Name of Committee: General Education Committee
Current Committee Members (please indicate chair and any other officers):
Betty Spence (chair)
Adrian Duran
Tom Lee
Remy Miler
Haley Cafiero (Institutional Effectiveness consultant)
Part 1: MCA Faculty Handbook Description
1) The 2011-2012 MCA Handbook includes the following description of the Committee:
None (see E-9 and E-10)
2a) In the opinion of the committee, does the handbook description accurately describe the function, purpose, and membership of the committee? Please explain.
n/a
2b) Please suggest changes/edits/rewrites for the Handbook description of your committee. If the Handbook does not currently include a description for your committee, please write one. (Answers to this section of the self-study are suggestions only. They are intended to help the faculty move toward Handbook revisions, but they should be regarded as draft versions at this stage. Please don’t spend an inordinately long time trying to craft the perfect description—they can be changed and edited as we go through the process.)
Writes and regularly reviews General Education competencies. Responsible for seeing that Gen Ed competencies are met. Analyzes Gen Ed assessment data and suggests changes based on that data.
Part 2: Committee Charge, Duties, and Goals
1) Does the committee operate under a clearly stated committee “charge” (that is, a statement of purpose explaining what the committee is charged with doing on behalf of the faculty or college—this may be different from the catalog description of the committee)? Is this charge written down and made available to the members of the committee and the college community at large? Please explain. (If you feel that the current catalog description or any revision to the description that you made above functions adequately as a charge, please say so).
There is no formal charge. The description above serves (at this time) also as a charge.
2) Does the committee maintain a set of specific duties? Are these written down? If a set of such duties exists (written down or in the minds of the chair or other members of the committee), please list them here. (In other words, what is the committee specifically responsible for? What does the committee do?)
The duties so far have consisted of writing a set of school-wide Gen Ed competencies, deciding upon two places to measure those competencies (one at senior level), writing rubrics to be used to measure those competencies. Future duties will be to look at data from the assessments that are done each semester and suggest/implement change based on that data. In short, the committee has the responsibility of seeing that the General Education competencies are being met.
3) Does the committee have a set of goals (short and/or long-term)? If so, please list them and briefly explain the process the committee used to arrive at these goals.
The goal of the committee is to oversee the Gen Ed program in order to keep us accredited. This goal was basically handed to us out of the necessity of our current pursuit of SACS reaccreditation
4) Other than verbal reports at faculty meetings, does the committee make reports in verbal or written form to the faculty or administration? How often are these reports made? Where are written reports housed and are they available to other members of the college community?
The committee has not yet reported to the faculty or administration in writing, other than by writing the Gen Ed goals and presenting them to the faculty for vote. If the committee continues as is apparently warranted by the description, charge, and goals above, then it will be making at least yearly reports to the faculty and the academic dean.
5) Please add any additional comments about the charge, duties, and goals of the committee.
The charge, duties, description, and goals of the committee as stated above seemingly warrant its existence as a standing committee or some permanent entity of the college. Because we must continually “close the loop,” there is no opportunity for this committee to dissolve, as much as we might like it to.
Part 3: Committee Membership
1a) To the best of the committee’s knowledge, how are faculty members of the currently committee chosen?
Current committee members were nominated and elected by the faculty, with the exception of Haley Cafiero, who serves as consultant/liaison to the SACS reaccreditation process. Haley replaces Patti Hollifield, original Institutional Effectiveness coordinator (no longer employed by MCA), who was a non-elected member of the committee.
1b) If it is not explicitly stated in the description/rules/by-laws of the committee, how do you think the members of the committee should be chosen?
As stated above. The current election process is fine. If the committee continues, there will probably be a yearly process of members rotating off and being replaced with a newly-elected member. Terms of office have not been established.
2a) Do the faculty members on the committee have limited terms of service?
Not yet established.
2b) If it is not explicitly stated in the description/rules/by-laws of the committee, should there be terms of service? Please explain.
There should be a process by which members rotate off, or elect to rotate off, the committee. The entire committee should not rotate at once, however, for purposes of continuity. None of this has been established and won’t be established until and unless the committee becomes a standing committee.
