INSTRUCTION Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:30 pm Fall Policy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

COUNCIL ON INSTRUCTION

Fall Policy Workshop

Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:30 pm Regents’ Conference Room

Contents

 PART 1: Overview  PART 2: Academic Programs

• Dr. Stephanie Beauchamp, Associate Vice Chancellor

for Academic Programs

 PART 3: Admission, Contracts, Prior Learning, SARA

• Mr. Daniel Archer, Assistant Vice Chancellor for

Academic Affairs

 PART 4: Assessment

• Dr. Debra Stuart, Vice Chancellor for Educational

Partnerships

Overview

Workshop Materials

 PowerPoint Presentation  OSRHE Academic Affairs Staff Listing  OSRHE Academic Affairs Staff Photo Directory  Academic Affairs Who Can Help Directory  OSRHE Policy and Procedures Manual Chapter 3  Academic Affairs Procedures Handbook  State Regents Spring 2017 Meeting Dates

To access workshop materials, click:

http://www.okhighered.org/academic-policy-wksp/ Overview

State Regents Website

www.okhighered.org

 Policy Manual  Academic Forms  Admission Standards  High School Approved

Course List

 Course Equivalency Project  Complete College America  Degree Program Productivity

Reports

 Financial Aid  Grant Opportunities  State Regents’ Meeting

Agendas

 Studies and Reports

Overview

Advisory Councils

General Process for Review of Academic and Other Policies

 Council on Instruction Committees  Council on Instruction  Council of Presidents Academic and System Initiatives

Committee

 Council of Presidents  State Regents Overview

Other Advisory Groups

 Council on Student Affairs

• Dr. Kermit McMurry

 Student Advisory Board

• Dr. Kermit McMurry

 Communicators Council

• Ms. Angela Caddell

 Faculty Advisory Council

• Dr. Debra Stuart

Overview

 Economic Development

Council

• Ms. Connie Lake

 Council on Information

Technology

• Mr. Von Royal

 Council of Business Officers

• Ms. Amanda Paliotta

State Regents’ Meeting Dates

Spring 2017

 February 2

Internal Deadline: January 11

 March 23

Internal Deadline: March 1

 April 20

Internal Deadline: March 29

Overview Internal Deadline: These are the dates items are due from Academic Affairs to the

Chancellor’s office. These deadlines are set by the agenda review and compilation staff in the Chancellor’s office and are flexible only by request to the Chancellor’s

• ffice. Such requests must be relayed through the AA department.

 May 25

Internal Deadline: May 3

 June 29

Internal Deadline: June 7

Who Can Help

Overview

 Find the latest update of

this document on the Policy Workshop webpage.

Council on Instruction Fall Policy Workshop

September 15, 2016

• Dr. Stephanie Beauchamp

Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Academic Programs Policy

Areas to be Covered

 New Program Requests  Program Approval Process  Program Modifications Academic Programs Policy

New Program Requests

 Letters of Intent (LOI) are required for all:

 New Programs  Embedded Certificates  Requests for online delivery of existing programs

 Current forms can be located here: http://www.okhighered.org/admin-fac/academic-forms/

Academic Programs Policy

New Program Requests

 LOIs:

 Must be sent from President to Chancellor  Must include:

• Name of program
• Location of delivery
• Delivery method

 Must be received 30 days before submitting

proposal

Please…

Do NOT send proposal with LOI

Academic Programs Policy

Program Approval Process

 Institution submits LOI to Chancellor  LOI is emailed to Presidents system wide  Institutions have 45 days to request a copy of the

proposal

 Institutions have 30 days to notify State Regents’

• ffice of protest

 If no protest, at least 5-6 month process  If there is a protest, the request will not move

forward until the protest is resolved

Academic Programs Policy

Program Approval Process

 Things that may DELAY progress of your proposal’s

approval:

 Insufficient or incomplete information  Omission of required information  Use of non-current forms

Academic Programs Policy

Program Modifications

 All modifications must be reported  Modifications are either substantive or non-

substantive

 Substantive modifications require State Regents’

approval at a State Regent’s meeting

 Non-substantive modifications require only to be

reported to the State Regents’ office

 All modification requests/notifications must be from

President to Chancellor to be considered official

 For substantive modifications to be considered, the

program must be fully in compliance with policy

Academic Programs Policy

Program Modifications

 Substantive Modifications

 Changes in what students must complete to

graduate

• Changes in number of credit hours students must

complete to graduate

• Deleting a required course
• Adding a required course
• Changing admission requirements to degree programs

that have admission requirements in addition to institutional admission requirements

Academic Programs Policy

Program Modifications

 Non-Substantive Modifications

 Adding or removing courses from a list of electives  Changing course prefix or title  Changing course number, IF credit hours remain the

same

Academic Programs Policy

Academic Programs Policy

Earliest Agenda December

LOI received from institution System-wide LOI sent to Presidents Proposal received from inst. Requested? YES NO Begin agenda preparation Send response to institution Receive counter- response Response received? YES NO Begin analysis Institutions have 30 days to submit a letter of concern Institutions have 45 days to request a copy of the proposal Institutions have 30 days to respond to concern Copy of proposal sent LOI must be received at least 30 days before proposal is submitted.

Emailed to Presidents August 1 Earliest Date to Submit September 1 Deadline to Request copy September 15 October 1 October 30

Begin agenda preparation

Earliest Agenda December (maybe) January/February This timeline is an estimate of the length of time it takes for a new program to be presented to the State Regents’ staff. The timeline is NOT GUARANTEED and assumes the proposal contains all information required by policy and that State Regents’ staff does not have questions regarding the proposal.

