University of Minnesota, Morris
MINUTES-1997-98 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING #3
November 11, 1997; 8:00 a.m.; Behmler Conference Room
Present: Asmus, Ballou, Ellis, Farrell, Frenier, Korth, Kuechle (for Kissock), Lee, Leroux, McIntosh, Nylander, Schuman, Taylor, Thielke
Guests: Van Gooch, 1996-97 Chair of the Teacher Education Committee (TEC);
Vicki Graham, 1997-98 Chair of the TEC; Michael O'Reilly, 1996-97/1997-98
Chair of the Honors Program Committee (HPC); Dwight Purdy, Director of the
[In these minutes: recommendations of continuation for Teacher Education
Committee and elimination for Honors Program Committee, freezing of Educational
Development Program funding for second year, discussion of directed study
policy for semesters]
McIntosh wondered what the advantages were to having the TEC be adjunct
to the Curriculum Committee (CC). Schuman said he understood that for a
committee to be considered official, it must either be a Campus Assembly
committee or an adjunct to an Assembly committee. Farrell noted that adjunct
committees are Assembly committees and must be connected to a non-adjunct
committee. The TEC must exist by rule. UMM has said that this committee
will have a liberal arts perspective and included faculty from across the
campus in the membership. Schuman repeated McIntosh's question. To be official
it needs to be an Assembly or adjunct to an Assembly committee. Otherwise,
it would have the status of a task force or an ad hoc group. Then the question
becomes, if the TEC is not adjunct to the CC, which committee would it be
adjunct to? McIntosh thought it could be advisory to the director of the
program and answerable to the CC. Ballou said that NCATE does oversee the
curriculum of the program to some extent. It seems logical that the TEC
would be connected to the CC to show that the teacher education curriculum
is reviewed by the CC.
MOTION (Farrell, Frenier): To recommend continuation of the Teacher Education Committee as an adjunct committee of the Curriculum Committee.
Gooch, 1996-97 Chair of the TEC, indicated that it was his understanding
as well that the TEC needs to exist. He has chaired the TEC twice. Last
year the committee only met once and then only because they were required
to meet. During reaccreditation of the teacher education program, there
is more for the TEC to do.
McIntosh wondered if the TEC has brought business before the CC. Schuman
said it has not during the time that he has been at UMM. Farrell said it
is not common for any adjunct committee to bring business to the CC. The
Academic Support Services Committee has occasionally reported to the CC.
McIntosh didn't know what it meant to be auxiliary if the TEC works without
coming to the CC and the CC works without going to the TEC. Schuman said
it is in part an organizational convenience. Farrell pointed out that the
TEC would report to the CC if there were policy changes. Every two years,
adjunct committees must report to their parent committees. The number of
credits required for secondary education licensure are monitored by the
Thielke said there was a lot of interaction with the TEC in the 1970s
because state licensing rules were changing. Kuechle said that is happening
VOTE: In favor--10; opposed--1; abstentions--0 (10-1-0).
O'Reilly, Chair of the HPC for the last two years, said that Schuman's
summary was accurate. There is not much need for policy change, although
with the change to semesters there was considerable discussion. The general
consensus was that UMM doesn't have the resources to develop the kind of
honors program that the HPC would like to have. There are no policy issues
in view. There is already a student advisory committee in place. There is
not much need for the formal committee. The student advisory committee has
opportunities for faculty involvement. It would be better if faculty involved
in teaching honors courses were on the advisory committee. He had not consulted
with the 1997-98 HPC, but none of the members has recent experience with
the HPC. The recommendation is to abolish the HPC and expand the student
advisory committee. Future policy issues could be dealt with by an ad hoc
Purdy, Director of the Honors Program, indicated that juniors and seniors
in the honors program make up the student advisory committee. Sometimes
the HPC is active, having 7-10 meetings a year. After major policy changes
were enacted, most problems are administrative--like finding out who is
really in the program. He is in favor of the proposal. There is a larger
issue which involves not only the TEC or the HPC, but the whole system.
One of the problems of finding people to put on committees is that there
are so few resources.
Ballou said she had no strong feelings about the HPC. Her concern is
about taking any committee out of the pipeline. People might not elect to
be on the advisory committee because they have been assigned to official
committees. Purdy had no idea if people would agree to be on the advisory
committee. There hasn't been any difficulty in getting students to serve
on it. Early on there was a redundancy between the HPC and the student advisory
committee and the student committee was eliminated. But then students wanted
the advisory committee back so they had a voice in the program. Faculty
who are actively offering honors courses would be most likely members. This
advisory committee would not be a big drain on their time; it meets about
four times a year. The HPC was regularly dealing with questions about which
events could be considered honors events. Each event was put forward as
a proposal as it came up. The HPC took care of that by automatically approving
all CAC events, for example, as honors events.
