Dual Enrollment - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 26, 2005

Dual Enrollment

Date: Mar 26, 2005

In the Know,

If you are really what you claim to be, you can provide details.

SACS approved exactly what, exactly when?

Departments were not notified... why?

Academic Council never heard a word about it... why?

Pood says he wasn't notified... why?

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
" Deans are totally aware of program and survey that was done to identify which classes to offer."

If you are in the know, which people in Academic Affairs made arrangements for the courses at Oak Grove?

Date: Mar 26, 2005

Deans met with Cox before he did survey. Exline described program to SACs and got okay to proceed several weeks ago and reported it to many in univ, including me. This would not be something addressed by AC under current guidelines since dual enrollment programs have been in place for a long time.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

Specifc arrangements haven't been made. Current courses were mentioned as posibilities for onsite delivery. This is a pilot. This is not a major issue and you should focus elsewhere...IMHO.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
"This is not a major issue and you should focus elsewhere...."

It may not be a major issue for you but it should be a major issue with the two deans, the two department chairs, and the faculty in the two departments if none of those have been consulted.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

Deans suggested possible courses to test as part of pilot. May be waiting on results to talk with chairs.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
"Deans suggested possible courses to test as part of pilot. May be waiting on results to talk with chairs. "

You are saying that the deans did know about this? They are waiting on what results before talking with chairs?

Date: Mar 26, 2005

Yes.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

In the Know, what's confusing and upsetting to people, besides the SACS implications, whatever they may be, is that once again the faculty is the last to know. Did you not read Amy Young to say that the fall schedule has already been set? In the paper, they are promising college faculty as instructors. Yet in March, the instructors don't know anything about it! If ANT/SOC is not allowed to replace Glamser, who is going to teach these classes?
Once again, it's the whole business of treating people like widgets. Wouldn't it have been prudent to discuss this plan with Dr. Flanagan instead of letting him read about it in the newspaper? This Administration keeps saying loud & clear "WE DON"T CARE"

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
"USM has had a dual enrollment program for a long time."

The dual enrollment program that has existed at USM "for a long time" required high school students to come to the USM campus. The newly proposed one is to be offered off campus - right on the high school campus. That would be a new program. Was the SACS representative fully informed about this?

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Who's on first
"You are saying that the deans did know about this? They are waiting on what results before talking with chairs?"

Speaking as an administrator, I'd guess "they" are waiting on the results of the student interest survey. Think about it: they are asking rising seniors if they would be willing to stay an extra hour (or more) two days a week to take college classes. The proposed schedule automatically excludes athletes, cheerleaders & band members who are already obligated at those times. I'm sure the principal knows this, so the question is whether the classes would "make." No sense looking for instructors until there's some indication of student interest.

There really might not be a full-fledged proposal to take the departments or the academic council at this time.

Why have PSY & SOC been proposed? The answer's simple. They are core electives applicable to many majors. H.S. seniors can't take college ENG until they've passed senior English, so that's out of the question. The only MAT class that is broadly applicable is College Algebra, which would probably be less challenging for the target group than senior-level H.S. math classes. And, college science classes would require lab facilities & equipment that might not be available at the h.s. site.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

You forget that someone on the faculty released this to the newspaper and Exline and Cox were asked to comment on it before things were finalized.

The schedules are NEVER set for fall in March. If you think that, you don't understand how many changes occur well into the semester.

It is not complicated. The deans identified a few faculty and courses with great reputations. Cox looked into them by surveying the high schools. Exline checked it out with SACS, including offering them AT THE HIGH SCHOOLS. Why doesn't SACS care? Because only a couple of courses are offered, thereby falling well below their 25% threshold. Plus, many universities do this.

Nothing is set in stone. If the faculty don't want to offer the courses that the high school students want, no one is obligated. It is more about being responsive to the community than it is about recruitment.

Again, much energy is being wasted on this issue. IMHO

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
"Why doesn't SACS care? Because only a couple of courses are offered, thereby falling well below their 25% threshold. Plus, many universities do this."

Good point about the 25% threshold. Actually, were USM to offer the entire freshman year as dual enrollment, it would never reach the 25% point & here's why:

By law, a college or university in Mississippi cannot award the credit for a dual enrollment class until after the student graduates from high school. The credits are "banked" until graduation. In order for a student to receive credit prior to h.s. graduation, the student must be a legitimate "early admission" to the university & that does require a 25 ACT, I believe.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

Interesting info, Vict. How do you count their enrollment if they aren't "really" earning the credits?

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
Deans met with Cox before he did survey

Am I to understand that the Director of Recruitment spearheaded the off-campus high school project? Is it customary at USM for people from recruiting to do such a thing? Those sorts of offers/proposals would normally be initiated from the academic sector of the university.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Third Witch
"Interesting info, Vict. How do you count their enrollment if they aren't "really" earning the credits?"

