University of Michigan - Flint

General Education Forum

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Discussion Questions & Responses

1. What should be the charge of the University Curriculum Committee governing General Education?

· Focus on General Education only rather than cross unit issues.

· Ensure that the GE learning outcomes are met

· Work for consensus with a campus-wide perspective

· Continue to implement spirit of goldenrod plan

· Act as champion for plan – build consensus across campus

· Document process, addressing emerging issues

· Review plan every three years with a view to revising it as necessary

· Pass on votes to units on GE issues

· Initially viewed as a communication device

· Potentially to become its own unit

· Examine GE curriculum as a whole using students’ outcome data

· Identify implications of curriculum changes within units that have effects across units; disseminate information

· Take proposals back to units for approval

· Be faithful to outcomes

· Make sure that all outcomes are covered in the entire general education curriculum

· Make sure goals are assessed

· Make sure transfer students also graduate with the general education learning outcomes (overview articulation agreements already signed or to be signed)

· Regularly re-examine GE content to make sure that courses within general education continue to address learning outcomes

· Make sure that scheduling that scheduling of classes allow students to take the courses they need in time

· Approve courses for general education (suites, specific course approval)

· Prevent program/course duplication

· Develop guidelines to be administered by Admissions and Registrar, including issues re: transfers

· Develop uniform minimum admission requirements

· University curriculum committee would address curriculum campus-wide including course integrity, outcomes, duplication, etc.

· GE Curriculum Committee should be concerned only with GE courses

· Address amount of work likely to create suites

· GE course approval

· Mapping learning outcomes (G.E.) to evaluate an approve courses.

· Managing portfolio of G.E. courses, number offered in catalog.

· Authority

· Autonomy of units to determine degree requirements

· Generate criteria for approved suites/courses

· Act as coordinator among schools/colleges

· Preliminary review of submissions for learning objectives and criteria

· Means of central communication/oversee process

· Facilitating interdisciplinary curriculum development

· Make recommendations/develop review process every three years to make recommendations

· Pot of money for interdisciplinary general education offering to support faculty, instructor incentives

· Change in tenure & promotion to value teaching this

· Joint appointments for faculty teaching interdisciplinary courses/suites

· Issues for transfer students needs to be solved

· Course/suite approval

· Final approval of learning outcomes and criteria used to determine course/suites

· Ex-officio members are the administrators responsible for implementation and oversight

· Set course capacities based on proposers (taking into account) recommendation

· Would committee have authority to change GE curriculum?

· Review of GE

· Communication!

· Separate entity (unit/office) that is responsible for general education and possibly interdisciplinary studies. Faculty could float in and out over time – some faculty could be long-term or short-term.

· Another committee, with responsibilities very much like AAAC may not be the best answer

· Uncover concerns through increased and intense communication structures

· Pass on votes to units on general education issues

· Coordinate

· Mechanism for communication

· Preliminary review of

· Facilitate inter-disciplinary development

· Review outcomes (every three years)

· Globally assess GE outcomes

2. Please create two or three possible compositions of such a committee along with a brief description of the advantages/disadvantages of each configuration.

· Representatives (chairs) from each curriculum committee

· Director of General Education – possible term

· Members at-large (elected or appointed)

· Subcommittee of Faculty Council

· Roles for committee members – each person has charge/responsibility

· 11 total (2 each school, 3 CAS (additional member with historical experience with general education), 1 Library, 1 OEL – one rep would be chair or other member of curriculum committee, one elected within unit)

· Advantages: uneven number of members, manageable size, takes advantage of past experience, promotes communication back to the unit

· Advisory – (Responsible for Communication /update)

· Unit Curriculum Committee Chairs

· Combined Senate/House Model

· AAAC

· Chairs of Curriculum Committee + Advising, members

· Group to resolve related issues

· AAAC

· Option A: 1 each SEHS, SOM, SHPS, 3 CAS, 1 at-large, Provost serves as ex-officio

· Option B: 1 each SEHS, SHPS, SOM, 1 CAS humanities, 1 CAS math/science, 1 CAS social science, 1 CAS fine arts, Provost serves as ex-officio

· Option C: AAAC

· Registrar and student representative on each option A-C

· Truth and reconciliation

· If committee chairs of curriculum committees or designated representative(s) (one or two from each unit)

· Senate model

· Option 1:

Ø Voting faculty (1 SHPS, 1 SEHS, 1 SOM, 3 CAS (including catalog editor)

Ø Ex Officio (1 Registrar, 1 Advising, 1 Provost-Assessment)

Ø Staggered

Ø Chair – rotation between schools with CAS serving every other year (one year commitment as chair)

· Option 2:

Ø AAAC added charge, bring in staff for GE work

· Advising (non-voting)

Ø Equal representation of each school

Ø Possibly include representation from Registrar, Intuitional Analysis, Accreditation reps, Provost (early on), student (junior or senior), Advising (tradition and non-traditional)

Ø Advantages (equitable, makes sense, utilize chairs of existing curriculum committees)

Ø Disadvantages (expensive, no real purview)

1. Under what conditions would you agree to delegate authority to such a committee?

• Composition of committee
• Budget implications
• Scope and clarity of the charge
• Over our dead bodies
• Under conditions that all four units support it
• Long term – become it’s own unit
• Short term – serve in advisory capacity
• Authority vs. Stewardship - faculty can reject position/call for vote
• Transparency of process
• AAAC enforces faculty make rules/ criteria
• Requires investment of University and unit leadership, i.e. past processes
• Must have authority to actually do something
• Committee has authority over general education only
• Court of last resort to solve disputes (disputes must go through other channels first)
• Put some resources behind it – make it meaningful: space, staff, money , authority
• Would committee have authority to change GE?
• Subset provision for GE and Committee
• Budget for GE incentive/reward
• P&T changes; joint appointment policy
• Transfer students
• Not final approval of
• Suite /FYE
• Learning outcomes
• Coordinating function rather than authority
• Communication
• None (against faculty governance)
• We would consider delegating authority once the committee became strong and stable enough after a trial period to be its own unit. Before that advisory, a communication device for both committee and units.
• Scheduling and class numbers may come earlier
• Evaluation