SUBJECT

DESCRIPTION

DATE

Members saw value in a vote on the Provost’s proposal and Amiran suggested a secret ballot.  Nick Zaferatos made a motion, seconded by Kate Wayne, that the ACC not support the entire proposal as presented by the provost in view of the oral and written testimony presented today, which passed (11 for, 1 against, 3 abstentions, and 2 who did not vote). 

The Chair brought a motion to change the language of the ACC Handbook to suggest that 2-year appointments to Standing Committees be staggered, seconded by Edoh Amiran, which passed. 

Members reviewed a draft with revisions of April 30, 2002, and proposed the following changes (new material underlined, deletions struck-through:

Ø       Edoh Amiran moved, seconded by Kate Wayne, to change the following lines 87 through 89, which passed:

“No student shall be allowed to withdraw from a course or from the University to avoid the consequences of receiving a failing grade based upon academic dishonesty.”

Ø       Amiran moved, seconded by Jeff Newcomer, to revise the language as follows in line 17, 18 which passed:

“Although instructors should make every effort to ensure that students are aware of the policies for academic dishonesty, it is the responsibility of students to read, understand, and uphold the standards of academic honesty.”

Ø       Julie Krom moved, seconded by Steve VanderStaay, to move the newly revised sentence as a standalone paragraph under line 53 “Procedures” which passed unanimously (1 abstention).

Ø       Brian Burton made a motion to approve the revised policy, which was amended by Newcomer as a motion to approve only Appendix D.  The amended motion was seconded by Nick Zaferatos and then passed.

Nick Zaferatos moved, seconded by Brian Burton, to soften language in Section 3. Procedures to number the items and include the words “an honest misunderstanding”, which passed. 

Members agreed that it may be more important to disseminate this information to faculty. Jeff Purdue made a motion to insert a phrase suggesting that instructors ensure that the standards for academic dishonesty are understood by students, which failed for lack of a second.  Then Stan Tag moved, seconded by Tom Goff, to insert slightly revised language at the beginning of line 16, to state: “Instructors should make every effort to ensure that students are aware of the policies for academic dishonesty”, which passed by a vote of 7 in favor, 6 against.

Nick Zaferatos made a motion, seconded by Jeff Newcomer, directing the chair to obtain an opinion from the assistant attorney general on the extent to which Appendix F has jurisdiction over field-based programs, and state certification matters, which passed.  Jake Barry asked for case examples (not pending legal action) or some concrete evidence (from Woodring representatives) to further make the case. 

Members requested that the university attorney review the proposal for a grievance board for field-based programs.  Kate Wayne moved to table the discussion, which was seconded by Jeff Newcomer.  The motion passed.

 Kate Wayne made a motion, seconded by Shelby Sheppard, to bring this issue back for discussion, which passed. 

Karen Perry made a motion, seconded by Amiran, to strike Biology 101, 102 and 384 as a sequence option from the GURs which passed.

A motion was made by Newcomer, seconded by Burton, to approve the 2002-2003 ACC meeting calendar, which passed unanimously.

Newcomer made a motion, seconded by Zaferatos, to approve the slate of nominees to the General Education Requirements Committee, which passed.  The General Education Requirements Committee appointees are as follows:

College of Arts and Sciences:  Phil Montague, Philosophy,  Kathy Kitto, Engineering Technology, Linda Kimball, Anthropology,  Darrel Amundsen, Modern and Classical Languages, James Hearne, Computer Science.

College of Fine and Performing Arts:  David Feingold, Music

Woodring College of Education:  Victor Nolet, Applied Research & Development

The Chair is awaiting responses from Huxley College and College of Business & Economics.

A motion was made by Brian Burton, seconded by Newcomer, to eliminate the Committee on Liberal Arts and the Interim Writing Committee.

§         Members discussed the motion, and raised the issue of who approves alternatives to writing proficiency courses.

