University of Michigan - Flint

General Education Focus Session

Governance of General Education

February 13, 2008

11:00 am – 12:00 pm, Tuscola Rooms, WSW

Facilitated by Carolyn Gillespie

Attendees: 6

A handout was distributed that detailed the information gathered at the faculty discussion of December 11, 2007 (General Education Forum).

Carolyn began the discussion indicating that this was a forum to continue the discussion of issues raised at the December 11^th General Education Forum regarding university-wide governance of general education. As a way of update, the following information was shared:

· Interim Provost Lotfi has created an official proposal to form the General Education Curriculum Advisory Committee. This proposal was created based on the comments/information received at the December 11^th forum. Copies of the proposal have been sent to the Design Team Steering Committee, AAAC and Faculty Council for review and feedback.

· A Governing Faculty meeting has been scheduled for Friday, March 28, 10 am – Noon, in Michigan Rooms A-B. The approval of the creation of such a committee will be voted upon by the faculty.

It was noted that approximately half of the School of Management faculty will not be available on March 28 as they teach the NETPLUS residency classes. The steering committee and faculty council will be made aware of this issue.

Since the proposal has not been circulated amongst faculty yet, participants asked for details of what was being proposed. Carolyn explained the following:

· The committee would be advisory in nature and continue the work of the Design Team

· As each unit has the right to manage their own curriculum, the committee would recommend courses to each unit/college for approval

· They would be responsible for soliciting, vetting, developing and reviewing general education courses

· The proposed composition of the committee is 2 faculty from each unit (one being the current curriculum committee chair) and 3 faculty from the college

· There would be a three year review cycle of the committee; program as a whole would be reviewed every five years

Comments included:

· Currently, the CAS curriculum committee is the only committee who designates attributes for GE courses on a case-by-case basis; there is no comprehensive review of manifest of GE courses which may have led to the former GE program not being so cohesive.

· With GE reform, clearly professional schools want a greater say in General Education on a more inclusive basis.

· Professional schools do not undervalue the liberal arts education but do not want to be told what constitutes a liberal education.

· A unified GE program is preferred.

· How does the budget model effect the decision making (tuition dollars follow faculty; only incentive, little risk)

· Without a clear mandate for students to enroll in GE courses, they will not do it.

Concerns:

· 9 people is too many for the committee and would lead the committee to not being effective.

· What if one unit says votes not to approve a course?

· Programs in CAS may los majors if students are not required to take traditional intro courses.

· How does this effect CAS? If all units contribute to GE, then CAS will be affected. It is shocking to some that CAS is not being embraced to teach general education courses.

Suggestions:

· Limit the committee to five, plus ex-officio members (1 from each school, 2 from CAS)