University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, Minnesota

 

 

MINUTES—1999-00 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING #1

September 14, 1999; 4:00 p.m.; Behmler Conference Room

Present: Carlson, Evans, Farrell, Finzel, Kolle, Korth, Lee, Neuharth, Richardson, Urness

Guest: Mooney

Absent: Busch, Gooch, Haugen, Kissock, Thielke

[In these minutes: meeting schedule for the semester, Ed 1111 Form C, EDP Funds, and possible agenda items for the year.]


INTRODUCTIONS: Korth introduced himself as chair of the Curriculum Committee (CC) during the time that Sam Schuman is Interim Chancellor. After committee members introduced themselves, Korth pointed out the UMM bylaws which were included in the agenda. Korth asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the bylaws. There were none.

MEETING TIME: Korth stated that the compiled schedules of the members indicated that Tuesdays at 4:00 p.m. caused the least amount of conflict with committee members' schedules. Meetings will occur every other Tuesday, with the exception of the meeting scheduled for November 9 since that conflicts with the Campus Assembly meeting. Korth recommended canceling this meeting for now. The CC will see how many issues need to be covered as November 9 approaches and will reschedule the meeting only if needed.

ED 1111 FORM C: Korth pointed out that the course is properly identified as Ed 1111, not ElEd 1111 as the agenda states. He mentioned that this was a University College (UC) course that was approved provisionally for the fall semester offering. The course is now going through the regular process for permanent approval with a "Hum" GenEd designation.

A question was raised as to why this course, a permanent course, was to be offered under UC instead of the Division of Education. Related questions concerned what factors determine if a course is to be a UC course or regular UMM course and what determines whether a UC course is listed in the UMM catalog. It was pointed out that there are two factors that determine a course's status as a UC or a regular day school course: the course may not fit with the regular day school course curriculum or the faculty do not want it to be a regular day school course for various reasons. As to the course listing in the catalog, it was noted that the instructor indicates on the Form C if the course should be listed and the CC makes the final decision.

There was discussion as to whether to proceed with a decision regarding the approval of this course since the Form C was submitted without the complete catalog copy. It was pointed out that all the information was included on the form, just not in the proper catalog format under "I". Assurance was given that the form would include all the parenthetical information, such as credits and the GER, before it was sent to Campus Assembly. The course description would not change.

It was noted that faculty should be very specific about how they wish a course to appear in the catalog. The Form C should be submitted in proper format, exactly as the course is to appear in the catalog. This would eliminate all guesswork as to the original intent. Korth mentioned that he would be very rigid with this, pointing out each time a form is submitted without sufficient or proper information.

A committee member recommended that this course be approved. UC is the only place the course is offered and there appears to be a demand for the course. It was pointed out that the course was approved under the quarter system, so this was simply a conversion to semesters. A committee member inquired if education would incorporate this course into the education program. That question could not be answered; since the course was simply a conversion, a rationale was not given. Korth offered to invite Tom McRoberts to the next meeting to answer questions regarding the course. Committee members did not feel that was necessary.

MOTION: (Understood) To approve Ed 1111- UC: Introduction to Deaf Education.

VOTE: Unanimous in favor (10-0-0)

There was a suggestion that there be further discussion in the future regarding the distinction between a UC course and a UMM course. Other committee members added related issues they would like discussed. Korth summarized the four issues as follows:

The UC as a distinct college
Criteria that makes a UC course distinct from a UMM course
The hiring and evaluation of faculty teaching UC courses
Which courses are included in the tuition band

A request was made for a list of the UC courses offered. Mooney said she could provide a comprehensive list of the UMM UC courses since they are part of the regular database. The UC courses are distinguished by the "UC" in front of the course titles.

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (EDP) FUNDING FOR CURRENT YEAR: Korth explained that EDP is a modest program whereby the CC provides a small grant to support faculty members as they develop curriculum over the summer. Currently the EDP fund is allocated $7,500 per fiscal year. The CC appoints a subcommittee to screen applications and select the recipients. In the past year, nine participants received portions of the $7,500.

Korth has talked with Schuman regarding the need for an increase in the EDP fund allocation. Schuman has agreed that the funds should be increased, but the 1999-2000 allocation remained at $7,500.

At this point, Korth is attempting to track the funds in the program this year. He was told that when the CC allocated the dollars in the spring quarters of past years, they were allocating the dollars from the following fiscal year's budget. Therefore, in spring 1999, the 1999-2000 dollars were allocated. The participants are not paid until after July 1, 1999 for that reason. Under this rationale, this academic year's grants would allocate dollars from the 2000-2001 fiscal year. This would give the CC time to work on an increase in the budgeted fund amount.

The CUFS reports show a current balance of $2,753. This was a surprise to committee members who wondered why the balance wasn't a zero. It was pointed out that under the previously stated rationale, the participants have until June 30, 2000 to spend the money. Korth felt if the CC accepted this rationale, the budget looks ok; but it is disputable. He has found it difficult to track the funds. He was looking for answers to why there were dollars spent in the last month, but he has not received any answers yet. Korth wondered if the participants have received the money that they were awarded. A suggestion was made that CC contact the recipients to find out how much they have received. Korth recommended that the CC send out the report forms that the recipients are to submit. The reports would give the CC details of what was spent and received by each participant.

POSSIBLE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Korth listed potential agenda items for the year. They are as follows:

A-F vs S-N GRADING: Korth pointed out that the new Form C allows the faculty to select an option of A-F only, S-N only, or A-F or S-N for each course they offer. At UMM the large majority of the classes were previously offered as A-F or S-N. There wasn't an option before. Now some faculty members are choosing the A-F only option and it is not clear if they are aware of the consequences of that selection.

ASSC DUTIES: Korth mentioned that this issue had come up last year when the CC reviewed the ASSC report and recommended that the ASSC Committee be renewed. Someone on the ASSC Committee felt a lack of a clear definition of what the committee's duties were.

USE OF EDP FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: The question is whether EDP funds should be restricted to salary only or whether the funds can be used to purchase equipment and supplies. Korth recommended that the committee revisit this issue before the EDP awards are made. A suggestion was made that this be discussed at the time the subcommittee is formed so the subcommittee knows the guidelines. Korth said it would also be important to communicate this to the faculty before they submit their proposals.

CLARIFICATION OF THE "FL" REQUIREMENT: The catalog states that two language courses are required to fulfill the "FL" requirement. Did the CC intend both courses to be in the same language? A committee member stated that in the past the catalog had a footnote that clarified this. It was never the intent that two courses could be taken in different languages to fulfill this requirement. It was pointed out that this language went through Campus Assembly without being caught. It was noted that the statement needs to be clarified and that the APAS should also be checked for clarity.

APPROVAL PROCESS FOR VARIABLE TOPICS COURSES: The CC has adopted a motion that variable topics courses should have course descriptions. With this requirement, what makes the variable topics courses different than the regular courses in the approval process?

A committee member voiced a concern regarding a situation where a variable topics course equivalence was questioned by another college within the university system. The point was made that if the discipline cannot determine what variable topics courses are and have that determination accepted, then why have variable topics courses.

Korth asked if there were any other potential agenda items. None were mentioned, so the meeting was adjourned.

Meeting adjourned 4:50 p.m.
Submitted by Melody Veenendaal

Send comments to Melody Veenendaal
Send comments to the Curriculum Committee