§         Members agreed there should be a single central place that students will go to have waivers approved.  Members do not want to advertise waivers, but suggested the GER committee as the approving body.  Members agreed that writing proficiency ought to be the purview of the General Education Requirements Committee, as well as the GE Task Force.

The motion passed, and the chair requested that the vote of 11 in favor and 1 abstention be recorded in the minutes.

Members continued discussion on the draft presented at the April 2^nd meeting, and completed minor corrections in language. 

Ø       Jeff Newcomer moved seconded by Edoh Amiran, on page 3, line 83, to strike “suspension” and replace with “dismissal”, which passed unanimously.

Ø       Newcomer moved, seconded by Jeff Purdue, to correct the cross-reference to Appendix F in lines 96 and 97, and to correct the title to agree with the catalog (Section 3B. Appeal to the Board), which passed.

Ø       Additional motions by Jeff Newcomer, seconded by Brian Burton were passed which included:

--to strike “approval of the department chairperson (in Fairhaven) or the Dean” and replace with “approval of department chairperson or Dean in the case of Fairhaven” (lines 147)

--in lines 233 to read “’Academic unit’ is Fairhaven College or a department within the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Fine and Performing Arts, Huxley, Business and Economics, or Woodring College of Education.”

--line 229 to read “Where a solution or decision results in a grade change, the unit head shall inform the Registrar of the grade change.”

--line 166 typo to be corrected to “within (10) days”

--line 74, strike the page number “345” inadvertently added to the end of the line

--line 75, insert a paragraph after “question.”

Ø       A motion was made by Newcomer, seconded by Andrew Bodman, to rephrase line 134 to read: “A separate set of procedures are used when action is claimed to be in violation of the provisions of Appendix A (title in parenthesis).

 Discussion ensued on definition of the term “advocate” in line 204.  Members indicated preference for using a word that suggests a non-litigious environment, and discussed replacing the term with the word “advisor”. 

Ø       Jeff Newcomer made a motion that the words “represented by an advocate” be replaced with “accompanied by an advisor (with prior notification)”.  A friendly amendment by Newcomer to his own motion was seconded by Bodman, to add, “may be accompanied by a faculty, student, or staff”.  The motion failed.

Ø       Nick  Zaferatos made a motion to add a parenthetical so the phrase reads “accompanied by an advocate (although not a legal professional)” which was seconded by Purdue.  The motion passed.

Susanna Yunker agreed to discuss changes with Michael Schardein.  Yunker will also check on the language with the university attorney.

Marv Klein, Dean of Woodring College, presented a draft of a proposed charge for a professional Grievance Board that would serve K-12 practica student teachers and interns. 

Kate Wayne made a motion to approve the draft.  Shelby Sheppard endorsed the proposal, 

since she believes these grievance situations are unique and the decision is based on a different 

set of criteria than other grievances.

Newcomer spoke against the motion, indicating he was uncomfortable with a change in the balance of the SAGB whose appeals could still reach the Provost.  Zaferatos suggested inclusion of a community partnership committee.  Purdue would like to hear from the AS Board, which was supported by student members. 

Jeff Newcomer moved to table the discussion, seconded by Brian Burton, which passed.

David Wallace, Chair, Music Department, requested approval of a new course, Music 99 – Concert Attendance.

Jeff Newcomer moved to approve the course for first and second reading which passed. 

Members reviewed Exhibit C, a procedure for consideration of a proposal “to consider the creation, elimination, or merger of colleges”, brought to the Commission by Provost Bodman.  Chair Ross quoted the related section of the handbook as follows:

“The Provost will develop a policy for merger and elimination of a college.  The policy will address the procedures and criteria for elimination or merger and will identify how faculty input concerning the proposed elimination or merger would be obtained.  The policy will be submitted to the Dean(s), the Academic Coordinating Commission and the University Planning Council for input.  The final policy will be published in FAST.

