ASCRC Minutes 4/18/06

Members Present: J. Campana, S. Derry, C. Henderson, C. Johnston, J. Luckowski, D. McCormick, D. Potts, J. Prongua, M. Roscoe, H. Thompson

Members Absent/Excused: J. Eglin, V. Hedquist, A. Szalda-Petree

Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon, A.Walker-Andrews

Chair Luckowski called the meeting to order at 2:12p.m.

The minutes from 4/11/06 were approved.

Communication

· Chair Luckowski informed the committee that the Irish Studies minor was approved at the April 13 Faculty Senate meeting. Senator Kane made a motion to accept the proposal as written. There was a lengthy debate that ended in a vote of 39 in favor and 8 against. The forestry items were on the agenda as information in order to be voted on in May in the likely event that ASCRC approves them today.

· Chair Luckowski reported that the joint meeting with members of ASCRC, Graduate Council and Dean Rowland regarding the proposed degrees in Communication Sciences and Speech/Language Pathology took place earlier this afternoon. She and Professor Thompson attended the meeting and will make a report to the committee at next week’s meeting. The two committees hope to work together on this and present a unified decision, if not by the end of this semester, then during the next academic year.

· At next week’s meeting Lou Laakso from Admissions & New Student Services will address questions related to the proposed revisions to BOR policy 301.1.

· Associate Provost Walker-Andrews disseminated draft language for the level II form for the committee’s consideration next week.

Unfinished Business:

· Professor Johnston, the Forestry and Biomedical Subcommittee Chair, reported that he has discussed the final details related to the proposed Major and Minor in Restoration Ecology with Professor Six. She has agreed to make the corrections, primarily in the number of credits students will be expected to take during each year of the major. The subcommittee will meet with her to make the final corrections to the proposal. The committee unanimously approved this proposal for inclusion on the consent agenda to be presented at the May Faculty Senate meeting.

New Business:

· Subcommittee Chair Johnston summarized the proposed option in Forest Operations and Applied Restoration. There are four new courses included in the proposal. These were found acceptable by the subcommittee. The difference between the option and the major/minor is that the option is available to students in the traditional program and provides them with some of the applied skills currently needed in the field. The two proposals from Forestry and Conservation help them respond to new demands in the field. The committee unanimously approved the new option and the four new courses for inclusion on the consent agenda to be presented at the May Faculty Senate meeting.

Unfinished Business Continued – General Education Models

The committee discussed various components of the models. The proposed changes to the “General Education Process” outlined in the Citizenship Model seem unwise. A permanent “General Education Faculty” is contrary to the principles of democratic faculty governance. It is also doubtful that faculty would agree to serve on a committee permanently. If the motivation for the idea is to maintain continuity and prevent the proliferation of courses and the softening of criteria, there are procedures in place to accomplish both: faculty serve overlapping terms on all committees and the General Education Subcommittee of ASCRC has authority to revise and clarify the criteria for selection as a General Education course. This latter task is one that most people strongly support.

The addition of a seventh perspective, Ecology, in the Revised Model was questioned. Members asked why it should be separate from natural science. It was suggested that if any distinction was made in the sciences it should be between physical and biological/life sciences. Perhaps there could be additional ecology courses added to meet the natural science perspective. However, this would likely cause departments to propose specialized courses pertaining to their discipline.

Paradoxically, the preamble speaks to creating global citizens yet the foreign language competency is relegated to the departmental determination in all the models. Likewise the goal of general education is to prepare students for the world at large and yet the Montana Cultural Model seems to narrow the focus of study to the state and region. Prescribing the diversity requirement as American Indian education limits students’ choices and exposure.

Chair Luckowski asked the committee how it would like to proceed as regards General Education. Is there a need to change from the current requirements? How will the proposed MUS Core affect UM? Much time and effort has been put into review of General Education over the last several years, by several groups of faculty. Is it time to reach consensus on the topic? The General Education Subcommittee prepared a statement of the advantages and disadvantages for the current, MUS and General Education Taskforce models. This will be disseminated to the committee, along with the Taskforce model. Chair Luckowski asked members to read these documents and prepare to discuss them at next week’s meeting. Perhaps we can reach some consensus on change, or not, to the current General Education requirements.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40.