General Education Review Committee Meeting

General Education Review Committee
Meeting, 27 September 2000
KH 113, 4:45-5:45

Minutes

1. New members

New students and alumna members introduced themselves to the committee. The new members are: Sarah Clere (Literature), Tracy Proctor (Alumni Association), Maegan Spencer (Chemistry).

2. SACS charge and report structure

Individual members of the Executive Committee have looked at the revision of the SACS charge and report structure. They will discuss it one more time at their next meeting, but the comments have been supportive of the new version.

3. Meetings with Chancellor Mullen and VCAA Tom Cochran

Katz reported on his meetings with Chancellor Mullen and VCAA Tom Cochran. Their discussions included faculty concerns about administrative and fiscal support for revising and implementing general education at UNCA; the need to conduct a twofold reform process that pairs curricular development and cost analysis for implementing and maintaining a revised program; and the challenge posed by the articulation agreement, specifically the need to maintain our distinctiveness as the state's public liberal arts institutions, without disadvantaging community college students who want to transfer to UNCA. Other topics covered during the meeting included faculty concern that Academic Programs are being underfunded relative to other areas. It was observed that, if we could temporarily shift some resources to Academic Programs, it would go a long way toward increasing morale and send a signal of administration support for general education. Finally, both the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor agreed to draft statements articulating their support for general education at UNCA, with comments on fiscal support for implementation.

4. Website

A General Education website has been created and will be accessible from a link off of the SACS homepage. We will also release the website URL, so that those who are interested can access the site directly. Currently, the site has links to the SACS site; to a page listing the committee membership, including email links and phone numbers; a page providing an overview of GERC's role and mission; and a page containing the revised SACS charge.

5. Small group reports on General Education goals

The committee discussed the latest round of small group reports. Many members of the committee felt that using the three small groups to work on the same projects was beginning to slow down our progress. The committee decided that it would be best if we had two small groups of 3-4 members produce drafts of a mission statement and set of goals for general education. Dr. Krumpe, Dr. Konz, and Dr. Rizzo volunteered to work on the mission statement; Dr. Friedenberg, Dr. Moseley, Dr. Ruiz, and Ms. Spencer volunteered to work on the statement of goals. Katz will find a time for each of the committees to meet. The full committee will discuss these drafts at its next meeting on 10/11. Our aim will be to produce material that can then be circulated among the faculty, students, administrators, and other interested parties, for their feedback.

The committee discussed the issue of "exposure to the different perspectives," as articulated in group 3's report. Dr. Hardy reasserted the difficulty of pinning down what we mean by "different perspectives," noting that problems arise when we say, "Now let's apply the scientific approach to this issue." As group 3's report indicated, this suggests a very narrow and rule-driven conception of science, one which may run counter to the role we would like science to serve in a general education program. Dr. Konz observed that it might be better to think of two sorts of "exposure"-first, exposure to disciplines, and second, exposure to perspectives. By the latter, Dr. Konz noted, we generally mean exposure to different cultures, ethnic and racial experiences, value systems, and so on. This distinction ought to be a part of either the goals or the mission, or perhaps both.

6. Discussion of Mission Statement for General Education

The committee also discussed the mission statement. Most committee members agreed that the mission statement should be kept short, but there was some disagreement over the extent to which it also need to offer definitions of its key concepts. There was agreement that the mission statement should dovetail with the institution's mission statement, but should not be redundant.

7. Pubilicizing the work of GERC

The committee discussed the matter of publicizing the work of GERC to the larger campus community. There was agreement that we should begin gathering data on faculty attitudes about our current general education program, but concern about how to do it at this time. Katz asked whether it would be too early to ask faculty for their sense of what works and what does not work in the general education program. Dr. Nelms voiced her concern that doing this so early in the review process might encourage faculty to begin taking potshots at parts of the program; this might be more destructive than helpful at this point. The committee generally agreed with Dr. Nelms on this matter. Dr. Sabo said that some time ago the APC had begun putting together a set of survey questions that might help gather some baseline data about faculty attitudes toward general education, but would possibly help us avoid the problems that Dr. Nelms had pointed out. Dr. Sabo said he would try to find this draft of survey questions. The committee discussed the timing of putting together a series of campus forums on general education, but there were concerns that this, too, might be premature. It was suggested that once we draft a mission statement and set of goals we are satisfied with, we might put them up on the website and distribute them via email, in order to solicit feedback.

8. Next full GERC meeting: Wed., 10/11, 4:45-5:45, kh 113. [Other meetings are scheduled for 10/25, 11/8, 11/29 (skipping a week for Thanksgiving Break), and 12/6.]