邢唷��>� 13��0��欹�乣 ��jbjb $|c|c��D D D D P ��p p p p p p p p >@@@@@@,qR��l�p p p p p l��p p �p j�p �p >�4�"��p >:�,��>d $慰D � :� >�0��RYY>��Minutes of the CEPP Meeting November 22, 2005 In attendance: Mike Mudrovic (scribe), Gordon Thompson, Deb Hall, Molly Appel, Matt Hockenos (chair), Beau Breslin, Dan Moran, Pat Oles, Muriel Poston Approval of minutes: We approved Deb抯 minutes of two weeks earlier, but tabled Ruth Andrea抯 minutes until the next meeting. January retreat for Middle States document: Matt asked who would or would not be available for the January retreat to discuss the Middle States self-study. Because of time constraints and the number of people working on the document, CEPP may be able to approve the process, but maybe not the entire document. We should look carefully at the recommendations that will come out of each section. We may be able to divide the task into sections so that some members of CEPP read each section carefully. HEOP-FYE update: Muriel met with Jeff, Phil and Michael concerning the possibility of a second cluster. Jeff and Phil are still deliberating, taking into consideration time constraints and political implications. Can CEPP faculty express their support for Jeff and Phil? Matt has called them several times to express his position, but he has emphasized that it is their choice, not an obligation. IPPC and the Strategic Action Agenda: This document has been prepared by President Glotzbach and his cabinet as a plan for this year抯 work. This agenda is for 2005-06 and is still not defined so that progress can begin on these issues. IPPC has vetted it, and FEC and CEPP are now reading it. It is a working document, not the Strategic Plan, for the president抯 agenda. Matt pointed out that pp. 2-4 of this document (see attachment) are pertinent to CEPP. The issues of institutional assessment and writing across the curriculum. In addition, point 15 (揑ncrease student and faculty engagement in collaborative student-faculty research, with special emphasis on summer research�) falls under CEPP抯 purview. Is there anything that should be included in this plan that is missing? Is there an area where CEPP could be more involved? Where should the work be done? On point 33 questions arose concerning whether 搃ncreasing the percentage of students of color� was directed toward HEOP or Admissions in general. It was determined that it is broader than just HEOP, but we are talking about something we can achieve this year. For this year, then, HEOP will be the focus, but for 2006-07 the increase in the diversity of the student population does not rest solely with HEOP. CEPP expressed some discomfort with this point. Questions were raised as to the phrase 搒tudents of color� and the definition of international vs. national or regional recruitment. Deb suggested that portions of our website be translated to foreign languages to increase recruitment abroad. On point 7 concerning retention of 揳t-risk students,� CEPP wonders if high achievers who are not challenged by 91爆料 can be included in this point. The question was raised as to when we will define rigor and excellent, how we will implement changes and how we will assess them. Matthew will propose a document for CEPP to consider soon. CEPP should try to identify specific targets to improve excellence. Beau will make a list of specific bullet points to define these goals. On both points 53 (food service in the dining halls) and 68 (stewardship of the North Woods) CEPP feels that the active involvement of students is essential. Advanced Placement credits: CEPP received a message from CAS concerning the number of AP credits that 91爆料 students could acquire. We began by asking if we could