Take Your Place in the Murray State Tradition
College of Education
shield plaque

Skip Navigation LinksDirectory > Administration > President's Office > Strategic Plan > Budget Planning and Review > College of Education

Budget Review Team - College of Education

12/14/12

Preliminary Report to the Board of Regents

November 26, 2012
As per the request of the BPR team, the Academic Support program review team provided the additional data that was needed. Through discussion of the data presented, the BPR team requested one more piece of data to fully evaluate the program in question. The data will be provided at the next BPR meeting. The third academic expert review presented their evaluation report on programs within the Early Childhood and Elementary Education Department. The reviewers discussed the programs that were evaluated and reasoning behind their recommendations. Now that all four expert review teams have presented their reports, the team will meet again to begin the decision-making process. 

November 20, 2012
The Academic Support review team presented their evaluation results. Each of the academic support programs was reviewed. Several questions were raised on one particular program and the BPR team agreed that additional data needed to complete the evaluation of this program. 

November 19, 2012
Dr. Whaley stated there were 15-20 faculty and staff present at both open forums. Those in attendance gained insight into the BPR process and were appreciative of the opportunity to ask questions. The second academic expert review team presented their evaluation results on the programs within the Educational Studies, Leadership and Counseling Department. Recommendations for further action were also presented. The BPR team made no decisions at this time. 

November 12, 2012
At the last meeting, four expert review teams were established. Three teams will review the academic departments with the fourth reviewing Academic Support programs. The purpose of this BPR meeting was to listen to the first of the expert review teams. The first academic expert review team presented their preliminary evaluation results on programs housed within the Adolescent, Career and Special Education department. The reviewers discussed their evaluation results with the entire BPR team as well as their recommendations for further action. The BPR team agreed that decisions about programs will not be made until all of the evaluation results are presented. The team also agreed to host a college-wide forum so COE faculty and staff can get a better understanding of the BPR process. The open forums will be held on November 13th at 7:30 am and on November 14th at 3:30 pm.
11/26/12
As per the request of the BPR team, the Academic Support program review team provided the additional data that was needed. Through discussion of the data presented, the BPR team requested one more piece of data to fully evaluate the program in question. The data will be provided at the next BPR meeting. The third academic expert review presented their evaluation report on programs within the Early Childhood and Elementary Education Department. The reviewers discussed the programs that were evaluated and reasoning behind their recommendations. Now that all four expert review teams have presented their reports, the team will meet again to begin the decision-making process. 

11/20/12
The Academic Support review team presented their evaluation results. Each of the academic support programs was reviewed. Several questions were raised on one particular program and the BPR team agreed that additional data needed to complete the evaluation of this program. 

11/19/12
Dr. Whaley stated there were 15-20 faculty and staff present at both open forums. Those in attendance gained insight into the BPR process and were appreciative of the opportunity to ask questions. The second academic expert review team presented their evaluation results on the programs within the Educational Studies, Leadership and Counseling Department. Recommendations for further action were also presented. The BPR team made no decisions at this time. 

11/12/12
At the last meeting, four expert review teams were established. Three teams will review the academic departments with the fourth reviewing Academic Support programs. The purpose of this BPR meeting was to listen to the first of the expert review teams. The first academic expert review team presented their preliminary evaluation results on programs housed within the Adolescent, Career and Special Education department. The reviewers discussed their evaluation results with the entire BPR team as well as their recommendations for further action. The BPR team agreed that decisions about programs will not be made until all of the evaluation results are presented. The team also agreed to host a college-wide forum so COE faculty and staff can get a better understanding of the BPR process. The open forums will be held on November 13th at 7:30 am and on November 14th at 3:30 pm.

11/9/12

An academic program expert review team presented their preliminary results of their evaluation. They further presented a list of programs up for additional review as well as programs that do not need to be reviewed further. The team decided to listen to all expert review team reports before finalizing the results. The following meeting times will be used for additional expert review team reports.


10/31/12
The team reviewed their list of accomplishments to date and clarified a few details in regard to the review process. The group approved the academic and academic support evaluation rubrics. Dr. Jacqueline Hansen briefed the members on the expert review process. The BPR team will divide into four expert review teams. Three teams will evaluate the academic programs and were divided by departmental boundaries. The fourth team will evaluate the academic support programs.
The next meeting will be used as an opportunity to check-in on the progress that has been made. It may also be used as a time for an expert review team report.

10/16/12
The team drafted the academic support (non-academic programs) evaluation instrument. The group divided into two sub-committees to finalize the indicators for both academic and academic support rubrics. Dr. Robert Lyons led the academic rubric discussion while Mr. Ron Milliner led the discussion for the academic support rubric group. After thorough discussion of each criterion, members agreed that the rubrics will utilize a “Comments” section to provide additional information not addressed within the indicators. The academic support rubric will also include an “N/A” column since some of the indicators may not apply to one of the program. To prepare for the next meeting, the team will provide comments on the draft rubrics.

