Educational Policies and Planning Committee
October 10, 2008
I. Call to order: Chair Sandra Warren called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 in RA 142.
II. The following persons were present:
Members: Dale Knickerbocker, Sandra Warren, Margaret Bauer, Rose Allen
Ex-Officio Members: Linner Griffin, David Conde, George Kasperek, Jan Tovey
Guests & Presenters: Susan McGhee, Steve Duncan, John Connelly
Excused Members: Linda Kean, Jim Chandler, Jim Mitchell, Janice Lewis
Chair Sandra Warren asked the committee to approve an addition, “Update on Guidelines for Unit Academic Program Review”, to the agenda. L. Griffin to report.
M. Bauer moved to accept the addition to the agenda. L. Griffin seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
IV. Review of September 12, 2008 minutes
An amendment was made to the previous minutes of 9/12/2008. The last sentence in the last paragraph under V. C. MAEd in Family and Consumer Sciences, it was revised to read “The revised version will be reviewed by Sharon Bland prior to forwarding for subsequent approval.”
L. Griffin moved to approve the minutes as amended. J. Tovey seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
V. Open Meeting Policy
Members generally agreed that it is difficult to vote in front of colleagues and friends who have worked diligently on proposals. EPPC’s charge is to review proposals from an academic standpoint, but also, to consider the resources that programs need to implement their degree proposals. The committee discussed several options, including allowance of time at the start of each meeting for members to discuss proposals, using a checklist to review proposals in advance, and holding the vote on proposals until the end of each meeting or the following meeting. These activities would be open/made available to the public. The committee agreed that most of the questions and concerns regarding the approval of programs center around the resources (e.g., graduate assistantships) typically needed by graduate and doctoral programs. It was also noted that the committee is now receiving more graduate program proposals rather than undergraduate proposals. The committee agreed to conduct business as usual; no changes were made in procedures for today’s meeting.
VI. Placement Change of Military Programs
Susan McGhee and Steve Duncan presented the proposal to realign Military Programs (Army, Air Force, and Marines) . This would involve changing the programs organizationally from Industry and Technology to Health and Human Performance. There would be no change in prefixes for the courses involved. A physical change would be made to Christenbury Gymnasium.
Motion to approve Placement Change was made by D. Knickerbocker. D. Conde seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
VII. CSDI Degree Name Change
Rose Allen represented CSDI and presented the proposal to change the degree designator for the Master’s degree from Speech-Language and Auditory Pathology (SLAP) to a Masters degree in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSDI). This change is prompted by the change in the entry level degree for audiology majors from a Master’s to a Doctorate. Audiology courses have been removed from the Master’s curriculum so there is no longer an “auditory” component in the MS degree.
J. Tovey moved to accept the change in the name of the degree. M. Bauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
VIII. Guidelines for Reviewing Low Productivity/Low Enrollment Programs
committee discussed the guidelines developed by the Ad Hoc Committee (
will make changes to the document and forward to J. Tovey who will present to the
Academic Council. J. Tovey will also distribute to the programs listed on the
low productivity list so they may begin their review of the guidelines and
prepare a response for administration.
Our guideline document will be presented as a DRAFT document until approved
IX. Review of Approval Process for Distance Education Programs
John Connelly presented a history of the approval process for Distance Education programs which clarified that if programs were already existing on campus and offering a degree, they do not have to go thru the academic review process. Adding the Distance Education component is an administrative matter to determine if the resources exist within the department to support the on-line or distance component. During the last accreditation review by SACS, it was determined that on-line components are not considered substantive changes. Presently, Distance Education/on-line programs are subject to academic review and are presented to EPPC if they are (1) part of a new program, and (2) if added to an existing program, they will come to EPPC during the Request to Establish phase of the academic program review.
X. Update on Guidelines for Unit Academic Program Review
L. Griffin reported on changes made to the “Guidelines for Unit Academic Review”. Discussion relative to the number of reviewers for the undergraduate and graduate programs incurred. Committee members conveyed concern about the outcome of the reviews if only 2 reviewers were assigned and disagreements occurred. EPPC could be consulted in those cases. L. Griffin will convey EPPC’s comments to the Faculty Governance Committee and that today’s discussion did not change the original approval vote by EPPC.
XI. Reduction of Timelines for Implementation of New Programs
The committee discussed allowing Masters level programs to merge the Request for Inclusion (RI) Stage with the Notice of Intent to Plan (NIP) stage. Academic Council would determine if the program would move forward. This would add a step in the NIP stage if the program was not on the 5 year plan. The Academic Council is requiring more stringent budget information in the Assessing Readiness to Plan document. This will require a more stringent NIP process, but merging the RI with the NIP will save a lot of time in the implementation of the program. D. Knickerbocker will draft a document for EPPC to review at the next meeting. The committee discussed the timing of committee meetings and whether delays in approving minutes of meetings created delays in moving programs forward. It was decided that having minutes approved at subsequent monthly meetings did not account for delay in programs being moved forward in the process or implementation.
A motion was made was made by J. Tovey to: (1) Support merging the RI stage and the NIP stage for MS programs. (2) L. Griffin will communicate this recommendation to the Collaborative Team and the Academic Council. (3) D. Knickerbocker will draft a document reflecting EPPC’s position. M. Bauer seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
XII. Agenda for next meeting (or Business Carried Over to Next Meeting)
Part V. version 2 will be discussed at the next meeting scheduled for November 14, 2008 at 2:00 in Rawl 142. This version will reflect the recommendation from the Committee on Committees to clarify the charge of EPPC.
Minutes submitted by Rose L. Allen