5.2.16 Supplemental Meeting and Electronic Vote

27 Commentsby   |  05.02.16  |  Uncategorized

Here are the proposals and support documents to be considered for our electronic vote this week:

Information Items

I. Revision of Nursing Prerequisites

……….a. Approval Chart

II. Addition of Nursing Co-Requisites

……….a. Approval Chart

Action Items

III. DET – Revision of major

……….a. Revised Approval Chart

……….b. Revised Degree Plan

IV. Remove CHEM 114 from Nursing Degree Plan menu

……….a. Approval Chart

 

Please enter your vote and any comments you may have by clicking the “Comments” button at the top right of this post beneath the title.

Comment

27 Comments

  1. Cheryl Bacon
    3:28 pm, 05.02.16

    I move to approve items 1 and 2 — the pre-req/co-req items.

  2. Cheryl Bacon
    3:33 pm, 05.02.16

    Regarding the last item removing the second chemistry course from the degree plan, I share Kim’s concern, but the absence of such a requirement in the other nursing programs listed indicates this is an acceptable approach and one that still prepares students for the licensing exams. I would be interested to know what programs still do require a full year of chemistry.

  3. Karen Witemeyer
    3:50 pm, 05.02.16

    Just as a note – The CHEM 114 course is not a stand alone requirement in the current nursing degree plan. It is one of three courses in a menu that students can choose from (CHEM 114, NUTR 120, or NUTR 221). So students can already opt not to take it. The proposal is simply to drop the CHEM 114 option from this menu.

  4. Ian Shepherd
    4:07 pm, 05.02.16

    I will second Cheryl’s first motion…for items 1 and 2
    Ian

  5. Karen Witemeyer
    5:02 pm, 05.02.16

    Items 1 and 2 are Information Only (consent agenda), so no action is necessary. We are only voting on items 3 and 4.

  6. Susan Lewis
    5:51 pm, 05.02.16

    Regarding the CHEM 114 question, in a conversation with Becky Hammack, dean of the School of Nursing, I learned that the outcomes for that particular supplement menu have to do with patient nutrition, rather than medication.

  7. C. D. Pruett Jr.
    11:15 am, 05.03.16

    Regarding items 3 and 4… It would help me to hear from Cheryl as to her satisfaction that the issue motivating her motion to table approval of DET has been settled. Also, should we approve the proposal in the newly revised form are we to expect a revision within the year? Also, is Brad willing to leave the revised proposal as the permanent degree plan requirement should new arrangements with JMC not be reached within the year? I hope the responses are more concise than my questions.

  8. Greg Powell
    2:58 pm, 05.03.16

    I also share my department chair’s concerns about the removal of another chemistry course from our nursing majors’ degree plan menu. I can remember when nursing students at ACU were required to take three semesters of chemistry. There are some nursing schools that still require two semesters (8 hours) of chemistry including the University of California Berkeley, but it seems that these programs are in the minority now.

    It is true that our minimum chemistry requirement for nursing majors is already only one semester. A handful of these students choose to take a second semester under the current menu. It is my understanding that a few do so because the nutrition courses fill up first.

  9. Susan Lewis
    5:07 pm, 05.03.16

    I’ll paste my email here for reference.

    Good afternoon, Council –

    Thank you for your generous offer to hear a revised DET proposal this week. I have heard from both Brad and Cheryl, and they are ready for you to consider it. A few points to note:

    1. Cheryl asked that we be sure to note that she and Brad “agreed that this is a one-year fix for the Film & Production emphasis in order for the changes to move forward. I realize the catalog will not indicate it’s a one-year fix. But in the fall, the DET/JMC faculty will need to re-visit this plan and consider capacity issues in JMC classes for the future.”

    2. You will also notice a couple of information items from Nursing. These are pre-requisite and co-requisite clarifications.

    3. Also, you will see one action item from Nursing. If it is the will of the Council, Becky et al., would appreciate your consideration. If not, I understand and we can table it until the fall.

    4. If you choose to consider it, Nursing is proposing to remove CHEM 114 from a menu in their degree, so that it will include only nutrition courses. Nutrition is the intended the purpose of the menu. They have included a letter from Kim Pamplin in the proposal.

