560 per credit to cover instruction (figured at $1,300 per credit) and benefits (multiply by 20%) for a replacement instructor.  Thus, the teaching costs expected to be covered by the Fulbright grantee would be capped at and normally be $18,720 (12 x $1,560) per semester.  However, in a given department, the faculty member’s teaching assignment in a given year might not need to be fully covered (not 100%, not the full 12 credits per semester).  In such a case, the teaching replacement cost would be less.
    (5) Full salary paid by UWRF will ensure continued health coverage.  Fulbright grantees receive health coverage adequate to treat a broken leg in country.  But if anything major is detected while the grantee is abroad, continuing health coverage is important.
    (6) Full salary paid by UWRF will ensure continued life insurance, income continuation, and other coverage.
    (7) Full salary paid by UWRF will ensure continued pension credit.  Since in fact faculty will be working to enrich Wisconsin and the UWS, this continuation is appropriate.

Institutional Benefits
    1. An additionally internationalized campus.
    2. Re-energized, re-tooled, and pedagogically reoriented faculty to better serve our students.
    3. Compliance with UWRF goal, in its strategic plan, “to expand global literacy and engagement.”
    4. Additional conformity to UWS goal “to consider incentives to encourage …faculty and academic staff to participate in programs abroad.”
5. Administrative transparency.
6. Recognized leadership in a local, System, and national priority.


Fulbright Grants and Sabbaticals
    There are circumstances where faculty apply for sabbaticals with the hope of receiving a Fulbright grant that will help them carry out the sabbatical.  In such cases, the following provision (#4) in the sabbatical guidelines will apply: “A faculty member may seek additional grants specifically for travel or unusual living expenses incidental to the Sabbatical Program without restriction by the full compensation maximum."
(http://www.uwrf.edu/facdev/Sabbatical.php)  Those who receive both the sabbatical and the Fulbright grant thus maintain their sabbatical status, which guarantees the faculty member’s continuation of benefits, and such grantees may retain the entire amount of the Fulbright grant even if the combination of sabbatical grant and Fulbright grant exceeds 100% of salary.  Furthermore, the stipulation that the faculty member return for one year to UWRF following a sabbatical will apply in such cases, not a longer term.

Fulbright Grants and Tenure
    
Similar to sabbatical grants, which currently acknowledge continued service to the UWRF in the evaluation of the application, Fulbright grants are perhaps best pursued by professors above the rank of assistant professor.  Nonetheless, the intent of the policy is to create incentives for internationalizing UWRF.  To that end, departments are encouraged to work with any junior faculty who may become Fulbright grantees in regard to the tenure process.  Such accommodation may include, for example, by mutual agreement, the stopping of the tenure clock, subject to UWS guidelines, and should include at minimum a frank and documented conversation regarding the effects of the grantee’s accepting such a grant on the department’s view of the tenure-track candidate’s tenure-ability.

 Article X:  Program Prioritization

Program Prioritization and Program Audit and Review

The measures below are intended to provide comparative data that can be used to assess programs and rank them using categories.  The process requires significant contributions and activity on the part of academic programs across campus.  The end goal is to provide useful information to decision makers at all levels of the institution.

Three categories have been identified: intellectual strength, enrollment strength, and financial strength. 

It is anticipated that this document will be refined and amended in the future.  The Committee anticipates that if the overall point allocation remains the same, it should be possible to amend the categories and continue the process while minimizing problems of comparability over time.

The University will adjust, allocate, and prioritize resources to implement this plan.

The Provost is responsible for the oversight and implementation of this plan. 

The Faculty Senate and Administration will work to establish a six-year program audit and review process that is linked to, and primarily achieved by, program prioritization.

Working definitions:

Communication and Records:  To ensure transparency, the Provost’s Office will have primary responsibility to ensure appropriate communications regarding PP-PAR are provided to the university community.  A secure, password-protected site will be created by the Provost’s Office that allows members of the university community to access the materials used in PP-PAR activities (e.g. documents, data, scoring sheets, and so on)

Dates:  If a calendar deadline happens to fall on a weekend or holiday, the next business day (i.e. regular workday, Monday-Friday) will serve as the deadline.

Definitional Disputes:  Minor definitional issues will be resolved through consultation between the Provost’s Office and the Faculty Senate Chair.  Major definitional issues must be resolved through governance consultation between the Administration and Faculty Senate.  Any definitional issues that arise will be reported to the Faculty Senate.

Faculty:  Staff will be defined as “faculty” if their primary appointment is instructional.  Faculty consists of instructional staff within a department, unless noted otherwise for a specific factor.

Majors:  All students within a program (e.g. 1st, 2nd, etc. majors) will be counted.

Program: consists of a major or graduate degree.

Program chair:  In most situations, the program chair will be the department chair.  In instances of graduate programs, the graduate director might serve as the chair for the program.  In cases where a chair is in charge of multiple majors, he/she will represent one program, and another member of the faculty in that program will serve as “chair” of the program when evaluations and scoring occurs for Intellectual Strength category D.  The requirement is that each program be represented by a unique individual for the purposes of that item. 

Program Faculty: consists of faculty serving a major.  For departmentally-based majors, this includes only the faculty within that department who serve that major.  For multi-disciplinary majors, this includes only the faculty on the steering committee (or equivalent if named something else).  In cases where faculty serve more than one major, their contributions will count equally and fully towards each major (e.g. a history professor on the BFSS committee will have his/her contributions count towards the calculations for both history and BFSS majors).

Rankings:  All programs will be scored on a three-year cycle, but will be re-ranked annually.  Rankings will be reported in four, equally-weighted categories, under the heading of “Prioritization: Prospects for Program Investment.”

 Prioritization: Prospects for Program Investment

 1. “Enhance”
 2. “Maintain”
 3. “Monitor”
 4. “Eliminate, Reduce, Integrate, or Reorganize”
A. The deans have the responsibility to identify any programs by category that are being considered for elimination, reduction, integration, or reorganization. This information will be communicated to the affected departments by April 1, annually.
B.  Departments will have until June 15 to reply to the dean's proposal.
C. By August 1, the deans will communicate their formal recommendations to the Chancellor, Provost, Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Academic Program and Policy Committee, the the relevant college and or graduate studies curriculum committees (the latter two for informational purposes only).
D.  By October 15, the AP&P Committee will vote on whether or not to oppose the deans' recommendations. To oppose the recommendations requires a two-thirds vote of the members of the AP&P Committee. If the AP&P Committee has either not voted on the deans' proposals by October 15 or has not provided a two-thirds vole of the members of the AP&P Committee in opposition, they will automatically be forwarded to the Faculty Senate.
E.  By December 15, the Faculty Senate will vote on whether or not to oppose the deans' recommendations. To oppose the recommendations requires a two-thirds vote of the members of the Senate.  If the Senate has either not voted on the deans' proposals by December 15 or has not provided a two-thirds vote of the members of the Senate in opposition, they will automatically be forwarded to the Chancellor for his consideration.
F.  This process will be implemented no earlier than the conclusion of the fourth year of the full implementation of the program prioritization process. [FS 12/13-119document]

Scoring:  Unless noted otherwise for a specific factor, scores will be reported on a per capita basis (e.g. 15 publications for 10 FTE equals 1.5 per FTE).  All scores will also be reported on a pro-rated basis. For example, when adjuncts are counted, an adjunct with a 20 percent annual appointment with two professional memberships in a given year will contribute 0.4 professional memberships (0.2 time appointment times 2 publications equals 0.4 publications).  A second example is that a full-time faculty member co-authoring a publication with someone either at the university or in another institution in a given year will contribute 0.5 publications (One FTE times 0.5 publication equals 0.5 publications).   This is particularly important for Intellectual Strength category D.

Scoring Categories:  Unless noted otherwise for a specific factor, a continuum scoring system is used.  The highest result for a program will be placed onto one end of a continuum and the lowest result will be placed onto the other end.  This will result in the creation of a range.  The range will be divided by the number of points allocated to the factor to create the scoring categories.  For example, if fifty programs are being scored, and a factor is worth 10 points, ten equally divided and weighted categories on the continuum will be created.  If the lowest result is 80 and the highest is 110, the scoring categories would be as follows:

Categories

80-
82.99

83-
86.99

87-
89.99

90-
92.99

93-
95.99

96-
98.99

99-
101.99

102-
104.99

105-
107.99

108-
110

Points

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


The results will then be slotted into the appropriate place on the continuum and the resulting score will be recorded for each program. In this example, a program with a result of 94.7 would receive 5 points, a program with a result of 104.9 would receive 8 points, and a program with a score of 110 would receive 10 points.

It is important to note that in some cases, lower results are preferable to higher results, and the scores must be calculated accordingly.

Software packages:  Sedona, or a similar package, will be used campus-wide to collect data where appropriate regarding faculty activities.  This decision will be reviewed after year one to assess its effectiveness.  The package that is used will have a single template or set of categories for all programs that will be used for PP-PAR purposes.

Student contact hours:  This is the total number of “hours” of lecture, discussion, lab, and other time provided for a “course,” multiplied by the number of students in the course.

Timeline for data:  Data will be collected for the previous three years, where available, unless specified otherwise for a particular factor.  It is expected that for some items where new measures are being developed, such as the use of a standardized scale for surveys of graduating seniors, data for less than three years will be available for several years.  Such situations will be specified before the process begins for a given year. 

Timeline for scoring programs:  All programs will be scored in year one.  In year two, one-third of programs will be scored, with another third in year three, and another third in year four.  This means some programs will be scored in two consecutive years.  This is necessary to produce usable, campus-wide data in years one and two.  Without this significant, initial investment of effort, it would take three years to obtain usable, campus-wide data.  The Faculty Senate Executive Committee will determine the order that programs will be scored using a random method applied in a meeting open to the public.  For departments housing more than one program, all programs will be grouped together in the year they are scored.  Departments that wish to be scored in a non-scheduled year can elect to do so, but they must then be scored again in their regularly scheduled year.

