Maryland's Public System of Higher Education

Members Present: Javaune Adams (UMCP), Sandra Cohea-Weible (SU), Lynne Dowell (Towson), Jackie Knight (Coppin), Eric Lampe (UMBC), Sara Sides (TU).

Teri Hollander and the committee discussed several items related to the upcoming submission of the institutional advising reports.

• Mike Bowden is willing to work with us individually or as a group to assist with the "indicators of success" portion of the reporting chart. Mike's background is in institutional research and he is well versed in the Management for Results approach. Contact Mike at USM if you wish an appointment.
• The Advising Oversight committee has not met this year due to an unusually busy USM calendar. Teri will call the committee together soon to establish guidelines for advising grant applications should monies become available in the near future. The committee will discuss possible guidelines at the May 3^rd ICC meeting and forward to Teri.
• The institutional reporting document should include: a) all institutional strategies, their timeline dates, and progress toward completion; b) a page or two of narrative attached to the chart which might include summary statements, explanations or adjustments made to the original report, or items that have impacted the advising program on individual campuses; c) any ideas of common threads among the USM institutions.
• Teri will notify us soon as to the date these reports are due to USM for copying and distribution to the Ed Policy BOR committee.
• Beginning drafts of the advising charts were shared with the committee members by Coppin and SU. The remaining institutions will send their charts to Sandra so she can distribute them among the members. These are shared as a way to get ideas for institutional reports and thus should be sent to Sandra by March 18^th for distribution the following week.

Once again, there was a lively discussion about procedures for academic actions at the various institutions. The goal is to see if there is a common way of handling the admission of students who have been dismissed from another institution in the USM system. It was decided that in order to pursue the goal further, there needed to be a common understanding of the terminology being used by the various institutions. In order to accomplish this, the committee will complete a "Terminology Chart". Sandra Weible will forward the chart to the members electronically; each institution will enter the information on the chart appropriate for their institution and send it back to Sandra electronically (by April 8). Sandra will distribute the completed chart to the members prior to the next meeting on May 3^rd and possible ways of using common language will be explored at that meeting.

The committee will continue to pursue the completion of the "Standards Governing Academic Probation and Dismissal" chart. All members who did not bring their institutional information to the meeting were encouraged to enter their information into the established chart and send it electronically to Mary Gartner (Frostburg) so she might bring the completed chart to the May 3^rd meeting for discussion.

The members also agreed to bring 8 copies of the academic action letters from their institutions to the next meeting for distribution to the other committee members.

The use of deficit points to explain academic status and academic goals was explained and information distributed by Sandra Weible.

The next meeting will be held on Friday, May 3^rd at Salisbury University. Agenda items will include:

• Discuss how institutions establish BA or BS status for their degrees
• Common academic action terminology (completed chart)
• Guidelines for BOR advising grant money
• CLEP score chart

All members are asked to bring:

• 8 copies of their completed advising report submitted to Ed Policy Committee
• Terminology Chart with ideas for use of common terms
• 8 copies of academic action letters sent to students by their institutions

Chair/Recorder: Sandra Cohea-Weible