General Education Review Committee
Meeting, 13 September 2000
KH 113, 4:45-5:45

Minutes

Present: Bruce, Dohse, Friedenberg, Hardy, Konz, Krumpe, Lee, McKnight, Moseley, Pons, Rizzo, Ruiz, Sabo, White-Carter, Gillum, Katz


1. Visit by Dr. Mike Gillum, chief editor of the SACS Self Study

Mike Gillum, from the SACS Executive Committee and chief editor of the SACS Self Study, presented a brief statement on the SACS Enhancement effort and its relation to the long-term work of the General Education Review Committee. He clarified the role of GERC in the SACS process. He answered committee members' questions and responded to concerns.

It was noted that the general education review is for us. In fact, all of the Enhancement side of the self study is for us, as part of a "visioning" process. SACS reviews usually require demonstration of compliance. In applying for approval to use the Alternative Model for our SACS review, our intention was to study the university across all divisions and functions, so that we might better identify what is working and what might be improved. The context we chose for the self study was student development (intellectual, social, etc.), as this is an important facet of what happens on a university campus. The general education review and reform is a part of this effort. Our committee is different from other SACS Enhancement committees in that we will continue our work on general education reform after the self-study process has concluded.

2. Discussion of SACS charge and report structure

We discussed the revision of the SACS charge and report structure statement. Gillum offered some suggestions on the structure and phrasing of the statement. Other committee members recommended revising the wording of section a of the report. Katz will produce another revision and send it out to committee members for comment. If approved by the committee, Katz will forward it to Sherry Gale and the Executive Committee for their consideration.

3.  Discussion of small group reports on goals for general education

The Committee discussed the small group reports. We commented on areas of consensus and difference among small group members. One issue of concern was the degree of specificity with which we should be trying to phrase the goals. It was observed that we need to bear in mind the distinction between the skills that general education should allow students to develop and the content areas we think they should be exposed to. We need to keep in mind just how these skills and content areas apply to general education as opposed to other areas of the curriculum (i.e., the majors). 

Two other important issues were raised. First, as we begin to draft a mission statement for general education, we must be sure to articulate clearly the relationship between general education and the major, especially if it is our contention that general education should be spread throughout the four years. Second, several committee members said it would be useful to have before them the "Comer Document," as they discuss general education goals. The Comer Document was a loose statement of goals for general education revision, presented to the Faculty Senate as they considered the last general education revision. We are not sure where this document is to be found, however; Ruiz, Sabo, and Katz will try to hunt it down. This document, it was felt, would offer us a good baseline for understanding our current general education program and a good point of comparison in laying out a revised set of goals.

It was decided that in the next small group meetings, we would continue working on item #1 below and begin addressing either item #2 or #3. In the committee's discussion of the small group conversations, and especially in considering the questions raised by Group 2, it seemed as though the items #2 and #3 (especially the latter) are also critical to our present work. Items #1, #2, and #3 are as follows:

a) continue working on goals, but this time explain more precisely what you mean and then offer a rationale articulating why it is important that students satisfy the goal, or why it is important for us to engage the goal, etc., as part of general education. There are often many ways of understanding a phrase, so the explanation o f what we mean by a stated goal seems like a particularly useful activity.

b) begin drafting a mission statement for general education at UNCA.

c) draft a definition of a *liberal arts education" and a statement of its relation to general education.

As before, small groups should send Katz a summary of their meeting or a list of goals, etc., in advance of the next meeting (allowing a day or so). Katz will distribute them to all committee members via email and hard copy.

4. Website

We discussed the general education website, which Katz should have up and running shortly. He plans to put the following on the site right away: a list of our names, phone numbers, email address (with links); a statement of our SACS charge and report structure (when revised and accepted by the Executive Committee); a statement explaining our work in the context of the SACS effort and after the conclusion of the self study (what Katz wrote in response to question 2 in group #2's report).

Eventually, Katz will also put these items on the site: our proposed mission statement, proposed goals, etc. for feedback via email and via web discussion (see below); a page explaining the various models of general education with links to specific programs that illustrate the particular model; links to other schools' general education programs-mission statement, goals, course requirements, etc; a set of web discussion forums-each on a question our committee agrees we need a response to.

Katz asked committee members to recommend other items for the site a they thought of them.

5. The next small group meetings should take place before next full committee meeting.

6. Our next GERC meeting will be on Wed., 9/27, 4:45-5:45, KH 113