Intellectual Strength: 210 points

A. The extent to which the program meets University Assessment plan and report expectations.

Points:
Sixty points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  The Assessment Committee will use its assessment rubric to place programs into six categories, and this data will be provided to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The highest category will be worth 60 points, the second highest will be worth 50, the third highest 40, and so on.  In year one, this rubric will be applied to all programs.  In subsequent years, one-third of programs will be assessed using this rubric.   The Assessment Committee will report the scores to the Program Audit and Review Committee.

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

B. The extent to which the needs of graduates are being met by program learning outcomes.

Points: Thirty points are assigned to this measure.

Process:  Each program will administer an exit survey to graduating students that provides indirect measures of program learning outcomes.  The standardized scale, below, will be used for each survey. 

Please fill in the circle that best reflects the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Outcome

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Slightly
Agree

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Place outcomes in this column


 

The chair will report the resulting data on an overall percentage basis (i.e. the percentage of overall responses scoring in each of the six approved categories).  Note that there is no particular advantage or disadvantage to having more or fewer learning outcomes, as long as the totals are reported as aggregated percentages.  Here is an example for a program with two outcomes.

 

Outcome

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Slightly
Agree

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Total
Observations

Program outcome ONE

10

10

10

5

5

0

40

Program outcome TWO

5

10

20

5

0

0

40

Numerical & Percentage results

15/80

18.75%

20/80

25.00%

30/80

37.50%

10/80

12.50%

5/80

6.25%

0/80

0.00%

80

100.00%

The resulting data will be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee, and programs will be slotted into one of the six categories after calculating a final figure.  Strongly agree will be worth 30 points, agree worth 25, slightly agree worth 20, slightly disagree worth 15, disagree worth 10 and disagree strongly worth 5 points.  Using the example above, the final score will be calculated as

 [(18.75 * 30) + (25.00 * 25) + (37.50 * 20) + (12.50 * 15) + (6.25 * 10) + (0.00 * 5)] / 100 = Final percentage, or

 [562.5 + 625 + 750 + 187.5 + 62.5 + 0] / 100 = Final percentage, or

 2187.50 / 100 = Final percentage, or

 21.875 = Final percentage

The table below will then be used to score the program.  In the example above, 21.875 would place this program into the “agree” category, with its 20.001-25.000 range.  This program’s score is the figure in the “agree” column, “score by category row (i.e. the bottom row), and results in a “score” of 25 points being assigned to this factor.

Outcome

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Slightly
Agree

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Final percentage

30.000-
25.001

25.000-
20.001

20.000-
15.001

15.000-
10.001

10.000-
5.001

5.000-
0.000

Score by category

30

25

20

15

10

5

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

C. The five-year trend in percentage of employed and continuing education of graduates by major.

This factor will be left in the equation, but all programs will be assigned the full thirty points until a mechanism approved by Senate is developed by the Program Audit and Review Committee to provide meaningful and comparable data for all programs.  The Program and Audit Review Committee will provide a recommendation to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, and this will be submitted to the Senate for its consideration.  After a measure is developed and adequate data are collected, this factor will be scored.

Points: Thirty points are assigned to this factor.

Process
:  After the score and process are approved, data will be reported to the PAR Committee.   The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 30 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with thirty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “employment” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

D. The extent to which tenure-track faculty have remained actively engaged and up-to-date in their discipline.

Points: Sixty points are allocated to this measure.  Programs will be scored and then placed into one of six categories (i.e. one-sixth in each category), worth 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10, with 60 being the highest.

Process:  Each program chair, or designee, will provide a list of items for their tenure-track faculty that demonstrates their engagement and how up-to-date they are in their discipline (on a per capita, pro-rated basis, and within three years the Program and Audit Review committee will recommend a mechanism to include academic staff and report to the Senate each year regarding its progress beginning in 2013).  Names are not necessary, and it should consist of a list of activities with numerical scores for each category (on a per capita, pro-rated basis) that cover the previous three-year period (for the purposes of this measure, the “year” is defined as ending on the last contract day of spring semester.  Representative examples of items to include are:

  • RSCA activities, such as reviews, papers, presentations, books, works of art, performances, and so on.
  • Teaching related activities if they relate to activities such as writing new courses, revising significantly existing courses, writing new programs or revising existing programs, applying innovative teaching methods, and related “teaching activities,” such as education abroad, undergraduate research, mentoring internships, and supervising independent readings and independent studies.
  • Relevant public service and activities related to one’s program, such as memberships and participation in professional organizations, relevant university bodies (e.g. assessment committee, general education and university requirements committee, academic program and policy committee, faculty senate, and so on), professional presentations (in-person, radio interviews, television appearances, and so on), professionally-related volunteer work, and so on.
  • Professional development, such as completing additional coursework in one’s field, workshops, sabbaticals, grants (e.g. number and/or financial value).
  • Other relevant activities (must provide adequate definition for readers).

In year one, all programs will be evaluated, and all “chairs” will participate.  In other years, only one-third of programs will be evaluated, and they will be evaluated by all “chairs,” including those whose programs are not being evaluated in that year.

The list will be forwarded by the chair to the Provost, who will compile the information and distribute it to all “chairs” and deans. Each chair/dean will rank all the programs into the six categories, assigning one-sixth to each category.   These scores will be reported to the Provost, who will aggregate them and provide an overall ranking, placing all programs into the six categories, assigning one-sixth to each category.  (Note: if an odd number of programs exist that is not divisible by six exactly, it might be the case that one or a couple of categories might each have one more program placed into it/them).   This data will be provided to the Program Audit and Review Committee.

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

E. Strategic Planning Goals: the extent to which a program supports the strategic planning goals of the university.

Points: Thirty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Each program chair will write an approximately one-page narrative (i.e. maximum of 2500 characters) that discusses specifically how the program supports the strategic planning goals of the university.  The narrative will be forwarded to the deans of the four colleges and the Provost.  These five individuals, or their designees, will assign each program to one of the six categories represented in the table below, assigning one-sixth of the programs to each category.  The Provost will aggregate the five recommended scores, dividing by five to provide a score for each program (e.g. if a program receives recommended scores of 25, 25, 25, 20, and 20, the final score is 23) that will be used to assign programs to one of the six categories, with one-sixth being assigned to each category.  If an odd number of programs exists, the distribution will be made as equally as possible (e.g. three categories might have 12 programs, three categories might have 11 programs).  The final scores for all programs will be forwarded to the Program Audit and Review Committee.

Program

30 points

25 points

20 points

15 points

10 points

5 points

The extent to which a program supports the strategic planning goals of the university

Top one-sixth of programs

Second one-sixth of programs

Third one-sixth of programs

Fourth one-sixth of programs

Fifth one-sixth of programs

Sixth one-sixth of programs

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

Enrollment Strength (combined with market strength): 150 points

A. Five-year trend of number of majors in a program divided by total majors on campus, reported as a percentage.

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research will provide this figure to the Program and Audit Review Committee.  All majors (1st, 2nd, etc.) within a program will be calculated each year after the tenth day of fall semester enrollment.  The total for each year will be divided by the number of overall majors on campus, resulting in a percentage.  The percentages for the five year period will be aggregated, and then divided by five to provide a final score for each program.  Institutional Research will report the figures to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “total majors” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

B. Five-year trend of the change in the number of majors in a program, reported as a percentage.

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research will provide this figure to the Program and Audit Review Committee.  All majors (1st, 2nd, etc.) within a program will be calculated each year after the tenth day of fall semester enrollment.  The percentage change (positive or negative) in the number of majors from the previous year shall be calculated.  The percentages for the five year period will be aggregated, and then divided by five to provide a final score for each program.  Institutional Research will report the figures to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “majors’ trend” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

C. Five-year trend of number of program graduates within a specific program divided by total program graduates for the university, reported as a percentage.

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research will provide this figure to the Program and Audit Review Committee.  All majors (1st, 2nd, etc.) graduating from a specific program will be calculated for each year (a year will be defined to end on June 30, encompassing the previous summer, fall, and spring graduates).  The total for each year will be divided by the number of overall majors on campus, resulting in a percentage.  The percentages for the five year period will be aggregated, and then divided by five to provide a final score for each program.  Institutional Research will report the figures to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “graduation trend” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

D. Five-year trend of median total credits to degree for academic program degree completers.

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research will provide this figure to the Program and Audit Review Committee.  The median number of credits (i.e. all credits from any source) of students (i.e. those who transfer in fewer than 15 credits) graduating from a specific program will be calculated for each year (a year will be defined to end on June 30, encompassing the previous summer, fall, and spring graduates).  The median scores for each year in the five year period will be aggregated and then divided by five, resulting in an “average” median score.  Institutional Research will report the figures to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with low scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “Median credits to degree” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

E. Five-year trend of median time to degree for academic program degree completers.

Points: Forty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research will provide this figure to the Program and Audit Review Committee.  The median number of semesters to degree of students (i.e. those who transfer in fewer than 15 credits) graduating from a specific program will be calculated for each year (a year will be defined to end on June 30, encompassing the previous summer, fall, and spring graduates).  The median scores for each year in the five year period will be aggregated and then divided by five, resulting in an “average” median score for each program.  Institutional Research will report the figures to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with low scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 40 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with forty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “Median time to degree” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

F. Five-year trend of retention rate by program.

Points: Thirty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  This is calculated by identifying members of both the first-time, full-time freshman cohort and the transfer cohort for fall semester of entry, and comparing that figure with the retention rate in fall of their second year.  (Note: The expectation is that within three years the Program Audit and Review Committee will develop an alternative measure that will capture second year to fourth year student retention rates, and this will replace the first to second year measure.  Institutional Research will report the figures to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 30 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with thirty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “Five-year retention” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

 

Financial Strength: 180 points

A. Departmental Revenues-Program: Net revenue for all courses that count towards a major, divided by FTE cost. 

Points: Thirty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research, or Finance, will calculate the revenue generated by either general purpose revenue and/or program revenue for each credit in courses that count towards a major, and also would calculate the costs of the faculty teaching the courses (on the tenth weekday that is a business day, or whichever date is used to calculate the enrollment snapshot).  The net revenue total for all courses that count towards a major will be divided by the FTE costs for all courses that count towards that major.  Required supporting courses are included in the calculation.   (Note: the long-term goal after staffing allows is to identify only those students enrolled in courses required by a program who are majors in that program).  These figures will be collected for fall and spring terms, for a three-year period, and then the mean score will be calculated for the six semesters included in the three-year period.  This figure will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 30 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with thirty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “Departmental Revenues-Program” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).  Note: some overlap between Financial Strength categories A and B is expected.