10/12/12
The purpose of this meeting was to begin structuring the evaluation instruments. It was the focus of the members to effectively and holistically evaluate the academic and academic support programs. The team agreed to develop two evaluation instruments; one for academic programs and another for the academic support programs. When program reviews begin, the group agreed to use a ranking of high, medium, or low.
The remainder of the meeting was used to select indicators for each of the criteria. The members concurred that the language within the indicator cells would not be reviewed at this time. The group will utilize Google docs to collaborate in refining the rubrics.
The team agreed to meet more frequently to complete the work ahead. When program reviews begin and data is needed, the Dean’s office will serve as the data collection center to efficiently disseminate the information.


10/4/12

The COE Budget Planning and Review Team met Tuesday, September 25, 2012 from 9M-11:30.
The team reviewed and agreed upon the list of academic and non-academic programs that will
evaluated. The main purpose of the meeting was to begin developing an evaluation instrument.
Several examples were provided. The group began building upon a rubric that is being used by
one of the colleges and brainstormed several indicators that could be added in each criteria.

The topic of evaluation scores was discussed. The team concurred that a score should be used
to rank, not rate, each program. Input will be gathered from faculty working with the programs
in order to collect detailed information necessary to the evaluation process.

At the conclusion of the meeting, several team members volunteered to develop an alternative
rubric that would be used to evaluate non-academic programs. The draft academic program
rubric will be refined before the next team meeting. Both draft rubrics will be submitted at the
Friday, October 12, 2012 meeting that begins at 2:30pm.
The COE Budget Planning and Review Team met Tuesday, September 25, 2012 from 9M-11:30.
The team reviewed and agreed upon the list of academic and non-academic programs that will
evaluated. The main purpose of the meeting was to begin developing an evaluation instrument.
Several examples were provided. The group began building upon a rubric that is being used by
one of the colleges and brainstormed several indicators that could be added in each criteria.

The topic of evaluation scores was discussed. The team concurred that a score should be used
to rank, not rate, each program. Input will be gathered from faculty working with the programs
in order to collect detailed information necessary to the evaluation process.

At the conclusion of the meeting, several team members volunteered to develop an alternative
rubric that would be used to evaluate non-academic programs. The draft academic program
rubric will be refined before the next team meeting. Both draft rubrics will be submitted at the
Friday, October 12, 2012 meeting that begins at 2:30pm.
The COE Budget Planning and Review Team met Tuesday, September 25, 2012 from 9M-11:30.
The team reviewed and agreed upon the list of academic and non-academic programs that will
evaluated. The main purpose of the meeting was to begin developing an evaluation instrument.
Several examples were provided. The group began building upon a rubric that is being used by
one of the colleges and brainstormed several indicators that could be added in each criteria.

The topic of evaluation scores was discussed. The team concurred that a score should be used
to rank, not rate, each program. Input will be gathered from faculty working with the programs
in order to collect detailed information necessary to the evaluation process.

At the conclusion of the meeting, several team members volunteered to develop an alternative
rubric that would be used to evaluate non-academic programs. The draft academic program
rubric will be refined before the next team meeting. Both draft rubrics will be submitted at the
Friday, October 12, 2012 meeting that begins at 2:30pm.The COE Budget Planning and Review Team met Tuesday, September 25, 2012 from 9-11:30. The team reviewed and agreed upon the list of academic and non-academic programs that will evaluated. The main purpose of the meeting was to begin developing an evaluation instrument. Several examples were provided. The group began building upon a rubric that is being used by one of the colleges and brainstormed several indicators that could be added in each criteria.
The topic of evaluation scores was discussed. The team concurred that a score should be used to rank, not rate, each program. Input will be gathered from faculty working with the programs in order to collect detailed information necessary to the evaluation process.

At the conclusion of the meeting, several team members volunteered to develop an alternative rubric that would be used to evaluate non-academic programs. The draft academic program rubric will be refined before the next team meeting. Both draft rubrics will be submitted at the Friday, October 12, 2012 meeting that begins at 2:30pm.



9/21/12

The COE Budget Planning and Review Team met Wednesday, September 12, 1-2 PM for its first meeting.  All members but one attended.  Regents Rose and Schooley attended.  Major outcomes of this first meeting were:

  1.  Purpose, timeline, and expected outcomes of the BPR process in the College were reviewed.
  2. Committee members established essential agreements/understandings on the “rules of engagement” and on individual member responsibilities.  Ten “norms” for meetings were identified that addressed how decisions will be made, conditions for the meetings, reporting of outcomes, and how buy-in with other groups will occur.
  3. Members defined “programs” in the broadest sense and, given this, a comprehensive list of programs has been drafted for consideration at the next meeting.
  4. The second meeting of the Budget Planning and Review Team will take place on September 25.  Major outcomes anticipated from that meeting will be:
    • Adoption of list of programs; and
    • Agreement on a process for reviewing programs using available, but customized, instruments of review.  Instruments will be finalized and processes of review will commence.


Team Members

Renee Campoy

Tami Dandeneau

Mardis Dunham

W. A. Franklin

Julia Hilkey

Martin Jacobs

Johan Koren

Robert Lyons

Ron Milliner

Jacqueline Hansen

Ginny Richerson

Jo Robertson

Alesa Walker

David Whaley (Chair)

Directory