“In the case of college elimination or merger, the Provost will undertake the review following the procedures published in FAST.  The recommendations of the Provost will be submitted to the ACC and UPC.  The criteria and rationale for the elimination or merger will be included with the recommendation.  The ACC and UPC may submit justified recommendations and reports to the Provost.  The final recommendation of the Provost will be submitted to the President and will include the recommendations and reports of the ACC and UPC.”   --Faculty Handbook, Section XV.D.2, and XV.D.4b.

A motion made by Jeff Newcomer, seconded by Nick Zaferatos to approve the process outlined in Exhibit C (attached) passed unanimously.

Discussion on this item had been tabled at the previous meeting until further documentation had been provided.  Brian Burton made a motion, seconded by Shelby Sheppard, to approve ACS297 as a comparative gender multicultural GUR course.  The motion passed unanimously.

Members reviewed a prepared list of faculty vacancies for standing committees of the Academic Coordinating Commission. A motion was made by Kate Wayne, and seconded by Brian Burton not to advertise for faculty for the Liberal Arts and Writing committees at this time, which was passed by the members.

Brian Burton made a motion seconded by Kate Wayne to approve the Chair, Reportage, and Support sections of the GER committee charge as written which was passed unanimously.

Chair Ross and Provost Bodman stated that the legislative intent of the charge is that Fairhaven’s General Education Requirements not fall within the purview of the GER committee.  Nick Zaferatos called for concurrence by the members, and the members agreed unanimously.  Nick Zaferatos made a motion seconded by Kate Wayne to approve the purview and charge of the GER committee as written, which was passed unanimously.

A motion made by Steve VanderStaay, and seconded by Reiko Darling, was passed unanimously to accept the “membership” section of the charge as written, deleting Fairhaven College representation.  A note was added at the suggestion of the Provost that the legislative intent of the Academic Coordinating Commission is not to include Fairhaven in the jurisdiction of the General Education Requirements Committee.  Fairhaven does meet the overriding university requirements as described in the broader handbook language, but in a different way, and it is already stated which students are held to GUR requirements in the GUR portion of the catalog.  Members also agreed to suggest that membership appointments be staggered, a policy already explicitly stated in the ACC Handbook for all its standing committees.

(Attachment B)

A motion was made by Kate Wayne, seconded by Reiko Darling to approve the revised brochure on plagiarism which had been presented to the members in the February 5, 2002 ACC packet.  The Commission passed the motion unanimously.

    A second motion made by Nick Zaferatos, seconded by Kate Wayne, was made to attach the online version of the plagiarism brochure to the ACC page on the Senate website, which the members passed.

A motion made by Nick Zaferatos, seconded by Kate Wayne, to accept American Cultural Studies 206 as a CGM-GUR was made.  Members did not have copies of the course description or other information concerning the class.  Karen Perry noted that it could be listed in the current catalog in response to questions on time constraints, and will forward the documents to the Senate office for distribution with the next agenda.  A motion made by Kate Wayne, seconded by Brian Burton to table the above motion was passed by the members unanimously.

A motion was made by Kate Wayne, seconded by Brian Burton to accept Educational Foundations 210 as a CGM-GUR course which the members passed.

Newcomer made a motion, seconded by Shelby Sheppard, to ask the Biology department and the affected departments to discuss a set of options to allow students to be held harmless for this change in the Biology Department and to allow them to complete their GUR in their major (to satisfy the science GUR sequence in with Biology 101,  and 102, and one additional course).  The motion passed with one abstention.

Roger Anderson, Chair, Biology, was present to answer questions concerning suggested changes to the 201, 202, 203 Biology GUR sequence.  Anderson reported that the department planned to change the content and renumber the sequence 204, 205, 206.  Anderson reported that there is no loss in content, but rather an improvement with regard to required material.  Anderson also asked that the ACC allow the de-listing of Biology 384.