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document. 

B. Departmental Revenues-University: Total revenue for all courses that service the university, divided by FTE cost

Points: Thirty points are allocated to this measure.

Process:  Institutional Research, or Finance, will calculate the revenue generated by either general purpose revenue and/or program revenue for credits in courses provided by a program that service the university, and also would calculate the costs of the faculty teaching these courses (on the tenth weekday that is a business day, or whichever date is used to calculate the enrollment snapshot).  The net revenue for the courses that service the university provided by a program will be divided by the FTE costs for these courses that are provided by the program (e.g. general education, foundation courses, liberal arts, university requirements, required supporting courses or directed electives that service other programs).  (Note: the long-term goal after staffing allows is to identify only those students enrolled in courses that service the university’s programs , and to exclude majors and those taking the course as a general elective).  These figures will be collected for fall and spring terms, for a three-year period, and then the mean score will be calculated for the six semesters included in the three-year period.   This figure will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 30 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with thirty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “Departmental Revenues-University” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).  Note: some overlap between Financial Strength categories A and B is expected.

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

C.  External Grants

Points: Ten points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  Accounting services will calculate external grants by department (and by individual if possible) on an annual basis over a three-year cycle.  The end of the “year” shall be defined as the end of the fiscal year (i.e. June 30).  The resulting data will be provided to departments.  For departments with multiple programs, the department will recommend an allocation of the percentage of “External Grants” that services each program to the dean where the program is housed administratively.  In all cases non-majors and non-graduate programs (e.g. minors and certificates) will not be included in the calculation (i.e. 100 percent of the allocations must go to majors and/or graduate programs).  If the dean disagrees, he/she will provide his/her own decision to the department.  The sum total for each year will be divided by the FTE assigned to the program for that year to obtain a calculation of external grants per FTE.  Using a three-year cycle, the three annual figures will be divided by three to obtain a final figure that will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 10 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with ten points.  Subsequently, each program’s “external grants” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

D.  Internal Grants

Points: Ten points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  Accounting services will calculate internal grants by department (and by individual if possible) over a three-year cycle on an FTE basis.  The end of the “year” shall be defined as the end of the fiscal year (i.e. June 30).  The resulting data will be provided to departments, and internal grants earned by any faculty member serving a program, or programs, will be aggregated (and prorated if needed) for each year.  For departments with multiple programs, the department will recommend an allocation of the percentage of “Internal Grants” that services each program to the dean where the program is housed administratively.  In all cases non-majors and non-graduate programs (e.g. minors and certificates) will not be included in the calculation (i.e. 100 percent of the allocations must go to majors and/or graduate programs).  If the dean disagrees, he/she will provide his/her own decision to the department.  The sum total for each year will be divided by the FTE assigned to the program for that year to obtain a calculation of internal grants per FTE.  Using a three-year cycle, the three annual figures will be divided by three to obtain a final figure that will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with high scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 10 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with ten points.  Subsequently, each program’s “internal grants” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

E. Departmental Costs (Note: all of the factors below are calculated as three-year averages)

E.1 Human Resources: FTE, IAS, Lab Managers, graduate assistants, and support staff (e.g. program assistants/academic department associates)

Points: Forty points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  Institutional Research will provide to each department the amount spent on FTE faculty (i.e. tenure track and instructional academic staff), managers (e.g. laboratories, farms, and so on), graduate assistants, and support staff (e.g. program assistants, academic departments, and so on) over a three year period.  Student workers are not included in the calculation.  For departments with multiple programs, the department will recommend an allocation of the percentage of “human resources” that services each program to the dean where the program is housed administratively.  If the dean disagrees, he/she will provide his/her own decision to the department.  In all cases non-majors and non-graduate programs (e.g. minors and certificates) will not be included in the calculation (i.e. 100 percent of the allocations must go to majors and/or graduate programs).  After the allocation is completed, the total “human resources” assigned to each program shall be divided by the student contact hours (these will be provided by institutional research) generated by the program for each of the three years in the cycle, and then divided by three to obtain an average result.  This figure will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with low scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 40 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with forty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “human resources” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.

E.2 S&E

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  Institutional Research will provide to each department the amount spent on supplies and expenses over a three year period.  For departments with multiple programs, the department will recommend an allocation of the percentage of “S&E” that services each program to the dean where the program is housed administratively.  If the dean disagrees, he/she will provide his/her own decision to the department.  In all cases non-majors and non-graduate programs (e.g. minors and certificates) will not be included in the calculation (i.e. 100 percent of the allocations must go to majors and/or graduate programs).  After the allocation is completed, the total “S&E” assigned to each program shall be divided by the student contact hours (these will be provided by institutional research) for each of the three years in the cycle, and then divided by three to obtain an average result.  This figure will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with low scores considered preferable.   The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “S&E” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document. 


E.3  Space:  Square footage for office complexes, and spaces such as computer and science labs, athletic facilities, farm buildings, studio rooms, performance areas, display areas, work areas, and so on that are dedicated for a program (i.e. designed primarily for a program).

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  The Executive Director for Division of Administrative Services will provide figures showing the amount of space allocated to each department.  For departments with multiple programs, the department will recommend an allocation of the percentage of “space” that services each program (if programs from multiple departments share dedicated spaces, the dean(s) will determine the proportion assigned to each department).  If the dean disagrees, he/she will provide his/her own decision to the department.  In all cases non-majors and non-graduate programs (e.g. minors and certificates) will not be included in the calculation (i.e. 100 percent of the allocations must go to majors and/or graduate programs).  After the allocation is completed, the total “space” assigned to each program shall be divided by the FTE (i.e. instructional staff FTE, a figure provided by institutional research) for the program.  These figures will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with low scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “space” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).   Note:  if a program’s space allocation has changed over the three year period, the “space” calculation will need to be done for each year and then divided by three.

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.


E.4 Unique Equipment Costs:  Defined as special purchases, such as laboratory equipment, computers, farm investments, and so on.

Points: Twenty points are allocated to this measure. 

Process:  The Assistant Chancellor for Business and Finance will provide figures showing the amount of money invested in departments for unique equipment costs for a three-year period.  For departments with multiple programs, the department will recommend an allocation of the percentage of “unique equipment costs” that services each program.  If the dean disagrees, he/she will provide his/her own decision to the department.  In all cases non-majors and non-graduate programs (e.g. minors and certificates) will not be included in the calculation (i.e. 100 percent of the allocations must go to majors and/or graduate programs).  After the allocation is completed, the total “unique equipment cost” assigned to each program shall be divided by the FTE for the program for each of the three years in the cycle, and then divided by three to obtain an average result.  This figure will then be reported to the Program Audit and Review Committee.  The PAR Committee will create a continuum, with low scores considered preferable.  The resulting range will be divided into 20 discrete and equally weighted categories starting with one point and ending with twenty points.  Subsequently, each program’s “unique equipment cost” result will be placed onto the continuum to determine its points (see example of this in the “working definitions” section titled “scoring categories”).

Timeline:  See overall timeline at end of document.


OVERALL TIMELINE:

Notes: dates without years associated with them are annual deadlines.  Some adjustment of this timeline is anticipated. 

THE 2013-14 YEAR WILL BE A TRIAL RUN

Proposal sent to Senate: December 1, 2012

April 2013: Faculty Welfare and Personnel Policies Committee recommends whether or not Sedona should be adopted for campus-wide usage.

December 2012:  Senate adopts proposal

April 2013: Assessment Committee forwards new assessment rubric to Senate for approval

May 2013:  Senate adopts new assessment rubric

January 15, 2013: Provost forwards to all program, department, and graduate chairs the standardized scale for Intellectual Strength category B, along with appropriate directions, including that this be adopted for use during spring 2013.

2013: The Provost will organize two or more meetings with chairs to review the program prioritization process.

May 2013: The Provost will forward to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee a list of all programs, including their departmental affiliations.

February 1:  Departments that wish to be scored in a non-scheduled year must notify both their dean and the provost by this date.

February 1:  The Provosts Office will provide an updated list of programs and their departmental affiliations to the Executive Committee, indicating programs that have been dropped and those that have been added since the previous year.

February 28:  The Faculty Senate Executive Committee will amend the rotation of programs to take into account those that have been dropped and those that have been added since the last evaluation cycle.  The revised list must, insofar as practical, retain balance among the three years in the cycle, and must keep the programs provided by one department within the same rotational year.  New programs will be included in program prioritization after they have been in existence for two full academic years.  This information will be communicated to the chancellor, provost, faculty senate, deans, department chairs, and the assessment committee members.