3) Does the current committee membership structure make sense? Is the committee too big, too small, the right size? Please explain.
Committee size is just right. Structure could change if/when the definition of Gen Ed is pinned down to exactly which departments it encompasses.
4a) Does the committee as it currently exists have faculty members from each of the Divisions of the College? If so, do you feel (or is it a requirement of the committee) that it always have representation from each of the Divisions?
The committee currently has representation from Liberal Studies, Art History, Foundations, and Fine Arts. It has no representation from Design Arts. To the best of my memory, the membership was nominated to represent the divisions/departments directly involved in General Education, with Tom Lee as a member at large (?).
4b) If the Committee does not include members from each Division, should it? Please explain.
As yet to be determined. Even the definition of Gen Ed is in debate right now. Once it is firmly established what divisions are included in General Education, we can look again at the makeup of the committee.
5a) If there are administrators on the committee (according to Dean Strickland’s committee grid), explain their role(s).
Currently Remy Miller, Academic Dean, is on the committee, but he does not sit on the committee as dean; in other words, he was elected as a faculty member to the committee and has only recently stepped up to the dean’s position. Whether Remy will continue to serve on the committee has not yet been addressed. There is no role for an administrator on the committee.
5b) If administrators are members of the committee, do you feel that their roles are necessary? In other words, does the committee feel that administrators should be members of the committee? Please explain.
There is no role for an administrator on the committee.
6a) If there are staff members on the committee, explain their role(s).
There are no staff members on the committee.
6b) If staff are members of the committee, do you feel that their roles are necessary to the successful functioning of the committee? Please explain.
n/a
7) To what extent are the decisions of your committee autonomous? In other words, do you make decisions that do not go to the full faculty for approval? Or do you make recommendations that then must be approved by the faculty or others? Please explain. The committee wrote the Gen Ed competencies that went to full faculty for approval. The rubrics based on those competencies did not go to the faculty for approval. In “closing the loop,” faculty can make recommendations to faculty and/or administration, but I assume that it can take no action based on assessment data without approvals from either administration or faculty (depending on what recommendations are made). If rubrics are revised, I assume the committee will take the authority to do that without approval.
8) Please add any additional comments related to membership, committee structure, the appointment or election of members, participation of non-faculty members, etc.
No additional comments.
Part 4: Committee Meetings and Time Commitment
1a) On average, how many times per semester does your committee meet? Please indicate if the number of meetings varies by semester and explain why.
The committee met 8 times this semester. With rubrics written and in place, I assume that meetings will be less frequent in the future.
1b) Is there a set meeting schedule (e.g., once monthly, bi-weekly, etc)? If not, how does the committee determine if a meeting is necessary and who calls the meeting?
The committee meetings this semester were determined by how close we were to having completed rubrics and the nearness of the deadline for completing them. Deadline was determined by when they will be used (review committees and BFA assessment).
1c) If there is no set meeting schedule, do you think that there should be a set meeting schedule or a minimum number of meetings for your committee per semester? Please explain.
Once Gen Ed processes are in place and running well, meetings will probably be monthly or perhaps even bi-monthly.
1d) How long is the average meeting?
One hour
2) In general, how many hours of commitment per semester does this committee require of members?
Wow. In addition to the 8 hours of meeting time, I would imagine that members have spent at least that much more in developing rubrics and reading emails. So 16-20 hours so far this semester.
3a) Does the committee take minutes, keep notes, or otherwise track and archive the activities of the committee?
The chair writes minutes and distributes them to the committee members for approval.
3b) If you do keep minutes, where are they housed? Can other faculty (or administrators) not on your committee look at these minutes easily?
At present, they are housed on Betty Spence’s computer. Other faculty or administrators would have to request to see them.
4) Please add any additional comments on committee meetings and the time commitment required of faculty on this committee.
The Gen Ed committee has become a huge responsibility for its members and an important piece of the SACS puzzle. The time commitment will lessen somewhat once our assessment processes get rolling, but there will always be more work to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment