Faculty Senate Back to Main Page
Curricular Plan for 2007
Date:          February 8, 2002
To:             Faculty Senators and Chairs of Faculty Senate Committees/Councils
From:         Nancy Rosenberger

Below please find the presentation that I was going to give at the February Faculty Senate meeting. Below you will find a draft of goals; they basically convey that this needs to be a process that considers both quality of education and budget. These will be a topic of conversation with the Curricular Issues Steering Committee once it is formed.

Also below you will find a part that asks: What issues should we deal with in the curricular issues part of what was redesign, and is now being referred to as…a plan for 2007? What needs improvement or doesn't make sense that affects your academic life? I give a list of examples of issues that have arisen. Please look these over, give us suggestions for more issues (large or small) and/or comment on what aspects are important about the issues that we have suggested.

Attached you will find a graphic design of the process that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee has created. There are a number of groups involved, so I have included below a list of groups and their functions, composition, etc. To give a synopsis, we will have a Curricular Issues Steering Committee co-chaired by Gordon Matzke and me; its 10 or so faculty members, representing the colleges, are being decided by the EC, Gordon and me, and will be asked in the next week. This group will then take the various ideas on what issues should be studied for change, prioritize them, and form subcommittees around the most important. (These subcommittees are the "satellite groups" in Tim's presentations.) These subcommittees will have their first intense work period during Spring Term 02.

The Curricular Issues Steering Committee will take their recommendations and work over the summer to determine which subcommittees should continue, which are finished (either because there is a determination for no change or recommendations for implementation have been made), and which new subcommittees should form around other issues. Subcommittees (in some cases with different members) will work in Fall Term 02, most of them concluding with recommendations for implementation in Dec. As you will see, we also suggest several large gatherings of subcommittee members, meetings and reports by Faculty Senate Caucuses, and reports to/discussions in Faculty Senate.

In closing, please send your ideas on issues that you think should be dealt with and your feedback on process. These can be sent to Nancy Rosenberger, Gordon Matzke or Vickie Nunnemaker. Thanks for sticking with us on this! I think we finally have a process in place that is communicating across campus. It's too bad it took so long to get here and there is much work to be done. I am glad, however, that we have slowed down a bit, decoupled from the initial budget crisis, and have a chance to ask concrete questions about what exactly could use some improvement for both quality and efficiency

Diagram for CISC
Goals:                                                          Draft

-- To study and design ways to improve the quality of education in undergraduate and graduate areas of curriculum, while keeping in mind budget constraints.

-- To study and design ways to improve the efficiency of curricular-related processes in order to save money and generate revenue, while keeping in mind the quality of education.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What issues should be dealt with here? We invite input.
Questions to consider:
What doesn't make sense or could be done better in academic terms?
What areas and processes could use improvement in quality and/or efficiency?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Examples of issues we might look at under curricular umbrella:

    -- Baccalaureate core/lower division undergraduate education
    -- Multi-disciplinary programs:
      - Strategies to make them easier to initiate and implement
      - Incentives, direction, reporting lines, funding mechanisms
    -- Graduate programs, development of/use, training of GTAs
    -- Themes-evaluation and implications
    -- Programs of excellence-criteria, incentives, transparent process for determining them
    -- Switch from 3 to 4 credit courses; switch from terms to semesters
    -- Consolidation of colleges or departments
    -- Duplication in courses, programs
    -- Reduction of delivery of credits:
      - testing out of credits
      - granting credits based on experience
      - reducing number of lab sciences needed for baccalaureate core
      - focusing writing requirement on those who need it

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Examples of larger issues that probably bridge institutional management and curricular issues:
-- Enrollment growth-optimal targets with formulas maximizing revenue and quality
-- Tuition differentials (among schools, among lower and upper division, grads?)
--Salary differentials
-- Budget allocation model (to colleges, programs, etc)/measurements of quality and efficiency
-- Consolidation of colleges and/or departments
--Summer session

Issues bridging student services and curricular issues:

-- Advising
-- Learning centers

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Groups: See also attached file 'Curricular Issues'             Draft

  1. Curricular Issues Steering Committee (CISC)
      -- Co-chairs: Gordon Matzke and Nancy Rosenberger
      -- Approximately 10 faculty members appointed by co-chairs and Faculty Senate Executive Committee, with Provost consultation
      -- Two Ex-officio members, representative of Academic Affairs and Graduate School
      -- Functions:
        - To finally determine and prioritize issues to be studied
        - To coordinate all the subcommittees below
        - To interface with other area steering committees
        - To receive and work on recommendations from subcommittees, summer 02 and early winter 03

  2. Subcommittees
      -- Functions
        -To investigate issues for improvement
        -To design means for improvement where appropriate
        -To make recommendations (for implementation, for no action, etc)
      -- Issues subcommittees will deal with will be determined
      -- Headed by members of CISC
      -- Membership:
        - Decided by CISC (in consultation with other areas when appropriate)
        - Consisting mainly of faculty, but bringing in administrators, staff and students where appropriate
      -- Operate in two stages or cycles: one in spring and another in the fall
      -- Some subcommittees may continue through fall, others finish in spring, others be created for the fall cycle

  3. Large gatherings of all members of subcommittees
    -- To share expertise
    -- To discuss goals, processes, issues, and recommendations
    -- Two meetings: before Fall and Spring subcommittee cycles (March and Sept?)

  4. Faculty Senate Caucuses
    -- Give input on issues that should be dealt with
    -- Make evaluations at college levels of recommendations coming forth after spring and fall cycles
    -- Report to CISC
    -- Ongoing input welcome

  5. Faculty Senate:
    -- Give input on issues that should be dealt with
    -- Suggestions on process are welcome
    -- Be kept informed of process and issues
    -- Discuss issues or recommendations as they come to the CISC and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee

  6. Faculty Senate Executive Committee:
    -- Ensure adequate faculty representation in all areas of the improvement process
    -- Evaluate recommendations made by CISC on basis of subcommittee reports
    -- Bring items to the Faculty Senate for discussion and approval

  7. Liaison with: Overall Steering Committee, other area Steering Committees, President's Cabinet, Dean's Council, Budget Reconciliation Committee, etc.

| Agendas | Bylaws | Committees/Councils | Faculty Forum Papers | Handbook | Meetings/Locations | Membership | Minutes |