November 1, 2013: The Faculty Senate Executive Committee will determine the order that programs will be scored using a random method applied in a meeting open to the public.  For departments housing more than one program, all programs will be grouped together in the year they are scored.  The results will be reported to the Chancellor, Provost, Faculty Senate, deans, and chairs.

2013:  The Provost’s Office will organize two or more assessment workshops for departments and programs.

March 11:  (FOR 2013-14 only, the date will be September 1, 2013)The Provost’s Office will forward to the program chairs electronic copies of the document needed to complete “Strategic Planning Goals” (Intellectual Strength category E).

Spring semester, by April 1, 2013: Programs on campus adopt the exit survey scale for use with their indirect assessment measures of their program outcomes.  If programs do not have an exit survey, interview, or other indirect assessment measure for their program outcomes, they will develop these and use them to collect data during spring semester 2013 (Intellectual Strength category B).

Spring semester, by April:  Program “chairs” are identified by departments for the purposes of Intellectual Strength category D, and their names are reported to the Provost and their dean.  Program chairs remind faculty to update their c.v. (i.e. providing information for the previous three years only) for Intellectual Strength category D. 

April 1, 2013: (FOR 2013-14 only, the date will be September 1, 2013) Program Audit and Review Committee develops annual timelines and processes to utilize data reports, and reports to the Provost and Faculty Senate.

Spring semester, by May 15, 2013: Programs have implemented the use of the exit survey scale for Intellectual Strength category B (i.e. have used it to collect data).

June 1: Exit survey data is forwarded to the chair of the Program Audit and Review Committee (Intellectual Strength category B).

August 29: Programs forward assessment plans/reports to the Assessment Committee Chair (Intellectual Strength category A).

Spring semester, by end of contract year:  Faculty will provide an updated c.v. (or provided the information in Sedona) to their “chair” for items related to professional engagement (Intellectual Strength category D).

Spring semester, by end of contract year: FOR 2013-14 only, the date will be October 1 Chairs forward one-page narrative (i.e. 2500 characters) to the Provost that discusses specifically how the program supports the strategic planning goals of the university (Intellectual Strength category E).

June 20: FOR 2013-14 only, the date will be October 15 Provost compiles and forwards one-page narratives to the deans that discuss specifically how the programs support the strategic planning goals of the university (Intellectual Strength category E).

June 30: FOR 2013-14 only, the Provost will provide a separate timeline for activities related to Intellectual Strength Category D and communicate the dates to the chairs  Chairs will send a compilation report for their programs of items under Intellectual Strength category D to the Provost (Note: it might be possible for chairs who prefer to relay this information by the end of the regular nine-month contract period to do so if they can encourage their faculty to update their c.v. information in a timely manner).

August 15: FOR 2013-14 only, the Provost will provide a separate timeline for activities related to Intellectual Strength Category D and communicate the dates to the chairs  Provost will provide an aggregate report of all program information for items under Intellectual Strength category D and send this information to all “chairs” and deans.

August 15:  The Executive Director for the Division of Administrative Services will provide figures to chairs and deans showing the amount of space (Financial Strength category E.3) allocated to each department.

August 15:  The Assistant Chancellor for Business and Finance will provide figures to chairs and deans showing the unique equipment costs (Financial Strength category E.4) allocated to each department.

August 15: Institutional Research will provide to each department chair and the deans the amount spent by each department on Human Resources (Financial Strength category E.1), the amount spent by each department on S&E (Financial Strength category E.2), student contact hours (for use with human resources and S&E, or Financial Strength categories E.1 and E.2, respectively), and  the instructional staff FTE (for use with External Grants, or Financial Strength category C, Internal Grants, or Financial Strength category D, Space, or Financial Strength category E.3, and Unique Equipment Costs, or Financial Strength category E.4).

August 15:  Accounting Services will provide the following to program chairs:  External Grants (Financial Strength category C), and Internal Grants (Financial Strength category D).

August 20: For 2013-14 only, the date will be November 15.  Deans and Provost provide recommended scores for “strategic planning” to the Provost (Intellectual Strength category E).

September 10: Departments with multiple programs will recommend to the dean the percentages of External Grants (Financial Strength category C), Internal Grants (Financial Strength category D), Human Resources (Financial Strength category E.1), S&E (Financial Strength category E.2), Space (Financial Strength category E.3), and Unique Equipment Costs (Financial Strength category E.4) and FTE (used for multiple purposes) that will be assigned to each program.

September 15: FOR 2013-14 only, the Provost will provide a separate timeline for activities related to Intellectual Strength Category D and communicate the dates to the chairs “Chairs” and deans will complete their scores of programs for Intellectual Strength category D, and send this information to the Provost.

September 20:  For 2013-14 only, the date will be December 1.  Provost reports final “strategic planning” scores to the Program Audit and Review Committee (Intellectual Strength category E).

September 30:  Deans will communicate their approval or disapproval of the recommendations from departments with multiple programs regarding the percentages of External Grants (Financial Strength category C), Internal Grants (Financial Strength category D), Human Resources (Financial Strength category E.1) , S&E (Financial Strength category E.2), Space (Financial Strength category E.3), and Unique Equipment Costs (Financial Strength category E.4), and FTE that will be assigned to each program, and provide their own decision regarding assignment of percentages in those cases where disapproval occurred.

October 15: FOR 2013-14 only, the Provost will provide a separate timeline for activities related to Intellectual Strength Category D and communicate the dates to the chairs Provost will provide final scores for programs under Intellectual Strength category D, and send these to the Program Audit & Review Committee.

October 22: Program chairs will provide the following to the Program Audit and Review Committee:  External Grants (Financial Strength category C), and Internal Grants (Financial Strength category D).

October 22: Institutional Research will provide the following to the Program Audit and Review Committee: the five-year trend of number of majors (Enrollment Strength category A), the five-year trend of the change of majors (Enrollment Strength category B), the five-year trend of the number of program graduates  (Enrollment Strength category C), the five-year trend of median total credits to degree  (Enrollment Strength category D), the five-year trend of median time to degree (Enrollment Strength category E), and the five-year trend of retention rate by program  (Enrollment Strength category F).

November 1: Programs chairs will provide to the Program Audit and Review Committee the Human Resources (Financial Strength category E.1), S&E (Financial Strength category E.2), Space (Financial Strength category E.3), Unique Equipment Costs (Financial Strength category E.4) results.

November 1: Assessment Committee provides scores to the Program Audit and Review Committee (Intellectual Strength category A).

November 10:  Institutional Research will provide the following to the Program Audit and Review Committee: Departmental Revenues-Program (Financial Strength category A), and Departmental Revenues-University (Financial Strength category B).

December 1: Program Audit & Review Committee will report to the Senate the progress made to incorporate instructional academic staff into Intellectual Strength category D, “The extent to which tenure-track faculty have remained actively engaged and up-to-date in their discipline” (the expectation is that such a measure will be developed no later than December 2015 and recommended to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee).

December 1: Program Audit and Review Committee will report to the Senate the progress made to develop a process to score Intellectual Strength category C, “The five year trend in percentage of employed and continuing education of graduates by major” (the expectation is that such a process will be recommended to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee).

December 1: Program Audit and Review Committee will report to the Senate the progress made to develop an alternative measure for Enrollment Strength “Five-year Trend of Retention Rate by Program,” category F (the expectations are that the alternative measure will be developed within three years and that it will capture second year to fourth year student retention rates, replacing the current measure).  The alternative measure will be recommended to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

December 15:  Program Audit & Review Committee will report final, overall program prioritization scores and rankings to the campus community (in particular, the Chancellor, Provost, Faculty Senate, deans, and program chairs).  All programs will be scored on a three-year cycle, but will be re-ranked annually.  Rankings will be reported in four, equally-weighted categories, under the heading of “Prioritization: Prospects for Program Investment.”

Prioritization: Prospects for Program Investment

1. “Enhance”
2. “Maintain”
3. “Monitor”
4. “Eliminate, Reduce, Integrate, or Reorganize”

January 15:  The Program Audit & Review Committee and the Assessment Committee will report/make recommendations to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and Provost regarding the implementation of the program prioritization process and possible improvements.

February 14, 2014:  Program Audit & Review Committee will report to the Senate regarding whether or not the use of Sedona (or another package if an alternative is adopted), should continue for Intellectual Strength category D, “The extent to which tenure-track faculty have remained actively engaged and up-to-date in their discipline.”  If the Senate has not adopted one of these packages, the method that is used will be evaluated and a report to the Senate will occur by this date.

March 1:  The Faculty Senate will consider any proposed changes to the program prioritization process for the next year’s implementation (i.e. the round of program prioritization that will “begin” during that spring semester).

By the end of year one of full implementation, the Assessment Committee will announce and then implement a cycle of program-level assessment that will occur on a three year cycle, with one-third being assessed each year.  This assessment cycle will correspond to the rotational schedule used for program prioritization.

 Section 11.2 Program Ratings Documents

University of Wisconsin – River Falls
Guidelines for Reviewers of Academic Program Self-Studies

Reviewers will rate each program on each criterion and assign a rating score ranging from 0 to 5.  Each score will be multiplied by the associated weight for the criterion and these products are totaled.  A program scoring 5 on every criterion would have a total score of 500.