talk to someone on campus who has graded AP exams and if we have confidence in the exam. We think we should limit the amount of AP credits so that a degree from 91爆料 reflects courses taken at 91爆料. Perhaps we can place an emphasis on credits in the student抯 major. Do prospective students look at how many AP credits we accept? We agreed that each department should become knowledgeable about the AP exams in their discipline since this seems to be a departmental issue. However, CEPP agreed that we need more data. How do current student performance compare between those who have received AP credit and those who have not? How are students using the credits they receive? What is the difference between a score of 4 or 5 on an AP exam? Should we limit the number of credit hours to three rather than four? Should individual departments determine the number of credit hours for AP scores? Should we contact the chairs of departments for their input? CEPP concluded that we do not have enough information and hard data on the issue of AP credits to make a decision at this time. We therefore would like to return the issue to CAS, asking them to consult department chairs and to gather statistical information (through Ann Henderson) so that we have a more solid basis on which to make these decisions. Physical Activities: At the present time approx. 50 one-credit courses in physical activity are being taught by coaches, who are not faculty, and supervised by the Director of the Athletic Department, who is also not a faculty member. Several questions have arisen with regard to this situation: Should the courses be graded P/F? Should they be credit-bearing? How many times can a student repeat this course? Should we have mechanisms in place for routine faculty review of the program? CEPP has decided to create a subcommittee that will include members from the Athletic Council, the Curriculum Committee, DOF and CEPP. ��h鹸./0��IJB C � � � � AB��勑^勑 &F$a$ $@&a$gd鹸��`a��LM�� &F刪^刪 &F勑^勑靶/ 班=!�"�#悹$悹%��D@�DNormalCJOJPJQJmH sH tH DA@��DDefault Paragraph FontZi@��ZTable Normal :V�4� l4�a�_H(k@��(No ListRY@�R鹸Document Map-DM� �普�OJQJaJ�$�� 爖� ��爖� ��爖� ��"./0��IJBC��AB�� `a��LM��0€€�锌€0€€�@�0€�P��0€�P��0€�P��0€�P��0€�P�� 0€�P��0€�P�� 0€�P��0€�P�� 0€�P��0€�P�� 0€�P��0€�0��0€�0��0€�0��0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓� 0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓� 0€€犓�0€€犓� 0€€犓� 0€€犓� 0€€犓� 0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓�0€€犓./0��IJBC��AB�� `a��LM��0€€�@聙0€€�鸶€�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉� 0€�惉�0€�惉� 0€�惉�0€�惉� 0€�惉�0€�惉� 0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉� 0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉�0€�惉� 0€�惉�0€�鸶� 0€�鸶� 0€�鸶� 0€�鸶� 0€�鸶�0€�鸶�0€�鸶�0€�鸶�0€�鸶�0€�鸶�0€�鸶��EMy~��)2��.0��aKNtK��::::� �滒h��礑�8^€��勑剺��^勑`剺䁖(.€劆剺��^劆`剺�.�刾凩��p^刾`凩�.€凘剺��@^凘`剺�.€�剺��^�`剺�.�勦凩��^勦`凩�.€劙剺��^劙`剺�.€剙剺��€^剙`剺�.�凱凩��P^凱`凩�.h�8剺��8^�8`剺﨩JQJo(佛�h�剺��^�`剺﨩JQJo(o�h勜剺�� ^勜 `剺﨩JQJo(ю�h劏剺��^劏`剺﨩JQJo(佛�h剎剺��x^剎`剺﨩JQJo(o�h凥剺��H^凥`剺﨩JQJo(ю�h�剺��^�`剺﨩JQJo(佛�h勮剺��^勮`剺﨩JQJo(o�h劯剺��^劯`剺﨩JQJo(ю� ��礑�� @€�j'=�P@��Unknown��G�Times New Roman5�€Symbol3�Arial3�TimesC�Lucida Grande?1�M Courier New;�€Wingdings p�鹦hFF( &!��€>4�J@��鹸��Minutes of the CEPP MeetingCITS Computer DepotDeb Hall� 鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0x�� 4@ LX`hp'Minutes of the CEPP MeetingbT�CITS Computer Depot浟 Normal1 Deb Hallute2� Microsoft Word 11.1@@蕋喋�@蕋喋�(� 胀諟.摋+,0hp�� '91爆料& Minutes of the CEPP MeetingTitle ��!"#$%&'��)*+,-./��2��Root Entry�� F挶 €�4€1Table��mWordDocument��$SummaryInformation(�� DocumentSummaryInformation8��(CompObj��XObjectPool��挶 €�挶 €�� FMicrosoft Word Document��NB6WWord.Document.8