Jeff Newcomer made a motion, seconded by Reiko Darling, to substitute Biology 204, 205, and 206 for Biology 201, 202, and 203 as part of the GUR sequence, which the members passed unanimously.  The following discussion points were addressed:

Kris Bulcroft distributed a draft of the GETF progress report and asked the Commission to accept the document as a draft so that it can be reviewed by the campus.  Members were reminded that the GETF met the ACC’s request to provide this report by early February.  Bulcroft also announced forums on the following day to update the campus with the reports which will also be posted on the General Education website.  Members expressed the hope that the Task Force will continue to the next stage in its report.

A motion was made by Nick Zaferatos, seconded by Kate Wayne, and passed by the members, to encourage the GETF to gather public input as it continues to formulate its tenets (Kris Bulcroft and members suggested that comments be forwarded to Susan Mancuso).

Members moved to take from the table (continue discussion) a recommendation from the Senate that was first reviewed at the January 22^nd meeting (moved by Nick Zaferatos, seconded by Kate Wayne).  The principle is already in place for community college transfers. The text of the main proposal is repeated here:

“If a Washington public baccalaureate institution certifies that a student has met all of the lower division general education requirements at the sending institution, the receiving Washington public baccalaureate institution will accept that the transfer student has met all of the receiving institutions’ lower division general education requirements.”

Provost Bodman informed members that a vote on the proposal would be taken at the respective baccalaureate Faculty Senates and if approved would be forwarded to the HEC Board, and eventually the legislature.  Members agreed the proposal would eliminate potential hardship to students who have met all their GUR requirements despite some variations among state 4-year colleges.  Registrar Joe St. Hilaire reported that GUR completion is not automatically posted to transcripts but must be requested by students.  The Chair asked for a show of hands on the original motion made by Stan Tag and seconded by Brian Burton to accept the above proposal.  The ACC passed the

Members reviewed a background letter from Provost Bodman forwarded to the committee with a cover letter from Senate President Kennedy asking for a mid-February recommendation.  Text of the main proposal follows:

“If a Washington public baccalaureate institution certifies that a student has met all of the lower division general education requirements at the sending institution, the receiving Washington public baccalaureate institution will accept that the transfer student has met all of the receiving institutions’ lower division general education requirements.”

A motion was made by Brian Burton, seconded by Stan Tag, to accept the paragraph above.  Discussion followed:

§         Ross reported that if a student transfers to WWU with an AA degree from a Washington State community college covered by the Direct Transfer Agreement (DTA), he is deemed to have fulfilled GUR requirements.  Members agreed this seemed like a student-friendly kind of ruling that will lessen obstacles, but noted a need to clearly designate lower division GURs versus junior and senior capstone classes.  

§         Kate Wayne commented on the transitory nature of GUR requirements, and this motion could be shortsighted if we move toward interdisciplinary courses;  

§         Katie Kulla suggested trusting the other four-year colleges who also have to trust us so that we are a united series of schools in the State.  Reiko Darling added that if we do a good job in preparing students, and our GURs are topnotch, it is representative of what our students got here, and detrimental if we didn’t support this.

§         Joe St. Hilaire noted that while the principle is good -- helping transfers and other 4-year colleges, it could adversely affect our graduation standards.  He suggested problems with the mechanics, since we don’t post GUR transcripts separately and most of students don’t tell us what they completed.  There is no announcement at Western -- and how do you get a certification? Academic advising or the registrar might have to certify that students completed their GURs.  On occasion students will argue, “I completed everything but this math course, couldn’t you just certify me anyhow.”  St. Hilaire would like more thought put into the requirements for this by the HEC Board.  Members agreed to ask the provost to address the issue and supported leaving this item on the agenda until next meeting.  

Kate Wayne moved to table the motion, seconded by Nick Zaferatos, which passed with 2 abstentions.

Ø      Chair Steve Ross volunteered to absent himself from a discussion tabled at a previous ACC meeting which was brought back on the floor. (January 8, 2002 ACC minutes:  “A motion to table the discussion of approval of CBE reorganization…passed unanimously.”)