Criterion Rating Score
Weight Product
I. Mission
5 15 75
II. Demand
5 20 100
III.Quality 5 20 100
IV. Pro/cost/Effic.
5 20 100
V.Benchmarking 5 15 75
VI. Other Information
5 10 50
Total     500


I. Consistency with University Mission, Vision, Values, and UWRF’s Strategic Plan

    1 = consistency is lower than most programs

    3 = consistency is typical of most programs

    5 = consistency is higher than most programs

II. External and Internal Demand

    1 = low demand

    3 = average demand

    5 = high demand


III. Quality – Program Inputs and Outcomes

    1 = weaker than most programs

    3 = typical of most programs

    5 = among the strongest programs


IV. Productivity, Cost and Efficiency

    1 = low efficiency

    3 = average efficiency

    5 = high efficiency


V. Benchmarking with Peers

    1 = consistently lower than peers

    3 = consistently typical of most peers

    5 = consistently higher than most peers


VI. Crucial Information Not Addressed by other Criteria

    1 = weaker than most programs

    3 = typical of most programs

    5 = among the strongest programs

The operating paradigm of the UWRF Strategic Plan requires the institution to assess programs and set budget priorities.  A self-study of academic programs is one step in this process and will produce a deeper understanding of the quality of and resources devoted to our undergraduate and graduate programs.  To ensure that the thoughtful work of faculty can be translated into strategic choices in meeting the University’s mission and vision, program reviewers must analyze the program self-study documentation and offer recommendations regarding our future program array.  Important judgments must be made to guide the allocation of our resources.


Academic Program Self-Study Tool


The Self-Study will utilize six criteria to help obtain information for use in program evaluation:

  1. Mission and Strategic Plan:  How is the program critical to the University’s Mission, Vision, and Values and to the “Living the Promise” Strategic Plan?
  2. External and Internal Demand:  What is the job outlook for graduates of this program?  How many majors, minors, and transfers are there?  What is the contribution to General Education and other university program requirements?
  3. Program Quality, Inputs, and Outcomes:  Is the curriculum innovative and forward-focused?  What is there evidence of teaching effectiveness?  What are the professional, scholarly, and creative activities of the faculty in the program?
  4. Productivity, Costs, and Efficiency:  What are the cost efficiencies of this program?  What are the SCH, FTE, budget, and space utilized or produced by the program?
  5. Benchmarking with Peers:  How does the academic program compare with others at peer institutions?
  6. Other Critical Information:  What distinctive characteristics or other information are critical to the evaluation of this program?


Academic Program Ratings


As outlined in the Academic Program Ratings document [Faculty Senate Motion 2008-2009/48], a rating score ranging from 1-5 will be assigned to each of these six criteria.  The score for the criterion will be multiplied by its appropriate weight factor and the products added for a program total score.  Scores for each program as determined by individual members of the Deans Council will be averaged to generate an overall mean for each program.  


Following are the general guidelines for scoring.  Please note that a score of 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 might be assigned for a given criterion.  While only scores of 5, 3, or 1 are described below, scores of 4 or 2 would naturally fall in between as appropriate based on the data and other information provided for that criterion.


Ratings

Criterion 5 3 1
1) Mission and Strategic Plan
Strong alignment with and support for the UWRF Mission, Vision, and Values, and Strategic Plan
Clear alignment with support of the UWRF Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plan
Weak alignment with or support of the UWRF Mission, Vision, and Values, and Strategic Plan
2) external and Internal Demand
Strong job market for graduates; high internal demand of program (number of majors, minors and transfers)
Good job market; good internal demand
Weak or no job market; low internal demand
3) Program Quality, Inputs, and OUtcomes
Curriculum is clearly innovative; teaching is highly effective; faculty are very productive in scholarly and creative activities
Curriculum is current; teaching is effective; faculty are productive in scholarly and creative activities
Curriculum not current or innovative; teaching effectiveness low; faculty not productive in scholarly and creative activities
4) Productivity, Costs, and Efficiency
High productivity of program (SCH/FTE, etc); extremely efficient use of resources (budget/SCH, etc)
Good productivity of program; efficient us resources
Low productivity of program; inefficient use of resources
5)Benchmarking with Peers
Program compares very favorably with peers in terms of cost and productivity
Good productivity of program; efficient use of resources
Low productivity of program; inefficient use of resources
6) Other Critical Information
Information provided is highly significant
Information provided demonstrates some additional value of the program
Information provided is not significant


Programs whose overall mean scores are in the middle 60% of all program scores will be considered for maintenance at current resource levels or maintenance with monitoring.

Programs whose overall mean scores are in the upper 20% of all program mean scores will be considered for enhancement (e.g. increases in FTE and/or S&E, enrollment growth, etc.).  Inclusion in this group does not automatically mean programs will be enhanced but rather that they will be considered as priorities for enhancement.  

Similarly, programs whose overall mean scores are in the lowest 20% of all programs will be considered for reduction or elimination.  Inclusion in this group does not automatically mean programs will be reduced or eliminated but rather that they will be considered as potential candidates for reduction or elimination.

Final decisions on enhancement or reduction/elimination will need to include considerations of university mission and balance of programs, strategic enrollment planning, budget restrictions and obligations, current students and completion of academic plans, implications for accreditations, and other factors.

Resource reallocation resulting from enhancement or reduction/elimination within specific programs will begin immediately but may require longer term adjustment due to the factors mentioned above.

Article XI: ROTC

Section 11.1 ROTC Partnership Agreement


Between United States Army and The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
and The University of Wisconsin-River Falls (UW-River Falls)

Introduction:  The Military Science Department, through the Army’s Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), offers students an opportunity to receive a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Regular Army, Army Reserve or Army National Guard.  The Military Science and Leadership curriculum is not an academic major but, rather, a program taken in conjunction with the academic plan supporting a undergraduate or graduate degree.  The curriculum is designed to provide the necessary skills, attributes and experience to successfully lead in a civilian and/or military career.  Courses and training are conducted on the campus, in the local area or at military training facilities.  Army ROTC also offers a variety of scholarships and financial incentives for students who choose to commit to military service as an officer.  The Military Science and Leadership curriculum is divided into basic and advanced course requirements. (see Exhibit A)

1.  Purpose:  The purpose of this agreement is to provide a basis for resourcing, developing and implementing a US Army Cadet Command (USACC) Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) partnership program at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls (UW-River Falls).

2.  Objective:  The specific objectives of this memorandum are to identify responsibilities, establish relationships, and outline procedures between the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UW-Stevens Point) and the University of Wisconsin-River Falls (UW-River Falls) for the accomplishment of those elements of their respective tasks, which involve matters of mutual interest.

3.  General:

     a. Under the provisions of Public Law 88-647, and Section 2102, Title 10, United States Code, a senior ROTC program was established at UW-Stevens Point on June 23, 1967.  This related agreement is designed to provide Military Science and Leadership instruction at UW-River Falls, resourced by the UW-Stevens Point Department of Military Science and Leadership, under the supervision of the Professor of Military Science, UW-Stevens Point. 

     b. This agreement between UW-Stevens Point and UW-River Falls is entered into pursuant to the above authorities and Army Regulation 145-1, which authorizes such agreements.  This agreement supplements rather than supersedes the UW-Stevens Point ROTC agreement.

4.  Agreement:

     a.  Whereas, UW-Stevens Point is the Department of the Army’s ROTC host institution and conducts a voluntary course of ROTC instruction for interested students; and

     b. Whereas, UW-River Falls has agreed to offer a voluntary course of ROTC instruction for qualified students in its curriculum; and

     c. Whereas, the Department of the Army requires a mutually satisfactory agreement with regard to certain administrative procedures, be it known that officials of both institutions agree to the following points listed below.

5.  Test Period:

     a. The program at UW-River Falls will be established as a four-year test program beginning when agreed to by all parties.  This agreement will be reviewed and modified, on an annual basis, as mutually agreed upon by all parties.
   
     b. At the end of the test period the agreement will either be retained as a permanent document or reviewed for any necessary adjustments or modifications to meet the needs of the parties.

6.  Targets for Success:

     a. UW-River Falls will make best efforts to commission a minimum of 6 lieutenants annually, beginning in academic year 2010-11.

     b. UW-River Falls will make best efforts to contract a minimum of 8 cadets annually the MSIII class to ensure it meets its commission mission.

7.  Contingent upon the acceptance of this agreement by all parties, USACC agrees to the following:

     a. To provide academic instruction of the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps for students enrolled at UW-River Falls on the same basis as for students enrolled in Military Science and Leadership courses at UW-Stevens Point.  Such instruction will be available to all eligible students and will be non-discriminatory with respect to admission or subsequent treatment of students on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin or marital status in accordance with Federal Law.

     b. To issue, subject to availability of funding, at the expense of the U.S. government, uniforms and equipment required for UW-River Falls students enrolled in Military Science and Leadership courses per Army regulation.  Title to these items remains with the U.S. government. 

     c. To provide grade reports in the format required by the UW-River Falls Registrar for each student enrolled in courses taught by military instructors.

     d. To provide eligible students of UW-River Falls equal opportunity to compete for any and all ROTC scholarships available to students of UW-Stevens Point.

     e. To provide assistant instructors as required by the Professor of Military Science, UW-Stevens Point, to implement the training program at UW-River Falls.

