CAS Meeting Minutes

January 31, 2006

Rose Parlor

12-1:15 p.m.

 

 

The meeting was called to order at 12:02 pm.

 

I. Approval of Minutes:   Both the November 2005 and December 2005 were approved at the start of the meeting.

 

S. Shafer announced that S. Blanshan would provide an update to the CAS faculty of the SPS Core curriculum and the General Education course scheduling and reform before proceeding with the agenda as planned.

 

Blanshan thanked the faculty for the rich conversations and the thoughtful feedback the CAS faculty provided about the course schedule revision.  She stated that the administration was on the cusp of providing CAS with more information about the new course schedule model.  She assured the faculty that by mid-February more concrete information would be provided.

 

Blanshan also mentioned that she asked Dean Burke to move quickly on the SPS core curriculum development. 

 

She referenced the work of the SPS–CAP Core Workgroup, whose members are: C. Chance, S. Tomkin, A. Wimberly, R. Jones, E. Iodice, and C. Parsons. Blanshan clarified that it was the SPS-CAP that would vote on the final general education curriculum for SPS, not the full faculty.  She further asked that CAS honor the collegiate structure and allow the CAP committee to work toward the goal of the curriculum revision.

 

II. Foreign Language Task Force Report:  J. Padgett stated that foreign language contributes to the curriculum in many ways.  She stated that the Intelligence Community did not identify French as one of the strategic languages, although it is the official language of about 29 countries.

 

Padgett posed the following question to Blanshan:  Should we plan to offer French in the fall?

 

Blanshan stated that French did not receive ‘high marks’ based on the profile of our students and their learning needs.  She point that, Spanish, however, had proven important for them as they functioned in the U.S.

 

Farnsworth mentioned that since students’ prior instruction had been in Spanish and French there would be an advantage in building on their previous experience by offering these languages here at Trinity. 

 

Hayes stated that we could establish a pattern about their prior exposure to the language. Padgett also noted that the career trajectory of our students would be important to note as we made these decisions.

 

Harris-OBrien noted that there were a number of African immigrants in our area and in our student body who speak and write French along with their regional language.  She stated that we needed data about how many students take language in the consortium.

 

 

III. CAS Faculty Role in Development of CAS Curricula and Academic Policy:   M. Hayes reported that the Ad Hoc Committee member were J. Solomon, J. Padgett, and M. Hayes.  They suggested ways to bridge the gap between faculty responsibilities and the means to achieve them.   She expressed concern about the fact that many 1st, 2nd and possibly 3rd year faculty did not have copies of the Faculty Governance handbook and may have been unaware of important policies.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee’s goal was to establish timelines for CAS-CAP and agenda committees and to recommend that there be more communication between the local CAP committees and the CAS faculty.

 

She noted that the responsibilities of the local CAP committees were clearly outlined in Governance handbook (Pp. 17-21) and she reiterated that we needed to understand what our responsibilities were.   In the above mentioned pages, Hayes stated that details were provided about the decision making parameters for each local college.

 

Shafer stated that the CAS faculty had tried to comply with many of the regulations and many of the CAS faculty were concerned that this document might be superseded by some other entity. 

 

Blanshan clarified that the Governance handbook was our document from which to work.

 

If two schools were involved both consultation and coordination were needed. Shafer made an appeal for clear communication about the processes upon which we are embarking.

 

Tompkins supported the previous comments and asked what our collaborative process would be in the next few weeks.

 

Blanshan stated that the SPS-CAP was meeting and would also consult with CAS and provide the information necessary to satisfy the need for communication and transparency.  She asserted that there had been consultation and inclusion throughout the process.

 

Child inquired about the appointment of the SPS workgroup.  Blanshan responded that the members were appointed by the SPS dean.  Child noted that most of the committee were junior faculty who were performing important roles and participating in significant decision making.

 

Farnsworth stated that it would be helpful to announce the membership of the committee so that interested faculty could provide feedback to these members during the process.

 

A discussion ensued about how faculty resources were used throughout various university constituencies and how we need to simplify our processes and make them more efficient.

 

IV.  AACU Conference:  S. Oyewole provided some data from the American Association of Colleges and Universities about the first year experience and liberal arts learning.  She stated that their conference was held in Washington at the Grand Hyatt and mentioned that two teams from Trinity presented at the conference.  The association celebrates the liberal arts and there were a number of sessions on curriculum reform.  Their vision and plans are consistent with many of Trinity’s own values and mission.

 

She suggested that the CAS faculty review their goals and suggestions regarding the First Year experience in liberal arts institutions. 

 

 

V. First Year Experience/First Year Seminar and FLC Reform:  M. Rampolla stated that the tasks we needed to address were to:

1.      Establish a task force to re-consider curriculum reform. This group would need to establish clear and regular communication between the committee and the rest of the CAS faculty.

2.      As a short term goal – In collaboration with D. Harris and her team, address First Year orientation reform.

3.      Address the issue of whether INT 115 would be offered in the Fall.

 

Hayes stated that our local CAP committee should be central to the process with other interested persons. CAS curriculum reform is part of the CAS-CAP’s responsibilities.

 

Blanshan stated that there was benefit in including more people with some representation on the CAP committee so there were additional eyes throughout the process.

 

Oyewole expressed concern about eliminating INT 115 and encouraged the CAS faculty to think about what we offered in INT 115 and revisit the content of the course.

 

Restrepo noted that there were several students who were juniors and seniors who had not taken the course yet.

 

Schpunt suggested that CAS-CAP should take the lead on the curriculum reform and solicit input from the rest of the faculty.  She stated that the larger issue was whether we were going to have a year to consider the General Education curriculum.  Some clarity was needed on the timeline for our work process, that is, will the faculty be working on this during the summer or throughout the year and so on. She stated that processes were ‘murky.’

 

Goldberg stated that she believed that the faculty was not only confused, but disheartened and that it appeared as if we had no decision making processes.

 

Ocampo introduced herself to the faculty as the CAS-CAP co-chair and solicited feedback from the faculty who had curricular issues.   She stated that once the committee was clear on the concerns we could set about the business of coordinating the faculty’s efforts and encouraging more participation.

 

Seagal stated that he did not think speed of the change was the concern, but rather it was the process.  He mentioned this in support of Goldberg’s and Schpunt’s prior comments.

 

Blanshan stated that this was a faculty process informed by our colleagues, AACU, and SPS-CAP.  The timeline would take us until next fall to design an appropriate curriculum.  She stated that this did not mean it would be launched by that point.  She would try to facilitate the process of General Education curriculum reform and wanted the CAS faculty to have the conceptually developed plan by the end of summer for launching in Fall 2007.  She stated that she would put this in writing as soon as possible.

 

D. Harris stated that she would like to work with those discussing the first year experience.

 

Hayes re-opened the discussion about how a task force could contribute to this effort. Forbes stated that the role of the CAS-CAP was to take the lead in issues regarding curricular reform and policy changes.  

 

The faculty asked about the membership of the committee. They are: C. Ocampo (co-chair), S. Oyewole (co-chair), B. Bowditch, D. Forbes Berthoud, and M. Gallagher.

 

S. Oyewole invited M. Rampolla and those discussing the first year experience to participate in the CAS-CAP meetings as well.

 

R. Easby raised a concern about the registration process and waitlists and wondered if the students’ concerns could be resolved by the end of the day.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:22 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Diane A. Forbes Berthoud