They are enrolled & attending; therefore, they show on class rosters, require an admissions "folder" (electronic or paper), etc. And they are "really" earning the credits, it's just "banked." (Analogy: It's like your PERS withholding -- you really earn the money, but you don't see it until you retire.)

I do not know how USM's admissions/records department handles it (my institution "marks" the record in our administrative computing system), but the law does not permit the credit to be "official" until after h.s. graduation.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Speaking as an administrator, I'd guess "they" are waiting on the results of the student interest survey. Think about it: they are asking rising seniors if they would be willing to stay an extra hour (or more) two days a week to take college classes. The proposed schedule automatically excludes athletes, cheerleaders & band members who are already obligated at those times. I'm sure the principal knows this, so the question is whether the classes would "make." No sense looking for instructors until there's some indication of student interest. There really might not be a full-fledged proposal to take the departments or the academic council at this time. "

Invictus,

What kind of dean wouldn't tell departments that something like this is under consideration?

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" There really might not be a full-fledged proposal to take the departments or the academic council at this time. "

Invictus,

I don’t mean to say your experience as an administrator is not noted, but before any university makes a press release on proposed course offerings or new programs, do you not think it wise to have departmental approval and academic council approval? The purpose of a full-fledged proposal is to address (in this specific case) the delivery of course content, contact minutes and quality of instruction. In addition, the question of “who” is going to teach the class is addressed; i.e. in-place faculty or adjuncts.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

GH, I'm not convinced this was a press release. I think it's a bona fide "story." The simplest scenario is that somebody on the HA staff saw one of the student surveys & said, "Hmm... I thought USM wasn't supposed to have any new programs" & called up Exline for comments. All the article describes is the administrative legwork that would have to be done before taking the proposal to the faculty for approval. I didn't get the impression that the student interest survey results were ready.

Was the proposal ready to go to a faculty committee for approval or to a department for development. Would a faculty committee approve this program until the administrative legwork had been done?

It looks a lot like the HA forced the hand.

Date: Mar 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"GH, I'm not convinced this was a press release. I think it's a bona fide "story." The simplest scenario is that somebody on the HA staff saw one of the student surveys & said, "Hmm... I thought USM wasn't supposed to have any new programs" & called up Exline for comments. All the article describes is the administrative legwork that would have to be done before taking the proposal to the faculty for approval. I didn't get the impression that the student interest survey results were ready. Was the proposal ready to go to a faculty committee for approval or to a department for development. Would a faculty committee approve this program until the administrative legwork had been done? It looks a lot like the HA forced the hand. "

From the HA:

University officials say they are on track to begin offering college-level courses at high schools as early as this fall and the progress should not be affected by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' decision to place the university on probation.

To do this by fall 2005, they had to have departmental approval and academic council approval. My sources say no approval was granted by these faculty bodies, but when has administration waited for such input?

Joan Exline, assistant to the president for accreditation, planning and articulation, said the program is considered distance learning - the area where SACS focused the brunt of its criticism. But she checked with SACS officials who gave the university permission to continue to pursue the program.

Exline "checked" with SACs officials? Now she has permission to pursue the program. Still sounds like the cart before the horse to me.

Southern Miss currently has a dual enrollment program where students can attend classes at the university for college credit but it has never offered courses on high school campuses, Exline said.

On campus yes, off-campus? I'd say No. This delivery of courses would require academic council approval at the very least or given the SACs probation, caution on part of the administration before implementing.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: In the Know
"The schedules are NEVER set for fall in March. If you think that, you don't understand how many changes occur well into the semester."

Actually, the fall schedules are set up during the previous fall, as is summer and spring scheduling for the next academic year, and it is quite a complex operation to match perceived student needs with time slots and faculty. We just had advising based on the schedules. The students will be signing up for those classes. Changes will now be minimal, or chaos would result.

So important is stability after advisement that the two faculty councils concerned with curriculum cannot approve-date any course for the following semester if advisement is already in progress.

In The Know, I'm thinking you aren't.

Jameela

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"GH, I'm not convinced this was a press release. I think it's a bona fide "story." The simplest scenario is that somebody on the HA staff saw one of the student surveys & said, "Hmm... I thought USM wasn't supposed to have any new programs" & called up Exline for comments. All the article describes is the administrative legwork that would have to be done before taking the proposal to the faculty for approval. I didn't get the impression that the student interest survey results were ready. Was the proposal ready to go to a faculty committee for approval or to a department for development. Would a faculty committee approve this program until the administrative legwork had been done? It looks a lot like the HA forced the hand. "

Invictus, FYI there is an official USM seal in the *side panel* with this article in the hard edition. I too was not sure how much of the article is considered a press release.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"
Actually, the fall schedules are set up during the previous fall, as is summer and
In The Know, I'm thinking you aren't.
Jameela"

