General Education Committee Minutes 11/8/04

Members Present: J. Eglin, K. Hill, S. Greymorning, S. Kalm, S. Miller, D. Pletscher, G. Smith, R. Welsh

Members Absent/Excused: T. Manuel

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

Guest: Celia Winkler

Chair Eglin called the meeting to order at 3:10p.m.

Members introduced themselves and provided a brief explanation of their interest in general education.

Communication:
Karen Hill, 2002-2003 Faculty Senate Chair and the current Faculty Senate Chair Celia Winkler provided a history of the General Education Task Force proposal coming to faculty governance. The first proposal was provided to the Executive Committee of the Senate in October 2002. ECOS did not feel the proposal was ready for consideration by the full Senate. They responded to the Task Force with their concerns, which included the need for real data analysis of how well the current program was working, clarification of terms, and a consensus on what was meant by an educated person. Steve Kalm, who was on ECOS at the time, noted that comments from departments that were satisfied with the current system were not included in the Borgmann report.

The Task Force was formed by the Provost based on concerns she and academic deans had. [See charge to Task Force memo] There were several changes to the program around the time the Western requirement was dropped. A two year moratorium on changes to general education was implemented because of complaints by advisors. ASCRC had various discussions related to general education issues, but postponed further discussion because it was feasible that proposed revisions by the General Education Task Force might render the problems mute.

The Task Force sent a response to ECOS October 2003 and presented the revised proposal to the Faculty Senate April 2004. The revised proposal contained an evaluation of a random student sample and various other revisions. The Senate voted to create a standing committee of ASCRC to consider the proposal and advocate for general education.

Business Items:

§ Committee priorities- The committee has an April deadline for presenting information to the Faculty Senate. The committee is charged with developing a guiding principle or catalog statement for general education at The University of Montana; reviewing the General Education Task Force report; presenting three or four models for general education; developing an ongoing plan for review of general education; and conducting a self review.

It was asked whether the committee was charged with creating a general education program that doesn’t change. Any program must be flexible, but requires review to make sure it is meeting the needs of students. As times change so do the needs of citizens. Technology, for example is something that needs to be addressed. The committee will need to look at whether the general education program will be a one-fits-all or whether there will be an alternative approach for heavy credit programs to meet accreditation requirements and students’ needs without extending credit loads. There is a need for a stable theoretical statement of the goals of general education at The University of Montana. This statement of purpose in a sense can be a brand for UM.

It is necessary to look at general education within the reality of limitations of credits required for programs. Higher education is becoming more business oriented.

Many faculty have the impression that departments were fulfilling and conforming to general education requirements. Kalm conducted a review of Music graduates and found that most of them were taking several courses outside their major. The Taskforce looked at various majors to determine which allowed students to take most of their general education without going outside the major. A relatively easy solution would be a simple statement that only so many general education courses can be taken within a student’s major.

A major concern of the Board of Regents is transferability. The Regents don’t understand why there is a difference in courses. If students are one course short of meeting the transferable core, then their transcripts are evaluated on a course by course basis, which often results in the need to take additional general education courses.
Winkler pointed out that the committee does not need consensus on models to bring them forward as examples for ASCRC and then the Faculty Senate to consider. Deficiencies and concerns need to be clarified and addressed in some manner. For example, some faculty have a philosophical issue with linking foreign languages with symbolic systems.


The Task Force proposal identifies several areas where the current system is broken. When the program was developed there were only three courses per subject area. Now there are several, which the Task Force argues has neutralized the value. The non-western requirement is ill-defined and the writing requirement is a disaster.

§ A place to start is to review the current general education program and then perhaps parse out what is liked and disliked about the Task Force’s proposal. The committee should also look at other university’s guiding statements. Camie has collected several samples and will distribute a few to committee members. UM’s general education philosophy should be tied to its mission statement.

§ The committee agreed to meet weekly on Monday’s at 3:10 for approximately an hour.

The meeting was adjourned.