Academic Standards Review Committee Winter 2014 Team members: Dillon Carr, Daniel Gendler, Pamela Laureto, Harold Lee, Thomas Street, Fred Zomer

Background Academic Standards document adopted by AGC in 2009 Companion Document to Faculty Code of Ethics Aligned to Faculty Evaluation Process and Ideology (circa 2009) Designated for Review in Current Charge from AGC Review the existing standards Gather feedback from departments or groups college wide Recommend any necessary changes

Committee Actions to Date Conducted a review of the existing standards Team members solicited feedback from their respective work areas Compiled recommendations First presentation to AGC

Committee Report Internal discussions and peer feedback centered on two primary issues with the academic standards 1.Language choice pertaining to specific parts of the document 2.Questions about the implications for action of the Academic Standards document The organization of the standards and the ‘spirit’ of the document was well received

Document Language Original Title: Academic Standards Proposed Revision: Guidelines for Faculty I.Maintains current content knowledge Proposed revision: Removal of # 3 here and reworded to be part of section 3 below

Document Language II. Promotes an environment conducive to learning Proposed revision (#3): Maintains an environment which cultivates respect, care, and rapport among students Proposed revision (#5): Mindful of their student’s background, culture, needs, aspirations, and goals

Document Language III. Designs courses that promote learning and success for students Proposed revision (# 1): Incorporate available information about student’s initial knowledge and needs into the course Proposed revision (# 7): Considers teaching practices in light of current research and best practices

Document Language IV. Establishes a professional relationship with students and between students No revisions recommended

Document Language V. Creates and maintains a community of learners Proposed revision (# 7): Collaborates with community partners to enhance learning experiences when appropriate to achieving course outcomes

2. Implications for Action “Document conforms to current (2009) faculty evaluation process and ideology” Issue: How does this document (and the faculty code of ethics) align with the new faculty evaluation system? Issue raised here to communicate that we have considered this feedback, but feel that it is outside our charge

2. Implications for Action The contract takes precedent over this document This document is not a policy and therefore has no mechanism for enforcement and proposed language changes reflect this reality Our stance is that Guidelines for Faculty does still conform to the ideology of the current evaluation system

Where are we now? 1 st presentation to AGC to provide an opportunity to comment on committee recommendations Please forward feedback to Dillon Carr by April 25 2 nd and 3 rd visits to AGC will take place during the academic year