4/92 April 9, 1992 Regents' Board Room Minutes Members Present: Dr. Maurice Townsend, Chair Dr. Wayne Bell Dr. Ernest Benson Dr. Thomas J. La Belle Dr. Martha Nesbitt Mr. Larry Peevy Dr. Edwin Thompson Dr. Robert Trammell Members Absent: Dr. Hugh Bailey Dr. William Prokasy Dr. Harrison Carter (represented by Mr. Mike Deal) Dr. Michael G. Thomas (represented by Dr. E. Jo Baker) Also Present: Chancellor H. Dean Propst, Central Office Dr. David Morgan, Central Office Chairman Townsend called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and requested additions or corrections to the minutes of the January 9, 1992 meeting. There being none, the minutes were approved as previously distributed. Dr. Townsend then indicated to the Committee that he had invited Chancellor Propst to attend the meeting and renew the charge which should guide the Committee's deliberations. Dr. Propst stated that the Core Curriculum and its transferability defines the University System of Georgia as a system of public higher education. He believed that the Core provides protection to students who enroll at University System institutions close to their homes. Such students have a reasonable expectation that their coursework will be honored when they transfer. He also stated that, while transfer rules may seem onerous to some, they are extremely important: the ability to transfer freely within the System is of more value that the ability of one department or one institution to be able to offer a unique course in Areas I, II, or III. Because of the Core's importance, he has continued the practice of previous chancellors of appointing a committee to oversee the transfer of Core Curriculum courses among University System institutions. He stated that he had delegated to the Committee oversight responsibilities to make certain that whatever is done within the Core Curriculum at institutions falls within the rules of the Board of Regents and does not provide any undue burden to transferring students. The Chancellor stated that, although there may be some reporting line ambiguity in the Advisory Council Statutes, he desires that the Transfer of Credit Committee continue reporting directly to him. He indicated that, on occasion, the Committee may wish to request assistance or reaction from other individuals or committees, but that it should continue to have the specific responsibility to provide final recommendations to him regarding the transfer of Core Curriculum credits. Chancellor Propst indicated that major issues would be directed to the presidents for their reaction. In response to a question about whether innovative coursework should be encouraged in the Core, the Chancellor stated that there has always been a natural tension in the Core between a lock-step and an innovative approach. He believed that innovation was important, but he stated that great care must be taken to insure that the benefits of the current Core are not lost. He stated that he would fight every attempt to bifurcate the System and have 34 separate Cores which might endanger transfer- ability. He stated further that, in most cases, a student's Core Curriculum was their general education. He agreed that, ideally, students should have more general education than that required in the Core Curriculum, but it would be extremely difficult to ever get common agreement among all institutions and all disciplines as to what that should be. In viewing the purpose of the Core Curriculum, the Chancellor stated that the concept of "general education" should be kept at the forefront. Within this context, only courses which are broadly developed and broadly grounded should be included in the Core, and every effort should be made to avoid the inclusion in the Core of narrowly-focused courses. He stated that, if specialized courses were allowed in the Core, there could easily be a natural tendency for one or more disciplines and institutions to go to extremes in which coursework would be allowed. This in turn, would result in a move by institutions to restrict which Core courses a student could transfer. Subcommittee Report Chairman Townsend then called on Dr. La Belle to make the report of the ad hoc subcommittee which had been requested to review several Core transfer issues. Dr. La Belle explained the process by which he and Mr. Peevy and Dr. Bell--along with Dr. Morgan as Central Office liaison-- conducted the work of the subcommittee. He then presented the following report: 1. What should be the review process for proposals which overlap or are outside the purview of the existing system academic committees (e.g. Humanities 101: Afro American Culture I)? This issue was addressed by the Transfer of Credit Committee of October 12, 1989. Specifically, the minutes of that meeting indicate that Transfer of Credit Committee agreed to establish an Ad Hoc sub- committee to review requests for the approval of interdisciplinary and innovative coursework as additions to the Core which fall outside of the purview of existing academic committees. The sub- committee would include the chairs of the English, Fine and Applied Arts History, Philosophy and the chair of one of the behavioral sciences. This group was to be augmented through the addition of other chairs, as voting members, as the substance of any proposed coursework dictated. 2. What should be the position of the system on special topics courses (e.g., English 221: The Short Story; Women's Studies 201: Introduction to Women's Studies)? All additions to Areas I, II and III of the Core Curriculum must demonstrate an integral relationship to the knowledge base of a discipline, be broad based, introductory and survey oriented. Thus, additions must be comparable to, and meet the standards of, the Academic Discipline Guidelines associated with courses already serving as part of the Core. a. For regular, single discipline based courses, it should be the responsibility of the proposing institution to secure the endorsement from the appropriate academic committee, through the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (see 3a below), for any course not included in the Academic Discipline Guidelines. b. Regarding multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary or innovative courses, institutions should request, though the Office of the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, a review by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee for Interdisciplinary Courses established by the Transfer of Credit on October 12, 1989 and mentioned in the response to #1 above. 