Lee said his concern is accountability. The Director of the Honors Program
might need an advisory committee rather than an official committee. Would
reporting go from the Director to the Dean? O'Reilly said the program director
should be answerable to the CC. Schuman said any curricular alternation
in the Honors Program would have to go through the CC. If there were no
HPC and, say, the HP Director and the advisory committee wanted to change
the number of honors events required for graduation, that tinkers with the
graduation requirements, so it would need to go through the CC.
Lee wondered if selection of the advisory group should go through the
Farrell thought the CC ought to try out the proposal to eliminate the
HPC. We can reconsider if it doesn't work. Ballou's concern is a real one.
People complain about being on so many committees and many of them are not
official Assembly committees.
MOTION (Farrell, Ballou): To recommend elimination of the Honors Program Committee.
VOTE: In favor--10; opposed--1; abstentions--0 (10-1-0).
Lee said that was correct. The reason for needing two years' worth of
funding is because we need fifteen sections of the common course. The volume
is such that we need to be able to allocate more than $200 per course, which
is what would happen if we only had one year's funding to work with. Ideally,
faculty should be working on the Common Experience course during the summer
of 1999. Schuman said he has started forming a group to work on the Common
Experience course. Does anyone have qualms about putting aside this year's
EDP funds with last year's for working on the Common Experience?
Lee noted that for the last five years or more, the CC has supported
various emphases in EDP funding (like an emphasis on international courses).
The Common Experience could be thought of as one of those emphases.
McIntosh noted that Inquiry used to have a budget. Since Inquiry wasn't
offered this year, there should be money in that budget. Schuman said the
Inquiry budget for the last year of that course was $16,000. However, when
Inquiry went away, that budget was used for something else. When the new
common course begins, we will have to set up a budget again. EDP funds would
be used to create the course, not administer it.
Schuman asked if there was a consensus in the CC about freezing 1997-98
EDP funds with 1996-97 funds for creation of the Common Experience course.
There seemed to be agreement in the CC.
Schuman said he did not think there had been an effort to change the
policy. The concern is about what to put in the bulletin as boilerplate.
He could imagine a student taking a 1000-level directed study if a particular
introductory course was not offered in a timely way to fit in the student's
major. Farrell said faculty can do courses out of sequence in that instance.
Directed studies are supposed to be courses not in the regular curriculum.
Lee thought the question was really about whether the directed studies
listings should be standard across the campus or vary by discipline. Farrell
noted that some disciplines use directed studies as part of their workload
and the administration counts it as such. Having four levels of directed
studies would make the workload look greater for those disciplines.
Schuman thought the choices were: 1) put all four levels of directed
study in every discipline; 2) put only the 3xxx and 4xxx level in each discipline;
3) let every discipline decide on the levels they want to offer. He had
not heard support for choice #1.
Korth said he would speak for choice #1. We might have faculty in the
future who would want to use the lower level directed studies. Not having
them limits the curriculum. He didn't see any problem in putting those lower
levels in. Schuman wondered if faculty can refuse to do a directed study.
The answer was yes. Farrell said every faculty member has the right to say
yes or no to any directed studies request, but that can put the faculty
member in an awkward position.
Schuman asked Mooney to outline the position on directed studies in faculty
workload. Mooney said that, for Instructional Workload Index counts, all
disciplines are given credit for directed studies offerings. She was not
aware of the policy with regard to individual faculty workloads including
directed studies. Farrell noted that in history, directed studies are part
of the major requirements. Lee said that is a special case and it is rare
for freshmen to have a directed studies opportunity.
Thielke said that, in her visits with the disciplines, there have been
many who did not want directed studies listings at the 1xxx or 2xxx level.
This proposal did not come through the disciplines. Lee wondered if freshmen
would be allowed to register for 3xxx directed studies. If so, then he would
not have a problem with only listing the 3xxx and 4xxx levels.
Schuman asked for a straw poll of the three choices he had listed earlier:
1) put all four levels of directed study in every discipline
straw vote: 3
2) put only the 3xxx and 4xxx level in each discipline
straw vote: 6
3) let every discipline decide on the levels they want to offer
straw vote: 4
Schuman saw the straw poll as an indecisive vote. He asked Division Chairs
to canvass the disciplines about this issue and said the CC would return
to this discussion. At the next meeting, the CC needs to get to assessment
of general education.
Meeting adjourned 8:50 a.m.
Submitted by Nancy Mooney
Send comments to Nancy Mooney
Send comments to the Curriculum Committee