8.  Contingent upon the acceptance of the above provisions, UW-River Falls agrees to the following:

     a.  To approve and offer Military Science and Leadership courses as UW-River Falls resident courses and grant UW-River Falls credit for such courses equal to that granted for the same courses by UW-Stevens Point. 

     b. To authorize its students to enroll in and attend Military Science and Leadership classes at UW-River Falls.  Classes will be on campus, with periodic, joint training events between the ROTC students at UW-River Falls and UW-Stevens Point, as determined by the Professor of Military Science, UW-Stevens Point.
 
     c. To include all Military Science and Leadership courses in the UW-River Falls course catalog. 

     d.  To approve and recognize the Professor of Military Science (PMS), UW-Stevens Point, as Professor of Military Science at UW-River Falls and the Assistant Professor of Military Science (APMS) at UW-River Falls, as faculty members, and the Military Science Instructor (MSI) as a member of UW-River Falls Staff. 

     e.  To provide training, orientation and access to the Professor of Military Science or the designated APMS at UW-River Falls, grade reports, degree progress reports and transcripts of enrolled UW-Stout ROTC students, as required, consistent with Privacy Act and FERPA requirements, to enable monitoring of students’ academic progress per Army Regulation 145-1. 

     f.  In accordance with applicable UW-River Falls policies, accept grades and credits awarded by the Professor of Military Science or his/her designated APMS at UW-River Falls for the respective Military Science and Leadership course(s) as stated by paragraph 8.d above, which are entered on the student’s official UW-River Falls permanent record (transcripts).

     g. To make available at UW-River Falls, to the United States Army, the necessary classroom(s), administrative offices, storage room, athletic field, gym and pool support, computers with email/internet capability, storage space, government vehicle parking space, staff parking space and other required facilities sufficient for operation of the program at UW-River Falls.  UW-River Falls shall provide at a minimum:

          (1)  Office space for a staff of two, minimum of one 8’ x 12’ storage room, two computers with internet and e-mail LAN connections, one telephone line in each office with long distance services, one fax machine, and one copier. 

          (2)  Parking spaces for each faculty/staff member and one government vehicle.  The cost and location of each parking space will be determined by policy governing all UW-River Falls departments.

          (3)  Adequate clerical, janitorial, and communications services (including e-mail and internet capabilities); printing and publications; building maintenance, utilities and ground upkeep at no expense to the United States Army.

     h. To require its students to return all government uniforms, books and equipment upon disenrollment or upon completion of the Military Science and Leadership courses.  To provide for protection of all public property used in support of the ROTC program and to take all reasonable measures within the power of UW-River Falls to recover U.S. government property that is improperly in the hands of students/former students, to include withholding of transcripts.

     i. To provide ROTC personnel the opportunity to communicate directly with individual students and faculty members in connection with Army ROTC and ROTC recruitment.  Furthermore, facilitate a supportive relationship between ROTC and UW-River Falls administrators (e.g. Director of Admissions, Veterans Coordinator) in support of ROTC recruiting and enrollment requirements.

     j. To ensure equal representation for ROTC personnel during student-oriented activities by the administration and faculty (e.g. orientations, career days, etc.).

     k. To provide a minimum operational budget of $2,500 per year to support the program.

9.  The following matters are mutually understood and agreed:

     a. The final authority to implement University and Cadet Command approved ROTC instruction for students at UW-River Falls is vested in the Commander, Western Region, USACC.

     b. That each UW-River Falls student enrolled in the ROTC program shall meet eligibility requirements for UW-River Falls and for admission into the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps program as stipulated in current Department of the Army regulations.

     c. That Department of the Army procedures for administration of records, reporting and training will be the same for UW-River Falls students as for UW-Stevens Point students.

     d. That funds received for reimbursement and subsistence to students who are enrolled at UW-River Falls will be distributed from the Department of the Army through the UW-Stevens Point Department of Military Science and Leadership in the following manner:

    (1)  Scholarship tuition is disbursed to UW-River Falls in the student’s name.

    (2)  Tuition Assistance (US Army Reserve) is disbursed to UW-River Falls in the student’s name.

    (3)  Tuition Reimbursement (WI Army National Guard) is disbursed to the student after successful completion of the semester.

    (4)  ROTC Stipend, authorized book allowances and Montgomery GI Bill incentives are disbursed to the student
    
     e. UW-River Falls cadets shall be considered as equal members UW-Stevens Point’s Corps of Cadets, and as such may participate in any UW-Stevens Point sponsored military function.  Further, such students are eligible for participation in host battalion extracurricular activities.  Contracted cadets will be exempt from Reserve Component mobilizations, while it is also recommended that non-contracted cadets be exempt from the same.

     f. UW-River Falls students will receive equal opportunity with respect to competing for ROTC scholarships.  The Professor of Military Science, UW-Stevens Point, will determine the appropriate number of scholarship allocations needed to support the program on an annual basis.

      g. Each institution will be non-discriminatory with respect to admission or subsequent treatment of students on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin or marital status in accordance with Federal Law.

     h.  This agreement may be terminated by the Commander, Western Region, USACC or either University Chancellor, with due consideration for the rights of students involved and for the proper dispensation of U.S. government property involved, by giving written notice of such intent to the other, one academic year prior to actual termination and provide all aforementioned support for one additional year after notification, to allow enrolled cadets the opportunity to complete the classes. In the event of war, other national emergency or legislation eliminating continued program funding, the U.S. Army may exercise accelerated agreement termination.

    i.   This agreement may be modified by mutual written agreement of all authorized representatives of UW-River Falls and UW-Stevens Point.
  
    j. Medical liability of contracted Cadets involved in required ROTC training activities are covered under the Federal Worker’s Compensation regulations.

Exhibit A
Military Science and Leadership Curriculum

The Military Science program consists of two phases. The first phase is introductory and consists of 100 and 200 level courses that are practical as well as being preparatory for the advanced phase. The first phase consists of Military Science 101, 102, 201, and 202. All first-year and sophomore students are encouraged to take lower level Military Science classes and acquaint themselves with military vocational opportunities without incurring a service obligation.
The second phase is designed to qualify upper level students for officer roles in the Active Army, Army Reserve, or the Army National Guard. The advanced phase consists of Military Science 301, 302, 401, and 402. Enrollment in the advanced phase is limited to those students who qualify physically and academically, and who have completed the introductory phase, Leader’s Training Course (LTC - a twenty-eight day leadership camp attended between the sophomore and junior year), or Basic Training and Advance Individual Training. Advanced phase and ROTC scholarship students are paid $300/350/450/500 (freshman through senior) each month of the school year and participate in leadership laboratories and activities to include a field training exercise each semester and the thirty-two day Leadership Development Assessment Course (LDAC) attended between the junior and senior year.
In order to be commissioned as an Army officer at graduation, one must successfully complete both phases of the program and fulfill the professional education requirements that follow.
Professional Education. Students are required to take one course in History that includes a military history component. (Note: Each student schedules courses to satisfy the above requirement with the assistance and approval of the department chair.)
For specific information about ROTC scholarships, programs, camps, extracurricular activities, and placement credit, contact the department.
Army ROTC scholarship financial assistance. Army ROTC scholarships are offered for four, three, and two years and are awarded on merit to the most outstanding students who apply.
Four-year scholarships are awarded to students who will be entering college as first-year students. Three- and two-year scholarships are awarded to students already en¬rolled in college and to Army-enlisted personnel on active duty. Students who attend the Basic Camp of the two-year program may compete for two-year scholarships while at camp. Army Reservists and National Guard Members may compete for a two-year Guaranteed Reserve Forces Scholarship.
Each scholarship pays for college tuition and educational fees which are required of all students and provides a fixed amount for textbooks, supplies, and equipment. Each scholarship also includes a graduated allowance every year the scholarship is in effect.  The total value of a scholarship will depend on the cost of the tuition and other educational expenses at the college or university attended.
The Army gives special consideration for an Army ROTC scholarship to students pursuing degrees in nursing, engineering, the physical sciences, and other technical skills currently in demand. Students who receive a scholarship will be required to attain an undergraduate degree in the field in which the scholarship was awarded.
Non-scholarship cadets in the Advanced Course also receive an allowance for each of the two years as well as pay for attending the five-week LDAC. Students attending the Leader’s Training Course also receive pay for this camp.

101.    Foundations of Officership    Staff
    Two credits.
Introduces students to issues and competencies that are central to a commissioned officer’s responsibilities.  Establish framework for understanding officership, leadership, and Army values followed and “life skills” such as physical fitness and time management.
The lab provides basic instruction on squad movement techniques and the six squad tactical missions of patrolling, attack, defense, ambush, reconnaissance, and squad battle drills. Additionally, students learn basic map reading, first aid, physical fitness and military formations to include basic marching techniques. The lab includes a weekend field trip.

102.    Basic Leadership   
    Two credits.
Establishes foundation of basic leadership fundamentals such as problem solving, communications, briefings and effective writing, goal setting, techniques for improving listening and speaking skills and an introduction to counseling.
The lab continues to provide basic instruction on squad movement techniques and the six squad tactical missions of patrolling, attack, defense, ambush, reconnaissance, and squad battle drills.  Students are introduced to the operations order format.  Additionally, students continue to develop basic map reading, physical fitness and  basic marching techniques.

201.    Individual Leadership Studies   
    Three credits.
Students identify successful leadership characteristics through observation of others and self through experiential learning exercises. Students record observed traits (good and bad) in a dimensional leadership journal and discuss observations in small group settings.
The lab applies basic leadership theory and decision making during practical exercises in a field environment. Students continue to develop basic map reading, physical fitness and basic marching techniques. Prerequisite: Military Science 101.

202.    Leadership and Teamwork   
    Three credits.
Study examines how to build successful teams, various methods for influencing action, effective communication in setting and achieving goals, the importance of timing the decision, creativity in the problem-solving process, and obtaining team buy-in through immediate feedback.
The lab continues to apply basic leadership theory and decision making during practical exercises in a field environment.   Students continue basic map reading, physical fitness and basic marching techniques. Prerequisite: Military Science 102.

301.    Adaptive Team Leadership   
    Four credits.
Students conduct self-assessment of leadership style, develop personal fitness regimen, and learn to plan and conduct individual/small unit tactical training while testing reasoning and problem-solving techniques.  Students receive direct feedback on leadership abilities.
The lab reinforces small-unit tactical training while employing the troop leading procedure to accomplish planning and decision-making.  Students continue to learn basic map reading, physical fitness and marching techniques. Prerequisite: Department consent.

