 |
Debate
about curriculum continues Vigorous faculty debate about the contents and direction of the Common Undergraduate Experience — the university’s proposed revision of the core curriculum — will continue until at least March 21, Faculty Senators agreed Thursday. Officials called the special meeting to discuss the outcome of Wednesday’s heated faculty assembly regarding the CUE, which has been subject of great controversy since it was disseminated to all the faculty Jan. 1.
Senators agreed to review the CUE proposal and all documentation or committee reports leading to its creation after a two-hour debate about how the curriculum should be designed and who should be involved in the process. Nowell Donovan, chairman of the University Assessment Committee and former chairman of the Faculty Senate, suggested senators discuss their views about the CUE at a departmental and college level, then bring those recommendations forward in March. A number of senators said they fully supported last year’s Seal Report — the first in a series of documents regarding the revision of the core curriculum, which outlined anticipated student outcomes from their undergraduate education. Many said the CUE did not adequately support the findings of the Seal Committee, named after chairman University Librarian Bob Seal. Several faculty members nodded in agreement with Paul King, associate professor of speech communication, who said “it would be in the best interest of the academic rigor of our institution to review the process but also to move forward with it in a timely manner.” “We have now been charged with determining what we see as a reasonable timeline for further progress of our revisions,” said George Brown, Faculty Senate chair-elect, before the meeting. “If there was one great lesson we learned yesterday it was that good work has already been completed by some of our colleagues, but more discourse is needed and should take place, whether that be one month, two months, three months or more is what we need to decide.” Officials said they had hoped to put the CUE or a similar revision plan to a vote by May 2002, but in light of recent discussions are willing to delay it. “The discussions that took place yesterday were some of the most exciting an impassioned I have seen from the faculty at this institution since I arrived in 1986,” Donovan said. At the recommendation of Chancellor Michael Ferrari, who attended the meeting, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will compile faculty suggestions about the curriculum thus far and determine what major questions need to be answered in coming weeks. They could include: Could the current core be revised in a way that makes the student experience more profound without an overhaul? Has the university examined the resources necessary to implement the desired revisions? Have any desired outcomes been overlooked? And, is the student experience being fundamentally enhanced by any changes that are made to the core? Passionate disapproval about the CUE, predominantly expressed Wednesday by members of the humanities faculty, were reiterated at the Faculty Senate meeting. “Members of the religion department and several other departments felt conscientiously excluded from this process,” said Andy Fort, professor or religion. “...There are a number of issues we must debate before we can be asked to decide whether we agree with the CUE.“ King refuted Fort’s comments. “I would hate to see this body get involved in a disciplinary struggle,” he said. “It is not time for us to weigh our individual value against one another but to evaluate where our departments and classes fit into what we want the student experience to be. We all went through university and read the great books. We cannot each design a core. Some of us are guilty of arrogance related to our disciplines, and instead we need to restore a degree of respect for each other.” Provost William Koehler said the revision was originally spurred by a recommendation made following the university’s 1992 evaluation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). He said the 2003 SACS committee will not be pleased a revision has not already been implemented. “Every time you revise the curriculum in some manner it takes a number of years,” he said. “These critiques are critically important to the process. The input is valuable and necessary. The delays are to be expected, but we must stay motivated to achieve the ultimate goal.” The Faculty Senate is expected to meet as scheduled 3:30 p.m. Thursday. Jaime
Walker |
|||
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||||