Jameela, I think you're correct about In the Know. She (forgive the gender assumption, but I see fingerprints here) said:

" IHl passed policy whereby students could not only get college credit, but could also get high school credit. "

IHL can't pass policy regarding high school students. That's the responsibility of the state board of educaton. Like many people in the dome, In the Know knows less than she thinks she knows. That is USM's major problem.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"In the Know, If you are really what you claim to be, you can provide details. SACS approved exactly what, exactly when? Departments were not notified... why? Academic Council never heard a word about it... why? Pood says he wasn't notified... why? Robert Campbell "

We're still actually waiting on most of this information. And the IHL involvement you've claimed elsewhere is easy to prove: just give us the link to the IHL minutes.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Enough about the speculation here about what is approved, who "meant" what, who released, etc. The headlines from USM appear official no matter if this is a proposal or a pilot. The public is not educated about the difference in this regard nor is it even clear to those of us who do this for a living. The REAL ISSUE: this is yet another example of blatant "in your face" NON-shared governance M.O. from this administration, whether it is "SACS/IHL legal" is not really the main concern...the faculty who should be involved were NOT. And never will be in this adminstration. This should NEVER happen, whether it CAN or not. In the spirit of cooperation and shared responsibiltiy for the education of our students, adminstrators should not talk to the press (IE, not ready to comment when HA calls, duh) without PRIOR appropriate dialogue and some modicum of consensus about new iniatiatives. How hard is it to grasp that surprises IN THE MEDIA should be rare for USM faculty to read/hear. This is especially true of a major university WHO IS ON SACS PROBATION PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ITS DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMS. This is not rocket science, it isn't even bad science, it is elementary logic. Again, what are they thinking??? FWhere are "they" getting the time to work on new projects like this? Isn't working on getting the university OFF probation enough to do?? That is I suppose rhetorical. Too scary to imagine. And THEY are the ones who are expected to lead us through the SACS accreditation?? Yeah, right.

I wonder if Rocky and Bullwinkle are available to sign on as curricular consultants

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Yeah, right. I wonder if Rocky and Bullwinkle are available to sign on as curricular consultants

Currently, they are involved with other projects. My understanding is that the Keystone Cops are available.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Whatsamatta U,

As a big fan of Rocky and Bullwinkle, may I just say that I envy your moniker and wish I had thought of it first? I hope you will use it again so that it receives the recognition it so richly deserves. If you don't use it, I may just steal it . . .

Forget about "USM" vs. "Mississippi Southern"; under Shelby, this institution really IS "Whatsamatta U."

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Why is there so much confusion over how they plan to staff these new courses? They will do this just like the last new program they started without faculty approval/input. In August, CoB faculty found out about the new Jackson County MBA by watching the evening news. How were these courses staffed? Faculty already teaching sections of these courses in Hattiesburg had their teaching loads increased.

As you can see, such a course offering will be all profit and increase enrollment. Many urban state universities are playing the dual enrollment game to boost their numbers. I still don't understand why they wouldn't want to have the courses on campus and open them up to all of the high schools. As it stands I doubt they will have a class over 20 students. Of course we had faculty driving to Jackson County to teach less than 10.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Whatsamatta U
" . . . The REAL ISSUE: this is yet another example of blatant "in your face" NON-shared governance M.O. from this administration, . . . faculty who should be involved were NOT. . . . "

Whatsamatta U., I agree wholeheartedly and think your observation is particularly pertinent in light of the SFT quote in today's paper. ("If you have a question to ask me, come to my office. How many times am I going to have to ask y'all to do that?")

As a reminder, several weeks ago, one of the presidential staff appealed to faculty to cooperate with SFT, observing that the president's door is always open but no one tries to communicate with him. To be frank, I find her naivete less offensive than his. I assume he is a bit more sophisticated than she, and should be held to a higher standard.

Their mutual assumption seems to be that communication takes place after -- not before -- important decisions are made and implemented. How many times has this happened? The colleges were "reorganized." Allegations of criminal activity were leveled against senior faculty. Strategic goals and objectives were formulated. A drug and alcohol policy was developed. You who are closer will remember more. The sequence of stupidity seems endless.

This business of "the open door" can delude some folks into thinking that SFT is welcoming fair and effective communication with the faculty, as if by some informal, prosaic policy of "Gosh, why don't y'all come by and see me sometime?" he can circumvent the benefit, the necessity of formal, structured, deliberate consultation with organized faculty representatives. Shared governance has to be systematic, not based on happenstance. Who can possibly anticipate either the next brilliant move or the next stupid thing until it is announced? The obvious problem here is that under this administration, plans at USM are not announced until they are fully formulated.

Shared decision making, that is, shared governance has to take place during the planning process, not after. (That seems so obvious that I am actually embarrassed to write it. As if SFT or one of his surrogates might actually be lurking here and give a rip about what I think is obvious.)