302.    Leadership Under Fire   
    Four credits.
Examines the role communications, values, and ethics play in effective leadership. Topics include ethical decision-making, consideration of others, spirituality in the military, and survey Army leadership doctrine. Emphasis is placed on improving oral and written communication abilities.
The lab continues reinforcing small-unit tactical training while employing the troop leading procedure to accomplish planning and decision-making.  Students also continue basic map reading, physical fitness and basic marching techniques. Prerequisite: Department consent.

401.    Developing Adaptive Leaders   
    Four credits.
Develops student proficiency in planning and executing complex operations, functioning as a member of a staff, and mentoring subordinates. Students explore training management, methods of effective staff collaboration, and developmental counseling techniques.
The lab sharpens the students’ leadership skills as they perform as cadet officers.  Students develop and possess the fundamental skills, attributes, and abilities to operate as competent leaders in a cadet battalion.  They must confidently communicate to subordinate cadets their preparedness to shoulder the responsibilities entrusted to them. Prerequisite: Department consent.

402.    Leadership in a Complex World    Bolstad
    Four credits.
Study includes case study analysis of military law and practical exercises on establishing an ethical command climate. Students must complete a semester long Senior Leadership Project that requires them to plan, organize, collaborate, analyze, and demonstrate their leadership skills.
The lab continues to sharpen the students’ leadership skills.  Students normally change leadership positions to hone their skills, attributes, and abilities as leaders.  Again, they must confidently communicate to subordinate cadets their preparedness to shoulder the responsibilities entrusted to them.  Prerequisite: Department consent.
 

 Article XII: Strategic Planning

For more information see www.uwrf.edu/PathwayToDistinction/

http://www.uwrf.edu/FacultySenate/upload/Strategic-Plan-2011-2012-Motion-25.pdfdocument

 


12.2: Mission, Vision, Values [FS 11/12-44document]

FOCUSED MISSION STATEMENT

Out mission is to help prepare students to be productive, creative, ethical, engaged citizens and leaders with an informed global perspective.

VISION

The University of Wisconsin‐River Falls will distinguish itself as the St. Croix Valley's public, comprehensive university that: Supports an inclusive campus community of highly‐engaged learners and scholars. Develops distinctive, innovative educational opportunities including regional and global partnerships that lead to student success, sustainable communities, and differentiation of the university within the state and nation. Fosters a challenging, supportive, student‐centered environment that is characterized by academic excellence, inspiring and preparing students to serve as ethical, informed citizens and leaders in an increasingly complex, diverse, and global environment. 

CORE VALUES 

STUDENT CENTERED. We commit ourselves to an unwavering focus on learning, holistic development and success.
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE. We help students attain their full potential as critical thinkers, effective communicators, leaders, and committed life‐long learners by providing engaged and integrated educational experiences.
INCLUSIVENESS. We commit to a community of mutual respect, professional behavior, academic freedom and appreciation of individual differences and rich cultural diversity.
INNOVATION. We encourage innovation, sustainability, and creativity, often in partnership with others, to inspire people, catalyze new ideas, and support economic and community development.
GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT. We engage with ideas, people, cultures and places beyond our campus to enrich learning and understanding.
INTEGRITY. We earn trust through honesty, accountability, and ethical behavior. 

12.3: Preamble [FS 11/12-64document]

                                                             DRAFT                                                                                            

                                                            Preamble

                                                               2012-2017 Strategic Plan 

Since 1874 the University of Wisconsin-River Falls has provided educational opportunities for students, sustained by a faculty and staff dedicated to teaching, mentoring, and engagement. For the state, region, and beyond, UW-River Falls has always demonstrated its commitment to access and quality in higher education.

Like our fellow University of Wisconsin System institutions, UW-River Falls is challenged by what is expected to be a continuing trend of declining state support, increased reliance on student tuition and fees, and increased competition within the higher education marketplace. The combination of these factors will drive the University to assure that we provide distinctive opportunities and exceptional value to our students. The University will work to assure that it can thrive in this evolving external environment. 

As a result the University must and will be more focused, intentional, and entrepreneurial. In these ways, we will reward performance and intentionally support and strategically grow our student populations—in concert with the University of Wisconsin's System's Growth Agenda—and seek ways to assure the University's fiscal stability. Additionally, the University will remain a valued member of the University of Wisconsin System and as a result will continue to integrate with the system initiatives and policies that guide some of the University's work, including our collective commitment to Inclusive Excellence and campus commitment to sustainability. However, as a member of the University of Wisconsin System, the University must be bolder in defining our distinctive opportunities and niches and focused on sustaining a vibrant community of scholars and learners. 

The environmental context for our work as public university calls for a strategic plan—consonant with our Mission, Vision, and Values—that is not "all things to all people." Our core values will be embedded in our decision-making and actions, and we will focus on a select set of priorities to be collectively pursued with commitment and vigor.  These goals will produce measurable outcomes and garner state and national recognition for UW-River Falls as a public university that has kept true to its commitment to student learning, while pursuing and achieving a bold and distinctive path that sets it apart.        


12.4: Goals [FS 11/12-64document

                                                                                 DRAFT 

                                                            Strategic Goals 

Distinctive Academic Excellence:

UW-River Falls will strategically enhance and build distinctive academic programs that support a community of diverse, talented, and highly-engaged learners and scholars.  The University's highest aspiration will be to foster an inclusive, challenging, learner-centered environment that supports academic excellence.  The University aspires to further differentiate itself in the state and region through its academic programs, and be among the national leaders in undergraduate and collaborative research, scholarship, and creative activity. 

Global Education and Engagement 

Global learning and comprehensive internationalization will serve as a distinctive feature of UW-River Falls.  The University aspires to distinguish itself as being among the national leaders in internationalization among public comprehensive, master's level institutions. 

Innovation and Partnerships 

UW-River Falls will incentivize and support innovation, often in collaboration with others, to support student learning, enhance the distinctiveness and stature of the university, and catalyze economic and sustainable community development. Our partnerships will reinforce the value of the University to the state and region.  

                                                    2012-2017 Strategic Goals 

Distinctive Academic Excellence          Global Education and Engagement           Innovation and Partnerships  

                                                                     Foundational Elements  

                                                  Sustainability  ||  Inclusiveness  

                              Human Capital  ||  Technology  ||  Facilities  ||  Finance  ||  Other 

12.5: Initiatives [FS 11/12-65document], [FS 11/12-82document], [FS 11/12-90document

1.     Global Scholar Certificate. Entered onto the DAR of every UWRF student would be the requirements for the credential of a "Global Scholar Certificate." Such requirements might include an education abroad course, language competency, course work in international issues and perspectives, and co-curricular activities. Every student would be given cause to wonder why the possibility was listed there, and perhaps every advisor would need to address it. 
2.     While maintaining the number of students who engage in short-term education abroad, increase the proportion of students who engage in long-term (semester- length) education abroad. 
3.     Partner with the campus community, alumni and friends to successfully launch the "Rising to Distinction" fundraising campaign. The campaign is expected to be publicly announced in 2012 and for two campus priorities: the health and human performance building and Falcon Scholars. It is envisioned to be a five or six year campaign.
4.     Becoming a Leader in Digital Records Management.
5.     Develop a full-semester education abroad program in Central and South America called the UWRF International Traveling Classroom – Central America/South America (ITC-CA/SA).
6.     This initiative proposes to reconstitute the Masters Program in Sustainable Community Development as a university-wide, multidisciplinary program with contributions from faculty in all colleges. This program would directly involve departments and faculty across all colleges at UWRF. Sustainability is based on an understanding of the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of almost any issue and strives to develop answers to questions that can address these issues.
7.     Increase URSCA by: Creating a central URSCA office (including faculty director & coordinator); promote URSCA across UWRF; continue and increase support to students, both during the academic year and summer sessions. Enhance support for faculty, as described in the URSCA task force report, to encourage broader and deeper engagement in URSCA. Increase the infusion of URSCA in the curriculum.

8.     Support, expand and develop dynamic, high-quality nature-connected education for all ages, multiple disciplines throughout the university and community.
9.     This initiative aims to place even greater distinction on UW-River Falls as an incubator for sustainability efforts.  In close partnership with the City of River Falls and the River Falls School District along with our local economic development organizations, UWRF will offer its undergraduate and graduate students even greater research opportunities in a broad range of sustainability efforts ranging from economic, social, and environmental.  An important element of the initiative is the further development of the SCISCD Fellows and the newly created Sustainability Faculty Fellows program.  The goal would be to provide funding for student research grants for individual or team efforts on an annual basis.  Guided by faculty and staff in the respective Fellows program, successful applicants will focus their work around a broad-base of sustainability issues with a regional focus.
10.  In support of strategic innovation and distinctive academic excellence, the University will establish and support an Ideas and Innovation Incubator (I3) to provide small groups of UWRF faculty and staff the time and resources, including during the summer, to develop ideas and proposals in key areas to support the university's strategic plan, Pathway to Distinction.  This approach will enable the University to thoughtfully plan and catalyze innovation that is visionary, information based, and fiscally sustainable.  The I3 will respect and work in concert with established shared governance and resource allocation processes.
11.  To foster distinctive academic excellence via implementation of current best-practice engaged learning with 21st century innovative active learning classrooms.
12.  Develop and institute an ongoing leadership program to train and inform all UWRF personnel who are responsible for managing academic departments, units, and colleges of their responsibilities, duties, the responsibilities of those whom they supervise, and the personnel policies of UWRF and UWS.
13.  Building enrollment through distinctive academic programs.  Rationale: UWRF has a compelling desire to build student enrollment and to do so through high quality programs that reach new and different student audiences, contribute to our institutional identity/brand, and help the university develop an even more diverse, international, and higher academic profile student body. This initiative encourages pursue to new curricular programs and pathways to support the initiative and Goal 1: Distinctive Academic Excellence. To that end, faculty from different colleges have forwarded the following academic program ideas to be developed and reviewed, and, as appropriate, pursued during the course of the first year of the plan.  (This initiative combines five program initiatives into one.): 

- Development of the Sustainable Community         
  Development master's degree program. 

