A.     Prof. Sealey: MLK Week Events
       

B.    Prof. McFadden: World Diversity Committee

Prof. Carolan MOVED to accept the minutes from the October 2014 meeting.  Prof. Nuru SECONDED the motion.

The Chair asked if anyone had any revisions for the minutes.  With no revisions submitted, the Chair CALLED a vote.

With a clear majority in favor, the motion PASSED.

Prof. Harding explained that the purpose of today’s brief presentation was to initiate a conversation among CAS faculty about the proposed revision of Core requirements.  Prof. Harding’s overview follows:





Prof. Abbot asked the Task Force representatives to confirm that the committee is in consensus about the reduction of the English requirement from a total of three to two courses.   The presenters affirmed that there is committee consensus on the reduction from three to two English requirements.
   
Prof. Bowen asked if there will be a committee established to maintaining and assess the revised Core.  The presenters said that the Task Force is still discussing the logistics of maintaining the new Core, if implemented according to the current proposal.  They encouraged colleagues to send any concerns and ideas about such a committee  or any other issues via the 2020 Fairfield link (see above) on the university website.

Prof. Hohl noted that many faculty members have interdisciplinary training and expertise, and as such many faculty would be qualified to teach interdisciplinary integration components of the proposed Core curriculum.

Prof. Bayne asked if there was consensus among the task force members regarding the strategy that a smaller Core would produce a stronger educational experience.  Prof. Harding noted that the Fairfield Core is on the heavy side of the continuum among peer institutions.  Harding added that students negative feedback on the curricular constraints of a heavy Core was also part of the rationale for proposing a smaller Core.  Prof. Harding explained that the Task Force proposed a smaller Core with the intention of giving students more flexibility to take any courses in which they have an interest.

Prof. Bayne asked if a student from outside the College (e.g. School of Business) would be required to take CAS courses with the new flexibility that would be created by the proposed Core.  The presenters said that there is no stipulation that students use the new flexibility to take CAS courses.

Prof. Boryczka noted that the reduction to one course in Social and Behavioral Sciences will further truncate an already truncated requirement in terms of disciplinary variety within the Social  and Behavioral Sciences. 

Prof. Gil-Egui inquired about the Task Force’s rationale for eliminating one Social and Behavioral Sciences course from the Core.  The presenters said there was not a specific strategy to eliminate one course in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.  Rather, the Task Force used tiers (described above) to guide discussions.  The presenters added that Social and Behavioral Sciences is not the only Core area that has only one course. 

The presenters said no to the next question, which asked about the possibility that a single course could fulfill two Core requirements at once (via double counting).

Prof. Abbott sought clarification on what is driving the strategy to reduce the number of Core courses.  He expressed concern about the possibility that student feedback was driving our mission.  The presenters encouraged colleagues to include concerns like this in their formal feedback to the Task Force via the Fairfield 2020 website.  Prof. Abbott asked if the Task Force would publish committee data related to the issue of reducing the number of Core courses.  The presenters replied that all data is currently available on the Task Force’s webpage (see link above for Fairfield University 2020).

Prof. Carolan asked the presenters to share some specifics about the new language requirement.  Prof. Harding said the new system would make the language requirement consistent across the university.  All undergraduates will share the same language requirement: two courses at any level. 

Prof. McFadden notified the Task Force representatives and all CAS colleagues that Pi Beta Kappa requires that prospective members complete two courses of foreign language at the intermediate level as well as two mathematics courses.  If we adopt the proposed Core revisions with two years of language at any level, faculty will have to advise students clearly about needing additional courses for Pi Beta Kappa.  The presenters thanked Prof. McFadden for his feedback.

Prof. Rosivach reminded colleagues that the initial discussion on Core curricular review focused on the theme:  Education for the Common Good.  The theme enthusiastically frames CAS teachers as teacher-scholars engaged in a collective effort for the common good.  Rosivach expressed disappointed that this unifying theme appears to have disappeared from the discussion.  Prof. Rosivach suggested that the Task Force compose a brief statement on the Core as a curriculum for the common good.  He added that this ethos, as the guiding force of our courses and curriculum, would make the Fairfield Core special. 

