2025-04-14 10AM AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Chair

@Amaladas, Denusha

Notetaker

@Alison Lanius

Attendees

@Lisa Wong
@akshayagrawal
@Alison Lanius
@Anna Striker
@Cathleen Lu
@Ellen Augustiniak (Unlicensed)
@John Riemer (Unlicensed)
@Sarah Sheets
@Daisy Nip (Unlicensed)
@Chan Li
@Michele Potter

Regrets

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	Assemble Start recording Assign notetaker	Notetaker: Alison Lanius	5	All
2	Preparation/review process votes	Three members didn’t vote, everyone else supports Option 1 (targeted review) We can review our process again in a couple of years to affirm this approach is still serving us or move to a better option at that time.	10	All		No objections, we can move forward with option 1, Targeted review.
3	FY24-25 Process Planning	Straw proposal for the Review files and Exclusion Process fleshing out prep/review process in detail	40	Anna/all	We are looking at the Targeted review. Detailed written version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zIp5Dp3xot1oHbf41MaUvW-CHL_Wv0FXJbaX33Zphr8/edit?tab=t.flp65umswqu0#heading=h.ebl5wsfqhalz - this includes example (see TOC on left side) Priority to reduce the amount of input requested while still maintaining quality. Focus on getting input for ambiguous values, For ambiguous values that have previous decisions these will continue to stand until the campus requests a change (i.e. location values). Campuses will not be requested to do comprehensive reviews but can request a full review. Any changes from previous year will be presented from review. Optional - we could also include ceased values if desired, though they may be tricky. Campuses make decisions in the review document and alert CDL team they are finished. Following this Daisy runs the NZ report - optional she can create crosswalk for campuses. Proposed Timeline: April Daisy creates review fields, identifies new values, values requiring special handing Create review google files May Deliver google review files to campuses, local review and decision making. Alert when decisions are made. June Decisions should be delivered by mid-June in order to finalize the NZ built. Daisy applies decisions to NZ build. Daisy begins creating reference documents for each campus if desired. July Daisy runs the NZ build generating NZ reports and compiles NZ-level output. Roles & responsibilities Systemwide data analyst - generate files, coordinate, maintain documentation, create summary, build file/report infrastructure. SLP senior analyst work with SDA to compile data requests, request SCA exclusion criteria from HOSC, affirm campus statistics contacts, prepare-non-ILS stats AASAP-PT - which will be replaced by the stats contact review information requests, consult locally, provide decisions. Expected deliverables One document per campus new values with no decisions existing values that require special handling links to detailed review files optional: ceased values, overview of all campus decisions	Who should receive the review document? AASA-PT rep, campus stats contact, both? For this year both was selected. Is this a reasonable timeline? yes, it seems to be. Is it helpful to have suggested values - yes, these are fine.	Provide feedback via email or at our next meeting to the questions
4	Wrap up	Review actions and decisions	5
5	Parking Lot	Capture important topics for future discussion
6		Total	60/60