- Addition of Montessori program focus to the MS in       
   Education             

- Development of MS in Computer Science             

- Full-time/Day-time MBA                                            

- Companion Animal Care and Management All program concepts are subject to the rules of UWRF governance, the review and approval of UW Board of Regents, and, when necessary, the review and approval of the Higher Learning Commission. 

14.  Internationalizing the UW-River Falls Learning Environment.                  
Rationale: Pulling from tactically oriented submissions in rounds 1 and 2 of the strategic planning process this year, this initiative focuses on reinforcing and enhancing the international and global focus of our learning environment as outlined in Goal 2: Global Education and Engagement.  To quote from the description of that goal: Global learning and comprehensive internationalization will serve as a distinctive feature of UW-River Falls. 

In meeting that goal, this initiative focuses on four areas of the campus academic experience and learning environment:
- Building the capacity of our faculty and staff to teach content courses in a language other than English and attract and support students who are non-native English speakers. At the outset the focus should be on a limited number of languages (e.g., Mandarin and Spanish).            
- Developing and deploying signage, web page content and print or web publications, particularly in those campus service areas focused on student recruitment (international and domestic) and retention, in languages other than English (e.g., Mandarin, Spanish, Hmong, Korean, Japanese, Arabic).            
 - Developing a university wide "Year of . . ." focus on a nation to highlight course content related to the nation, organize workshops and seminars, cultural events, and visiting lecturers. This activity should highlight UWRF's global engagement and partnerships and tie the curricular and academic co-curricular programs closer together.                
- Growing out of the Internationalization Laboratory develop expanded course content that is globally engaged and internationally focused. This is primarily aimed at degree programs as we academically develop our students to be prepared for the global realities of the next generation. 

12.6: Metrics [FS 11/12-95document

Pathway to Distinction 

Measuring Progress, Assessing Institutional Impact  

  • All assessment goals refer to progress by the year 2016-2017.
  • All numerical goals embedded in the metrics are provisional at this point.  Refinements to the numerical goals for some of the metrics will be developed and vetted through the Strategic Plan Progress Committee (SPPC) based on thorough analysis.
  • A set of five-year annual goals may be developed by the SPPC for many of the measures.

    Goal 1: Distinctive Academic Excellence 
    UW-River Falls will strategically enhance and build distinctive academic programs that support a community of diverse, talented, and highly-engaged learners and scholars. The university's highest aspiration will be to foster an inclusive, challenging, learner-centered environment that supports academic excellence. The university aspires to further differentiate itself in the state and region through its academic programs, and be among the national leaders in undergraduate and collaborative research, scholarship, and creative activity. 

    Increase selectivity of 1st time, first-year admits to the university.
    Acceptance Rates for First Year Students (source: Admissions)
    2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
    82.5 78.8 74.2 78.0 77.6


    Increase number of entering 1st time, first-year students with composite
    ACT scores of 25 and above by 50%. ACT Scores 25 and Above (source: Admissions)
    2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
    280 285 284 283 295


    Increase by 50% number of entering 1st time, first-year students with AP test pass scores
    Students w/ AP Test Pass Scores (source: Admissions)
    2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
    140 143 170 170 158


Improve performance on NSSE
Benchmark Scores: ·      
Level of Academic Challenge ·      
Active and Collaborative Learning
Enriching Educational Experiences in comparison to UW comprehensives and Carnegie Classification institutions

Level of Academic Challenge (Means)
Acad Level
2006 2008 2011
1st year
48.1 47.8 51.3
Senior 53.0 51.8 55.2



Active and Collaborative Learning
1st year
39.7 40.4 43.0
Senior 49.5 50.4 52.0


Enriching Educational Experiences
1st year
23.3 22.5 23.6
Senior 41.1 42.4 40.5


Increase the number of students engaged in URSCA activities (numerical goals to be developed)
Still need to define this and establish two to three simple and straightforward ways of capturing the data

Increase the number of student participants at regional or national scholarly meetings (numerical goals to be developed)
Suggest that, when metrics are approved, we survey department chairs in April and establish a database and benchmark beginning with 2011-12 AY.

Decrease by 25% the number of entering 1st time, first-year students with composite ACT scores 19 and below
Entering Students' ACT Scores (source: Admissions)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
298 263 304 237 260


Decrease by 20% the number of students taking remediation courses
Students Enrolled in Remediation (source: Registrar)
Course 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
ENGL 20
100 111 136 102 109
MATH 10
23 15 23 19 18
MATH 30
291 245 282 274 224


Increase the number of graduates going on to graduate or professional school by 5%.
Students Enrolled in 4-year Institutions - Post-UWRF (source: National Student Clearing House)
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
214 (23%)
154 (17%)
122 (13%)

Goal 2: Global Education & Engagement
Global learning and comprehensive internationalization will serve as a distinctive feature of UW-River Falls. The university aspires to distinguish itself among the national leaders in internationalization among public comprehensive, master's level institutions. 

Move to the top 5 of UW comprehensives in international students studying on campus.

International Students @ UWRF (source: IR-UWSA CDR)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
8/11 8/11 9/11 11/11 10/11
66 78 77 67 86

 

Increase the number of visiting international scholars.
Establish benchmark this year by contacting colleges and Academic Affairs.

Become ranked # 1 in UWS & among top 25 public comprehensives in study abroad participation.
Study Abroad Student Participation (source: GC)
Need Open Doors Longitudinal Data
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
375 385 402 381 251*


Study Abroad Percentages/Rank (source: Open Doors/CIE)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
         
 

Increase student cultural competence (NSSE) scores.
Will need to do relevant item analysis on NSSE—2006, 2008, 2011 administrations.

Increase the percentage of courses and degree programs infused with significant global component.
Need to define and capture—that is the work of the internationalization laboratory group.

Increase by 100% (double) number of "globally related" events (lectures, performances, club events, conferences, exhibitions) on campus.
Will benchmark in Spring/Summer of 2012 for AY 2011-12 through department chairs, Deans Office, Provost, Student Affairs.  
Goal 3: Innovation and Partnerships
UW-River Falls will incentivize and support innovation, often in collaboration with others, to support student learning, enhance the distinctiveness and stature of the university, and catalyze economic and sustainable community development. Our partnerships will reinforce the value of the university to the state and region.

Increase the total dollars of privately funded scholarships awarded annually from $580,000 in FY 2012 to $1.1 million by FY 2017.
5 Year Trend Data (source: UWRF Foundation)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
        $580,000


Increase to 320 the number of Falcon Scholars enrolled and supported by private gifts.
Entering and Retained Falcon Scholars (source: Admissions)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
80 160 240 320 320


Increase the number of external research collaborations.
Need to benchmark by May 2012

Increase the number of research grants received by 25% and dollars received by 50%. (over 5 year average)
Grants Received (source: Research Office)
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
45 41 39 42 34
3,969,208 2,528,864 2,462,428 2,018,317 2,644,552


Increase the number of internships and practica completed by UWRF students by 50%. (over 5 year average)
Transcripted Internships (source: Registrar)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
555 491 421 489 225*


Increase the course enrollment at UW-River Falls Hudson Center.
Hudson Center Enrollment (source: Outreach)
Spring 11
Fall 11
Spring 12


346 394 425



12.7: Pathway to Distinction Final Approval [FS 11/12-106document]    

12.8: Implementation:      
    12.8.1: To approve the following charge to the International Programs Committee: In relation to the Year-Of…..initiative of the current strategic plan Pathway to Distinction, to identify countries, plan for events (to the appropriate pre-annual depth), and coordinate the current year's events for three countries on a rolling horizon, with the first Year-Of….beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year. [FS 11/12-116document]     
    12.8.2: To approve the following charge to the Faculty Welfare and Personnel Policy Committee: In relation to the Leadership Institute initiative of the current strategic plan Pathway to Distinction, to develop and institute an ongoing leadership program to train and inform all UWRF personnel who are responsible for managing academic departments, units, and colleges of their responsibilities, duties,  the responsibilities of those whom they supervise, and the personnel policies of UWRF and UWS. Particular emphasis is to be paid to departmental chair development for 2012-2013. [FS 11/12-117document]

LIVING THE PROMISE – CLOSING THE LOOP


Even as we look to the future and our next strategic plan, it is important to continue to support the goals of "Living the Promise" (LTP) and to identify "lessons learned" that can be applied to the development and implementation of the next strategic plan.  To that end, the table below shows the steps that have been and will be taken this upcoming year to ensure we successfully close the loop on the LTP plan.

LIVING THE PROMISE – CLOSING THE LOOP PLAN
Timeline Process Participation
December 2010-April 2011
Executive Cabinet (E-Cab) listening sessions on LTP (what worked, what was learned, etc.)
Cabinet
Leadership Assembly
Faculty Senate
LTP Steering Committee
University Planning Group (UPG)
April-May 2011
  • Review notes & develop a report on LTP, what worked, etc.
  • Develop a report regarding the accomplishment of LTP over the first four years of plan
  • Communicate both of the above to campus
UPG
May-July 2011
  • Build a list of LTP goals for 2011-2012 Academic Year
  • Communicate goals to campus
Cabinet with review/input by UPG

STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESS DEVELOPMENT

The timeline for the development of the next strategic plan at UWRF is broken into three phases as follows:


  • Phase I:     Pre-Planning phase
  • Phase II:     Development & Approval phase
  • Phase III:     Implementation & Assessment phase

Article XIII: Education Abroad

moved to Chapter 8.6 International Study Programs [FS 12/13-129document]