Prof. Goldfield asked if it is the intention of the Task Force to remain as a managing committee after reporting its findings in December 2014.  He said such a committee already has critical issues to consider such as Pi Beta Kappa advising as discussed by Prof. McFadden.  The presenters reported that the Task Force agrees on the necessity of managing body for course proposals and other administrative issues that will inevitably unfold.  The Task Force is still discussing the idea of a managing committee for the proposed Core.

Assoc. Dean Perkus expressed his agreement with Prof. Rosivach’s comments regarding the Core and the common good.  The Core is more than a checklist.  Perkus noted that team-taught models and guest lecturer models for integrative, interdisciplinary courses (tier two) require strategic planning and resource allocation.

Prof. Stott added that cluster courses are relatively easy to set up, and they are an efficient way to meet the integrative aspirations of the proposed second tier.

Prof. Rafalkski supported the remarks of Assoc. Dean Perkus and Prof. Rosivach.  He reminded colleagues that Exec. VP Lawlor said, “be bold,” with the Fairfield 2020 process.  Rafalski added that his students and colleagues love team-taught courses.  He appealed to the Task Force to avoid letting one-dimensional economic data to discourage more team teaching.  “Let’s be bold!” Rafalski said, before asking the presenters to elucidate on the proposed requirements for mathematics and natural science.  Why are these areas unresolved in the Task Force discussion.  Presenters explained that the Task Force does not have s common perspective.  They added that the required number of course is one discussion, and another includes which math course, for example.

Prof. Crawford reflected on the impact of the proposed Core revisions.  Students will still be taking courses, but a measure of success for the revised system depends on what students choose to do with this new curricular flexibility.  Crawford underlined the critical task of tracking what students do with more curricular freedom.  Will they use it to avoid taking Friday classes, or will they explore and purposely craft complementary minors.  This task should be the central topic for discussion rather than getting caught up in discussions about specific courses and departments.
  
Prof. Carolan asked if the Task Force discussed common experiences such as a common text program.  The presenters said yes.  The Task Force feel the Core experience is both a common classroom experience and a common curriculum.  The presenters enthusiastically encouraged colleagues to submit ideas such as common experience/common text ideas to the Task Force via the Fairfield 2020 website.  They added that there may be ways to integrate ideas such as a common text into the proposed model. 

Prof. Gil-Egui suggested that the Task Force consider methodology and epistemology to help sort and prioritize Core requirements.  The presenters said the Task Force did exactly that to plot the natural sciences segment of the Core.

Prof. Abbott said that professional schools, in response to the proposed system, could be tempted to expand their own majors and programs rather than promoting exploration in the College.  Associate Vice President Malone responded and said that Task Force representatives  visited with each professional school, and they met with all deans and chairs.  She added, “this is not a problem.”   Prof. school discussions all centered on increasing student opportunities to take courses they want.    The presenters added that the revision is not a reduction for all programs; Engineering, in particular, will have the same number of required courses before and after the proposed revisions would go into effect.

Prof. Bowen asked for clarification on the presenters’ point about the Core Pathways and giving them more “prominence” (see notes above on the presentation).  The presenters said the answer was complicated.  The Task Force considered a number of models including color coded systems, departmental versus pathway designations, and more.  The Task Force believes that the Core Pathways are important, and they should remain in the revised Core.

Prof. Rosivach agreed with the Task Force presenters that students from various professional programs will not flee the College with the new curricular flexibility that results from a reduced Core.
 
    With no more questions or comments, the Chair thanked the presenters.

Prof. Rosivach MOVED to adjourn.  Prof. Crawford SECONDED the motion.  With a clear majority of colleagues voting in favor, the motion PASSED.  The Chair adjourned the meeting and invited colleagues to enjoy the reception and refreshments immediately following the meeting.