Program Approval Flow Chart

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization

• Mr. Daniel Archer

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Council on Instruction Fall Policy Workshop

September 2016

Areas to be Covered

 Institutional Admission and Retention policy  Credit for Prior Learning policy  Contractual Arrangements Between Higher

Education Institutions and Other Entities policy

 State Authorization Background  State Authorization Proposed Regulations

 Distance Education Regulation  Distance Education Licensure/Certification Disclosure:

Proposed Regulation

 Face-to-Face Instruction in Other Countries: Proposed

Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization

Institutional Admission and Retention (3.9.3.A.)

 Students need 15 high school units (including three units

in math) to be eligible for admission to programs leading to AA, AS, and baccalaureate degrees

 Statistics & Probability was recently added as a course to

count within the math section (student must have completed Algebra II)

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization

Credit for Prior Learning (3.15.3.D)

 The minimum required score on an AP examination for

granting course credit for a particular lower-division course shall not exceed three.

 Policy exceptions may be granted if a State System

institution determines, based on evidence, that a higher score on the examination is necessary for a student to be successful in a related and more advanced course for which the lower-division course is a prerequisite.

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization

Contractual Arrangements Between Higher Education Institutions and Other Entities (3.6)

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  Formerly the Cooperative Alliances Between Higher

Education Institutions and Technology Centers policy

 Revised in January 2015 to:

 Detail the process through which higher education

institutions may enter into contractual arrangements with non-degree granting entities; and

 Provide a policy framework to ensure higher education’s

• versight of these programs through control and

assessment.

Contractual Arrangements Between Higher Education Institutions and Other Entities (3.6)

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  When the policy was revised in 2015, the intent was for

contractual arrangement to be specifically for technical programs (AAS and technical certificates), but it was not explicitly detailed in policy.

 In June 2016, the State Regents approved revisions to

this policy to ensure that contractual arrangements are limited to technical programs (AAS and technical certificates)

 Revisions included amending the policy goal statement

and adding a definition of “technical” as well as several references to “technical areas” and “technical” to further emphasize the type of education that would be associated with contractual arrangement programs.

State Authorization

Background

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  On October 29, 2010, the United States Department of

Education (USDE) released “program integrity”

• regulations. These regulations set requirements for states

to monitor and enforce statutes and policy in their states in various areas.

 One portion (§600.9c) set Title IV eligibility regulations

requiring institutions to seek state authorization to deliver distance education courses to students residing in states in which they do not have a physical presence.

State Authorization

Background

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  On June 5, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with

a lower court ruling to ‘vacate’ the distance education portion (§600.9c) of the USDE’s ‘state authorization’ regulation.

 It is important to note that this ruling is for 34 CFR 600.9(c)

• nly and the USDE’s ability to enforce the regulation. This
• utcome has no impact on the regulations of each
• state. Any distance education regulations remain in

effect and the states still expect you to follow their laws.

State Authorization

Distance Education Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  While the USDE does not currently require states to gain

state authorization for distance education, on July 25, 2016, the USDE released new proposed state authorization distance education rules. If these rules come to fruition, such rules would take effect on July 1, 2017.

Proposed State Authorization

Distance Education Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  Most notably:

 If a Non-SARA institution wishes to deliver distance

education to a student out-of-state, in order to award Title IV funding to such a student, the institution would have to gain state authorization if the state in which the student resides requires such a process; or

 If a SARA institution wishes to deliver distance education to

a student in a non-SARA state, in order to award Title IV funding to such a student, the institution would have to gain state authorization if the state in which the student resides requires such a process.

Proposed State Authorization

Distance Education Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  Institutions would be required to document

authorization or SARA approval to the USDE Secretary upon request.

Proposed State Authorization

Distance Education Licensure/Certification Disclosure: Proposed Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  This would apply to programs that lead to licensure or

certification in a profession, such as nursing, teacher education, or psychology.

 Under this proposed regulation, an institution would

need to directly notify a distance education student regarding whether or not the program they are pursuing meets licensure/certification requirements in the state in which he/she resides.

Proposed State Authorization

Distance Education Licensure/Certification Disclosure: Proposed Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  If an institution enrolls a student from a state in which it

does not meet the licensure/ certification requirements, the institution would need “to obtain an acknowledgement from the student that the communication was received prior to the student’s enrollment in the program.”

Proposed State Authorization

Face-to-Face Instruction in Other Countries: Proposed Regulation

Admission, Prior Learning, Contracts, State Authorization  This would require that an additional location or branch

campus located in a foreign location be authorized by an appropriate government agency of the country where the additional location or branch campus is located.

 Distance education in other countries is not referenced

within this specific regulation.

Assessment

• Dr. Debra Stuart

Vice Chancellor for Educational Partnerships

Council on Instruction Fall Policy Workshop

September 2016

Areas to be Covered

 Revisions to 3.19 Student Assessment and

Remediation approved by the State Regents October 2015

Assessment

Revisions to 3.19 Student Assessment and Remediation

 Combined two previously separate policies

 Student Assessment policy  Student Remediation policy

 Clarified the purpose of assessment

 To improve teaching and learning  For accountability and institutional effectiveness Assessment

 Allows institutions to use existing student information

for course placement, such as high school grades, instead of administering another test after considering the ACT subject score and encourages multiple assessments.

 Allows institutions to remediate in ways other than

developmental courses, such as corequisite models.

 Expands general education beyond the first half of

the curriculum and to include broad areas such as communication and critical thinking.

Assessment

Revisions to 3.19 Student Assessment and Remediation

 Encourages the use and reporting of nationally

standardized program outcomes assessment that can be used in comparison to other institutions.

 Requires institutions to submit an assessment plan for

State Regents approval now and every five years or when there is a substantive change.

 Continues annual students assessment reporting of

results annually.

Assessment

Revisions to 3.19 Student Assessment and Remediation