    5. We are going to attempt to do this electronically as several of you have requested. Please interact using the comments section of the blog, so that we have a good record of each person’s comments.

  10. Ian Shepherd
    5:58 pm, 05.03.16

    I too am concerned about the science reduction for nursing majors. I await a response to Susan’s email for clarification.
    Ian

  11. Sam Stewart
    8:18 am, 05.04.16

    It appears that we need a motion to move forward on items 3 and 4. I am sensing significant concern on item 4 for nursing. Personally, I think item 4 should be something that has a full hearing from the council and should be tabled until next year.

    I am trusting that item 3 would not have been brought forward without arrangement between DET and JMC. If this is not the case, Cheryl please let us know.

    For the reasons above I move that we table item 4 (nursing) and approve item 3 (Digital Entertainment Technology).

  12. Karen Witemeyer
    8:33 am, 05.04.16

    Here is a rationale statement from the School of Nursing taken from a larger document that focuses on the CHEM 114 issue:

    “The nutrition courses [in the menu] provide specific nutrition information that is needed for nursing while CHEM 114 has background information but not as specific as the nutrition courses.”

  13. Susan Lewis
    10:50 am, 05.04.16

    Thanks, Sam.

    1. I have a motion to approve the DET proposal. Do I hear a second?

    2. I have a motion to table the Nursing proposal. Do I hear a second?

  14. Sheila Jones
    2:06 pm, 05.04.16

    My concern with the nursing proposal is that Nursing has (somewhat on a regular basis) had to pay for extra sections of NUTR 120 already. My budget will not allow for us to fund an extra section that this proposal would require. I have contacted Nursing but have not received a firm “yes” as to whether they can fund another section on an ongoing basis. In fact, I was told that their funds are getting tighter. This speaks to the same issue as to why we tabled the DET proposal. All Department chairs should be consulted when their departments are going to be impacted significantly before proposals are passed. If I were not on the UUAC, this proposal might have passed without my knowledge but then would cause more strain on my budget, or I would have to ask Nursing to pay for it (which I would do but is really out of my comfort zone). All that being said, nurses do need some nutrition knowledge that 1 course of nutrition would provide. I would really like to get an answer from Nursing first. I am OK with the DET proposal if Cheryl is.

  15. Sam Stewart
    3:14 pm, 05.04.16

    I vote yes on both motions.

  16. Susan Lewis
    4:01 pm, 05.04.16

    I have a motion and a second for 1. approving the DET proposal and 2. tabling the nursing proposal. Thanks, Greg.

    All in favor?

  17. Sheila Jones
    10:12 pm, 05.04.16

    Yes to both motions.

  18. Steve Wages
    11:36 pm, 05.04.16

    I vote yes on both motions.

  19. Vic McCracken
    8:32 am, 05.05.16

    I also vote yes to both motions.

  20. Ian Shepherd
    8:41 am, 05.05.16

    yes both motions

  21. Vernon Williams
    8:42 am, 05.05.16

    I vote yes on both motions.

  22. Cheryl Bacon
    9:10 am, 05.05.16

    I vote yes on both motions.

    And in response to C.D.’s questions, Brad and I agreed on the proposal as presented. By default, it would be permanent if we failed to bring forward another change and we both understand that; that said, Brad and I agreed to look at this again next year and I trust that will happen.

    Susan, as an item for our first meeting in the fall, I would like for us to craft a clearer procedure, as Sheila suggests, to assure that the approval and signature of affected departments becomes a mandatory requirement for any proposals that affect enrollment in those departments’ courses. We used to have such a requirement but somewhere it’s fallen off the radar.

  23. C. D. Pruett Jr.
    10:11 am, 05.05.16

    I vote yes on both motions.

  24. Greg Powell
    2:09 pm, 05.05.16

    I vote yes on both motions.

  25. Susan Lewis
    2:48 pm, 05.05.16

    Greg emailed to say he has approved both motions. With that both motions pass unanimously. Thanks for your service, Council! We are adjourned.

  26. Greg Powell
    3:06 pm, 05.05.16

    I’ll try again:

    I vote “Yes” on both motions.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.