Ø      A motion made by Jason Adams, seconded by Nick Zaferatos, to approve the reorganization proposal from the College of Business and Economics adding one department, was passed unanimously (by hand vote at the Chair’s request).  Members noted that the action had been deferred until the topic had been made public. Members also supported reviewing the process whereby such changes affecting curricula take place within colleges.

o        Shelby Shepherd made a motion, seconded by Brian Burton, “that we comply with the Senate’s instructions and ask for members to sit on the committee”.  A hand count was taken on the motion which failed with 3 in favor, 7 opposed and 3 abstentions.  A summary of the discussion follows:

§         Tom Read, guest, pointed out that the GER committee might have a lot of routine material that ACC might not want to deal with, for example, waivers, 1-time requests for courses abroad, summer courses, etc., and it would be a disservice to students not to process these.  Ross added there was another point made in the Senate debate that the Senate might not want to micromanage its committees.  Read, as former GER committee chair, had been involved in course approvals and reported extensive conversations and intense levels of scrutiny as to whether or not courses were appropriate for GURs.  Brian Burton, 2000-2001 chair of GER committee noted that there had not been many of these forms last year.

§         Steve VanderStaay noted that filling the committee membership and giving the GER committee the right to approve and disapprove changes for GUR requirements seems to give the members the right to approve and disapprove GER reform.  It appears to give a significant amount of power to this small body of people, a subcommittee of a standing committee of the Senate body.  If we amend the charge, will those chosen be disappointed that they are only going to approve small changes to study-abroad courses.  It seems we have to either give them responsibility, or take away that authority and change the charge to give them the right description of their duties.

§         VanderStaay added that instead of making a decision, members can ask for point of clarification from the Senate.  The ACC’s view is that approval or disapproval should be held in either the ACC or the Senate.

§         Members were concerned about review of the General Education Task Force report.  ACC agreed that they could appoint GER members, ask for their review within a short time frame, and still feel comfortable with a decision made two weeks ago.

§         Stan Tag noted that it might not be worth faculty time to serve on a GER committee.  We have taken responsibility for courses this year, and we can continue to act on these courses and reforms.  ACC can invite people with particular insight regarding GURs to meetings.

§         Jake Barry felt the Senate would not want the GER committee to simply review a few course forms, and it would simplify matters to have materials come directly to ACC.

§         Katie Kulla suggested that if we are not going to pass this motion we should get a CFPA representative on ACC.  

Acceptance of the minutes hinged on a discussion to accept the proposed reorganization of the College of Business and Economics.   After presenting a letter from Dean Murphy, the Chair asked for motion to approve the new department and reorganization, with new rubrics.  Brian Burton moved and Nick Zaferatos seconded the motion and discussion on the topic began:

·         Citing the possibility of conflict of interest, Steve Ross offered to remove himself from the chair for this discussion.  No objections were raised, so the chair remained.

·         Steve VanderStaay asked what the process was for restructuring a college, and Zaferatos asked if CBE or ACC had forwarded the proposal to the UPC.

·         Members discussed the possibility of increased academic costs because of the change.

·         Edoh Amiran asked what the change would mean for student degrees.  Would the new acronyms have any meaning on a transcript?   Steve Ross reported that the new acronyms would actually be more in keeping with nationwide standards.

·         Bodman pointed out that if the college agreed to the change there seemed little for the ACC to discuss in the matter of approval.  He noted, however, that the handbook did not clarify the involvement of ACC, since this was not a process involving change across colleges.  Members supported the idea that the colleges have the right to govern themselves.

·         Ross suggested the ACC had to test for the reorganization’s reasonableness and members asked how this occurred.  Ross suggested 1) members pay attention to the groups, which might oppose the change, and 2) the ACC use its own judgment in the case of  programs that exist with no academic departments. Ross then gave background on CBE’s decision.

·         Jeff Newcomer asked if the new programs would result in a roughly equitable division of students.  Ross said he thought in three or four years this would be the case.  Jeff Newcomer asked if the change would affect other departments, and Ross did not think so.

