Extension Instruction Funding Response Teams

Additional teams are being formed and information on them will be added to this site as members agree to serve.  The teams will address enrollment projections and cost analysis; planning and assessment; student services; faculty and staff workload, compensation support and services; courseware production/delivery support and services; and new funds, tuition and fees, among other issues and concerns.  
 

EIFRT TEAMS AND TEAM CHARGES EIFRT'S PURPOSE:  TO DEVELOP AN EXTENSION INSTRUCTION PLAN OF ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THE NEW FUNDING MODEL THAT IDENTIFIES THE IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERM ISSUES PERTINENT TO THOSE CHANGES; THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND SEMESTER CREDIT HOUR PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY; AND INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COHERENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND RELATED PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. FIRST REPORTING DATE IS SEPTEMBER 1, 1998. 07/28/98
1. Team: New Funds, Tuition and Fees    Team Leaders: Frank Abrams and Sondra Kirsch  Team Members: John Cudd, Karen Irvin, Steve Keto, Teresa Langley, Charles Livengood, Bruce Mallette, Sarah Rajala, Tom Russell, Tom Stafford	Team Charge:    To determine and recommend how and in what amounts the new funds will be distributed to existing units that are producing and delivering courses and programs off-campus, to support units that service the faculty teaching extension courses and their distance students, to departments or colleges/schools whose faculty are teaching those courses or whose faculty want to extend their courses off-campus, and for seed money to develop new courses and programs. To study the new tuition rates for in-state and out-of state students and determine the potential impact of increased or decreased tuition on the current programs and related production and delivery units, recommending solutions or changes that may be required to ensure the continuation of the same and increase level of SCHs. To study and determine what additional fees should be charged for student support services and recommend the process and measures of appropriateness (standards) by which all such fees should be charged, to ensure uniformity and fairness across campus in determining fees.
2. Team: Faculty and Staff Workload, Compensation, Support Services, and Course Development, Delivery and Production  Team Leaders: Ernie Knowles and George Wahl   Team Members: Steve Allen, Carolyn Argentati, Caroline Beebe, Sarah Berenson, Jim Easley, Ted Feitshans, Kevin Gamble, John Gilligan, Peggy Hoon, Tom Johnson, Teresa Langley, Bruce Mallette, Tom Miller, Sandy Newville, Harry Nicholas,  Mitch Owen, Carmine Prioli, Phil Rea, Tom Russell, Gib Smith, Jim Svara	Team Charge:    Recommend university policies and procedures that will lead to the development and delivery of the best distance education program in the United States. Three subareas will be studied:   Faculty Compensation - Develop procedures to fund faculty efforts for course development and course delivery.  Course and Program Development - Develop strategies for identifying desirable courses, programs and faculty for distance courses.  Develop strategies to "market" distance education among faculty who do not believe distance education is a bona fide scholarly activity, and among administrators who may not consider these worthwhile activities in salary, promotion and tenure decisions.   Develop transition strategies for the first year or two as currently offered extension and distance education courses are changed to the new funding formula.   Develop strategies for resource allocation to best produce quality distance education.   Define and develop roles and functions of LTS and OIT in working with faculty to bring a course to full completion as a stand-alone distance education course.   Recommend a clear and unambiguous university policy regarding intellectual property rights of faculty who produce and deliver distance education.  Technical Production: Support and Services - Define the kind and level of production support that should be provided to faculty for ease of access to instruction in new technology accessible through the web or other distance education formats.  Define and develop roles and functions of LTS and OIT in the technical assistance to faculty wanting to develop a distance education course.   Identify recurring maintenance costs and how to maintain them at state-of-the-art levels.
3. Team: Student Services   Team Leaders: John Cudd  Team Members: Roger Callanan, George Dixon, Lynda Hambourger, Richard Hayes, Andrea Irby, Charles Kneifel, Teresa Langley, Julie Rice Mallette, Susan Nutter, Martha Olsen, Bobby Puryear,  Tom Stafford, Martha Welch	Team Charge:    To develop a unified model for delivering the widest possible range of student services essential to providing a quality educational experience to students at a distance. The model must take into consideration the critical needs of nontraditional learners and of their remoteness from the campus so that a seamless, efficient, and customer-friendly source of just-in-time information is readily available to them. The provision of these student services should be in concert with the aims of the Commission on Quality Student Services and consistent with the Principles of Good Practice promulgated by SACS, SREC, ACE and others.
4. Team: Planning, Program Authorization Process, and Assessment   Team Leaders: Sarah Rajala and Jim Burrow   Team Members: Frank Abrams, John Cudd, Ed Funkhouser, Karen Helm, Hasan Jameel,Sondra Kirsch, Charles Livengood, Jon Ort, John Pettitt, Becky Rufty, Bob Sowell	Team Charge:   To review and consider the potential impact of current policy and procedures for planning and conducting extension and distance education courses and programs in response to the funding model (Memo 372, SACS). To study and recommend appropriate policy, procedures, responsibilities, and relationships for needs assessment, authorization, program planning, initiation, and evaluation including coordination with other UNC campuses and community colleges. To consider and recommend how the university will meet the legislative mandate to evaluate its off-campus programs as well as to insure oversight and compliance with SACS requirements and principles of good practice (ACE, SREB). To study and make recommendations, as appropriate and in collaboration with other ongoing efforts on campus, for special issues related to program planning, authorization  and assessment including relationships between on- and off-campus programs, residency requirements, ownership and availability of courses and programs, and advancement of extension instruction.
5. Team: Enrollment Projections and Cost Analysis   Team Leaders: Lewis Carson and Karen Irvin   Team Members: John Cudd, Karen Helm, Sondra Kirsch, Steve Keto	Team Charge:   To recommend enrollment projections as required by GA, and to combine enrollment trends and environmental factors in building an on-going model for making projections, To ensure accounting systems carry detailed information that will allow analysis for direct and indirect cost of instruction, as well as cost of production and delivery.
6. Team: Steering Team    Team Leaders: Frank Abrams and Sondra Kirsch   Team Members: Jim Burrows, Lewis Carson, John Cudd, Ernie Knowles, Sarah Rajala, George Wahl	Team Charge:    To identify the scope of the EIFRT assignment and organize and assign the work among the teams, To coordinate the work of all the teams to ensure that all the issues are being addressed with minimum duplication of effort, To prepare a status report to the Provost by September 1, and Write the final report to the Provost and be prepared to present it to the faculty, deans, vice Chancellors, and the Chancellor by 1 December.