3. What can be done to expedite the review process which at times has resulted in delays of a year or more between the submission of the proposal and consideration by the system academic committee? a. All proposed additions/changes to the Core Curriculum should be discussed with and/or forwarded to the Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Such proposals will subsequently be forwarded by that office to: 1) the corresponding academic committee; 2) the Ad Hoc Subcommittee for Interdisciplinary Studies; 3) referred directly to the Transfer of Credit Committee for review/approval; or 4) be returned to the recommending institution which advice regarding appropriate steps for facilitating the review process. b. After receiving recommendations from academic committees, or from the Ad Hoc Subcommittee for Interdisciplinary Studies, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should exercise discretion by mailing to the members of the Transfer of Credit those proposed additions to the Core that might be expedited through such a process. If, after fifteen days, the Assistant Vice Chancellor receives no objections from one or more members of the Committee, that office may assume that the Transfer of Credit Committee approval has been granted. c. The office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will facilitate the establishment of meeting dates of the Transfer of Credit Committee and the Administrative Committee on Academic Affairs, for the subsequent academic year, by January 1st of each year. The Transfer of Credit Committee should be scheduled no sooner than fifteen days following a given Administrative Committee for Academic Affairs meeting. Deadlines for the submission of recommended additions to the Core from academic committees should then be scheduled fifteen days prior to the meeting of the Administrative Committee for Academic Affairs. Finally, institutions should be informed that their recommendations to academic committee should be submitted at least forty-five days prior to the meeting of the Administrative Committee for Academic Affairs. d. Academic committees unable to scheduled a meeting to review additions to the Core within the thirty day period between the deadline for institutional submissions and the deadline for recommendations to the Administrative Committee for Academic Affairs will need to identify alternative ways to conduct such reviews (e.g. telephone conference calls, through the mail, or through alternative organizational approaches such as the establishment of a standing executive committee to act for the full committee). 4. What kind of communication (and at what stages) is needed between the Administrative Committee on Transfer of Credit and institutions which are developing and implementing innovative coursework in the Core Curriculum? This issue was addressed by an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Administrative Committee of the Transfer of Credit. It suggested at its meeting of October 4, 1990 that a subcommittee be appointed to work with the institution proposing changes in general education and the core. Specifically, the subcommittee"...will keep itself fully informed about the progress of the development of the innovative program of general education, provide advice and consultation to the unit on issues of transferability, provide a careful review of the impact upon the Core Curriculum, and report to the ACTC..." Following a period of discussion, the Committee unanimously approved the report as presented. Dr. Townsend indicated that he would appoint a subcommittee to implement the Committee's recommendations. Next Dr. Trammell requested that the Committee revisit the action taken at its January meeting regarding the transfer of "D" grades. Dr. Trammell indicated that there appeared to some confusion as to what was intended by the Committee's action and a potential conflict between two policies: 1) The Committee's rule that the receiving institution must have the same policy for both transfer and non-transfer Core Curriculum "D" grades; and, 2) A rule promulgated by many institutions that students must have a 2.0 or better average on work which they transfer. Following discussion, the Committee voted to refer this issue for a recommended resolution to the Administrative Committee on Records and Admissions. New Business The Committee then reviewed reports from several academic committees and took the following actions: Committee Action English Endorsed the recommendation that courses titled "Western Literature I, II" be included in Area I of the Core. Requested a rationale from the English Committee regarding its recommendations that courses titled "Non-Western Literature" not be approved and "Introduction to Literature" and "Afro-American Literature" be approved in Area I of the Core. It also wished to know how the Academic Discipline Guidelines would be amended to reflect these recommended changes. Fine & Applied Arts Approved a course titled "Introduction to Cinema" for Area I of the Core and agreed to add this course to the Area I section of the Academic Discipline Guidelines. (The membership of the Fine and Applied Arts Committee was deadlocked on this issue.) Mathematical Subjects Endorsed the recommendation that the Academic Discipline Guidelines be amended by deleting "Foundations of Arithmetic (Elementary Education Mathematics) (E)" and replacing it with "Foundations of Number Systems (E)." The Committee agreed that it should be emphasized that this course is an elective, which be may taken only in addition to one of the mathematics courses allowed to fulfill the mathematics requirement for Area II. The Committee then reviewed requests for revision in the Core Curriculums of the following institutions, directing that specific approvals be given as well as areas of concern noted: Georgia College Middle Georgia College University of Georgia - Colleges of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Arts and Sciences, and Business Administration Valdosta State College A copy of Chancellors Propst's January 24, 1992 letter approving the Committee's recommendation that Kennesaw State College's revised general education program should be approved and added to the Core Curriculum Handbook with several understandings. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.