·         Shelby Sheppard asked if the ACC’s approval was meaningful in any way, did it assume funding, what was ACC’s role, and was it meaningful in this matter.  Bodman replied that the ACC’s approval did not automatically mean he would allocate funds.  Chair Ross had reported that CBE hoped to add an administrative assistant since at present one person took care of over 400 students, and that CBE had undergone significant expansion in the past five years. 

·         Stan Tag raised the possibility that a 2-3-step process for reorganization would provide a better opportunity for comment from the community.  Tom Goff asked about student involvement in and notification of the impending change.  Steve Ross said there had not been lots of involvement but students did know of the change.

·         Zaferatos pointed out that since no dissent was heard, ACC only had to look at the issue of whether the changes would be detrimental to the curriculum.  Zaferatos asked to move the motion.

·         Edoh Amiran objected to the issue’s ‘backdoor” arrival, especially since it had not appeared on the agenda and therefore gave little or no chance for dissent from interested parties.  Bodman agreed and members noted that Senate motions occasionally appeared in FAST and then came back for a second vote.

·         A motion to table the discussion of approval of CBE reorganization made by Katie Kulla, seconded by Edoh Amiran, passed unanimously.

The CBE reorganization will appear on the Agenda for January 22^nd, and will be discussed at that meeting.  An announcement to this effect will appear in FAST and will be distributed via the Senate mailing list.

A motion was made by Zaferatos to accept the new rubrics with certain corrections, but not the minutes, pending approval of the new departments.  Jeff Newcomer seconded.

Edoh Amiran moved to amend the motion (seconded by Kate Wayne) to add “and that the Financial Economics major can only be included in the catalog when and if submitted for approved to the HEC Board”.  The motion passed as amended. 

 A motion was made by Steve VanderStaay, seconded by Stan Tag, that the Academic Coordinating Commission accept the duties of the General Education Requirements Committee until such time as the commission determines a subcomittee is necessary.  The motion passed with one abstention (Dr. Bodman). Members spoke for and against the motion in discussion:

Ø       The more circulation a topic gets, the better.  If people with experience in the GERs would be willing to give considered opinions on course topics, they would be welcome.  This would cut out the lengthy process of appointing people to this subcommittee (they are supposed to be appointed by the colleges). 

Ø       Members requested that if discussion is to occur on these matters that it be made part of the agenda.  Those that would help would be invited and experts can come to the meeting and address GER issues.

Ø       Members commented that the Senate Executive Council might hope that the process be more transparent; if an existing committee is dissolved, there might be a fear that some sort of shenanigans might be occurring.  Members referred to “saving spotted owls and the trees in which they nest”.

Ø       Members reiterated that the ACC and the Senate are sufficient review bodies.  Review might focus better if it occurs in only two committees.  If the appearance of taking over this responsibility is going to increase ACC’s difficulties, then members have to remember it is the ACC’s job to oversee curriculum, and it is much simpler and makes more sense to keep the review in just two bodies.

Ø       There may be political issues here.  Members are served best by focusing on what we are trying to do.  We are trying to understand GER requirements and improve them.  Encouraging the colleges to appoint people to a GER committee does not serve our purpose; it is very inefficient, and there are better ways to solicit opinion.

GUR Task Force Charge

A motion was made by Jeff Newcomer, seconded by Jeff Purdue, to include in the GUR Task Force charge a reminder that the ACC has passed a target of 60 credits for the GUR program, and to inform the campus community of this.  The motion passed unanimously.

Nov. 20, 2001

GUR Task Force Charge

A motion was made by Kate Wayne, seconded by Edoh Amiran, to send the proposed letter to the task force on general education with the following charge (in place of the bolded text in the version presented at the meeting of 11/20/2001):

The task force is to report to the Academic Coordinating Commission on two issues.  First, the task force should describe, by February 12, 2002, desirable goals for general education in such a way that the Academic Coordinating Commission and campus community can evaluate whether a given program satisfies these goals.  Second, the task force should suggest alternative general education requirements by May 10, 2002.

