Admissions Committee Work Goals

Review department admissions requirements and processes. Too many students get admitted without the PPST completed (with just confirmation of registration). Is there something we can do about this with timing of admissions, content of admissions, and/or advising?

Clarify the memo of concern which should be presented to the admissions committee and automatic checking of low GPA each term, Re-establish the procedures for implementation. Explore the establishment of a fourth licensure checkpoint for low performing students and where/when/who to monitor it.

Possibly have a different letter for marginal GPA admitted students with warning language regarding academic performance.

Review new website content for accuracy, sufficiency, ease of linking, etc.

Revisit technical standards. Review standards from other college programs and consult with Susan regarding national discussion of these standards and the ADA.

If Rochester proposal is implemented, establish procedures for admittance.

Outline procedures and resources for students who don’t pass the PPST

Make recommendations regarding federal sex offender notification and department acceptance. Currently this is done at student teaching. Should the process be moved to department admission?

Continue the ongoing administrative tasks of checking student files at admissions.

Admissions Committee Meeting Minutes

10/13/03

Present: Joe, Mary and Ron

Committee Work Goals #2. Discussed the need for an additional checkpoint towards program completion. Lynn, in a briefing with Mary prior to the Admissions Committee meeting, noted that NCATE would want a minimum of four checkpoints. She noted the three existing checkpoints: admissions, School and Society and student teaching. We questioned whether School and Society is really a checkpoint. The three gates seem to be admissions, student teaching and licensure.

The Admissions Committee recommends that we include in this checkpoint process all courses that have a field experience attached. That is, all course instructors would be expected to review all evaluation forms returned by cooperating teachers at the completion of a field experience. Any evaluations that raised questions about student performance would require a written communication of concern using our existing document. The admissions committee would then review the concern and get feedback from the advisor, instructor and faculty who know the student.

Committee Work Goal #5. The existing faculty guide for students with disabilities was reviewed. The section on Rights and Responsibilities of the College was particularly noted. This was done in an attempt to find guidance in continuing the writing of the technical standards. Ron agreed to meet with Susan to prepare a draft to be reviewed by the Admissions Committee for our next meeting.

Committee Work Goal #7: All members of the committee agreed to look for lists of resources to support passage of the PPST that may have already been generated. References to supporting students in passing the PPST (or those that need to retake) are listed in both the Admission’s booklet and the student handbook. Joe agreed to create a separate document that combines these references together with a list of resources. These documents could then be available to faculty to use when advising students.

Committee Work Goal #8. The committee agreed that students should be aware of federal and state regulations related to criminal misconduct at the time of admissions as opposed to prior to student teaching. Various ways for implementing this notification were discussed, but no conclusions made. This discussion will be revisited at the next meeting.

Dec. 8, 2003

Present: Joe, Mary, Ron

The admissions committee continued a discussion regarding

Committee Work Goal #7: Committee members brought resources to support passage of the PPST. References to supporting students in passing the PPST (or those that need to retake) are listed in both the Admission’s booklet and the student handbook. Joe is putting these together in a document for faculty to advise students.

Committee Work Goal #8. The committee agreed that students should be aware of federal and state regulations related to criminal misconduct at the time of admissions as opposed to prior to student teaching. A signed statement in the admissions packet was suggested – will discuss at a future meeting.

January 12, 2004

Present: Joe, Mary, Ron

The admissions committee met today to act on an appeal by Brian Riesen. Brian has a

2.466 GPA and submitted the attached letter regarding special circumstances. His advisor, All Kloppen, supports his acceptance into the department. The committee decided to accept Brian into the department on a probationary basis for one term with the understanding that full acceptance will occur only if he meets the 2.5 threshold. Brian will take two classes in the department this term.

February 9, 2004

Present: Joe, Mary, Ron

The admissions committee heard an appeal from Charles Lemon. Charles has a 2.47 GPA. He has a letter of support from Susan O’Connor. Charles has made significant improvement over the last year amidst major life crisis. The committee decided to accept Charles into the department on a probationary basis for one term with the understanding that full acceptance will occur only if he meets the 2.5 threshold. Charles will continue to take classes in the department.

The committee continued discussion of technical standards and will approve a document at the next meeting.

The committee started discussion regarding the admissions process. Currently there is a last minute rush for admissions just prior to registration. Orientation teachers are encouraged to remind students to complete the admissions process in a timely manner. No new deadline requirements are recommended at this time.