Following discussion, members voted on a substitute motion proposed by Jeff Newcomer, seconded by Stan Tag, which passed with one abstention: 

The Task Force is to review and make recommendations on the purpose, organization, and structure of general education requirements with a written interim report to the ACC on or before February 12, 2002, and a final report to the ACC on or before May 10, 2002 that includes both a set of program options and a set of metrics by which to measure them.

Nov. 20, 2001

Following discussion, members voted on a substitute motion proposed by Jeff Newcomer, seconded by Stan Tag, which passed with one abstention: 

The Task Force is to review and make recommendations on the purpose, organization, and structure of general education requirements with a written interim report to the ACC on or before February 12, 2002, and a final report to the ACC on or before May 10, 2002 that includes both a set of program options and a set of metrics by which to measure them.

GUR Task Force Charge

Jeff Newcomer proposed a MOTION seconded by Shelby Sheppard, that “the ACC will write a specific charge to the General Education Task Force”, which commissioners passed with one opposed and two abstentions.   The Executive Committee will draft a charge and forward it to the members for discussion at the next meeting.  Newcomer suggested that the motions be communicated to the Senate Executive Council.

Nov. 6, 2001

GUR Task Force Charge

Newcomer made a second MOTION that “once the charge is formulated a letter explaining the circumstances and the new charge and what is expected be sent to the task force, the dialogue groups, and the campus community” (the latter a friendly amendment by Ross), seconded by Amiran.   The motion passed unanimously. 

Nov. 6, 2001

Dialog Groups

The third MOTION by Jeff Newcomer, and seconded by Jake Barry, was “to ask the dialogue groups to provide the ACC with white papers”.  The motion failed with one abstention.  Members suggested that the discussion in the dialogue groups might not always be curricular issues.  People not on dialogue groups, however, may still want to see all the information.  The white papers from the dialogue groups or from any other groups with suggestions will be posted on the Gen Ed website, and since they are not official papers, do not have to come to ACC for approval

Nov. 6, 2001

Members reviewed the following MOTION:

“The ACC approves the addition of ELED 385a (2 credits) and ELED 385b (2 credits) to the requirements for the Elementary Education certification program. This change is approved for a two—year period only (Academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004). During or before Academic year 2003-2004, changes to the elementary certification program must be made to reduce the number of hours required to 90 credits or less. If such changes are not made, ELED 385a and ELED 385b will be removed from the certification requirements.”

In the discussion, members considered the following:.

·        Edoh Amiran suggested a temporary fix might be a disservice, as it does not deal with the issue of creating a better program.  In addition, Amiran is not convinced there was harm in waiting to fix this.

·        Kate Wayne pointed out that context was important in considering this change, but that it was important to get a final product. 

·        Shelby Sheppard warned against a reactive mode, and pointed out the education department’s dilemmas between the demands of the state and criticisms of committee bodies; Sheppard pointed out that what teachers teach has a profound influence on students, and we have a responsibility here, and it is better to err on the side of considered judgment rather than expediency.

·        Henniger calculated that without this course addition, as it is now, the program is in noncompliance with State guidelines for assessment content, and as a result 500 students may leave Western within two years who are not equipped with an important component of the program.

·        Both Jake Barry and Tom Goff opposed pushing back a student’s graduation date.

·        Henniger assured members that the additional courses would add no more than one quarter and that the college always works to assist students in graduating in a timely manner.

The Chair asked for a show of hands and the MOTION was approved with ten (10) in favor, one (1) opposed, and three (3) abstentions.

GER Committee

Jeff Newcomer made a motion, seconded by Steve Vanderstaay, to focus on the General Education Requirements Committee next meeting, which passed unanimously.  The Interim Writing Committee will be folded into the discussion.  Members will 1) review the written charge; 2) review what members actually do; 3) discuss revisions or improvements if necessary. 

Oct. 23, 2001