College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin No. 16

Pages 315-331

5 April 2002



Contents

Page Topic

315 Contents

Announcements:

316 Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee MeetingSchedule

316 Senate Bulletin Mailing List

316 Spring Election Ballots

316 Appointment to the Standing Committees of the UniversityFaculty Senate

317 General Education Assessment Plan

317 Letter from the Chancellor

319 New Course Proposal: Acct/Mgmt 315

323 Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, 2 April, 2002

330 Agenda for the College Senate Meeting, 9 April 2002











Correspondence: Janice A. Lovett,Department of Biology,

Bailey 210; e-mail: lovett@geneseo.edu; phone:245-5413



Announcements:



Spring 2002 CollegeSenate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule



April 9 College Senate Meeting

April 16 Student Affairs Committee

April 23 Executive Committee Meeting

April 30 College Senate Meeting

May 7 Student Affairs Committee



Senate Bulletin Mailing List

Any member of the College Community may receive an individualcopy of the College Senate Bulletin. If you would like to receivea copy please send your name as you would like it to appear onthe mailing label and your campus address to the Senate Chair,Janice Lovett, lovett@geneseo.edu or 210 Bailey.



Spring Election Ballots

By this time all ballots should have been received forthe Spring Senate elections. We have returned to paper ballotsthis semester while CIT is busy preparing the College Bulletinas a web document. Ballots should be turned into department secretariesor the ballot box located in the Personnel Office, Erwin 219 byFriday April 12 at 2 p.m. The Senate work study student will collectballots after 2 p.m. If anyone has not received a ballot and thinksthey should have or if any other problems arise, e-mail or callthe Senate Chair (Janice Lovett, lovett@geneseo.edu, X5413) forassistance.



Appointment to the Standing Committees of the UniversityFaculty Senate



The University Faculty Senate is requesting interestedfaculty and professional staff apply for appointment to the StandingCommittees of the University Faculty Senate. While the campushas a University Faculty Senator (William Gohlman) there is theopportunity for other members of the campus to participate inthe University Faculty Senate as members of the Standing Committees.Appointments are for one year and committees meet three to fourtimes during the year. The Standing Committees and their chargesare:



Governance Committee - The Committee will concern itselfwith University-wide Governance and provide guidance on mattersof campus governance. The committee shall interact with localgovernance leaders of the University.



Graduate Academic Programs and Research Committee - TheCommittee will serve as a source of professional advice and guidanceto the Senate on matters relating to the quality, operation, andencouragement of graduate programs and research. To these ends,the Committee may be concerned with the procedures, criteria,and support of existing and new graduate programs within the University.The Committee may review and recommend policies and proceduresrelating to moral and ethical concerns of research and graduatestudies and other matters involving support and furtherance ofresearch and graduate studies in the University.



Public Information Committee - The Committee shall developand implement a consistent program of advocacy for the State Universityof New York on a state-wide and regional basis to various publics,including but not limited to - students, parents, alumni, facultyand staff, media, government, the private sector and trusteesof the State University.



Student Life Committee - The Committee will be concernedwith significant educational, developmental, social, culturaland recreational policies, programs, issues and services thataffect the quality of student life and the campus environmentof the State University of New York.



Undergradaute Academic Programs and Policies Committee - The Committee shall provide advice and guidance to the FacultySenate on matters relating to undergradaute programs and policiesthroughout the University. To these ends, the Committee may reviewsuch areas as existing and proposed curricula, standards for academicdegrees, undergraduate academic assessment, teaching techniquesand evaluation, special undergraduate programs, articulation amongunits of the State University of New York and the various aspectsof international education and development.



University Operations Committee - The Committee shall beconcerned with the effective participation of the professionalstaff in University personnel policies including equal employmentpractices and affirmative action. The Committee shall also beconcerned with the development and administration of the budgetaryand planning activities of the University, and to provide adviceand guidance on matters relating to the libraries, computing andtelecommunications.



University Programs and Awards Committee - The Committeewill concern itself with the enhancement of intercampus educationaland scholarly interests of the faculty through the developmentand strengthening of University-wide programs, grants, and awards.



Application forms may be obtained from either William Gohlman(Sturges 313, X5735, gohlman@geneseo.edu) or Janice Lovett (Bailey210, X5413, lovett@geneseo.edu).



General Education Assessment Plan

The completed General Education Assessment Plan submittedto SUNY Central Administration can be viewed athttp://www.geneseo.edu/~assess/gened/index.html.The preliminary plan was printed in Bulletin 11, p. 188-191 anda first reading was voted on during the Feb. 5, 2002 Senate meeting(p. 209-210). A second reading of the General Education AssessmentPlan will be on the agenda of the April 30, 2002 Senate meeting.





Letter from the Chancellor (This time I’llremember to put in the letter.)



The following letter actually was received from ChancellorKing in reply to the RESOLUTION ON A RATIONAL FISCAL POLICY passed February 5, 2002.



















Gen Ed Assessment



College Senate Executive Committee Minutes

2 April 2002

12.45 PM

Wadsworth 204



Present: T. Bazzett; J. Bushnell; C. Dahl; B. Dixon; G.Drake; C. Filice; C. Freeman; W. Gohlman; C. Leary; J. Lieberman;D. MacPherson; J. Lovett; J. McLean; D. Metz



Chair Lovett called the meeting to order at 12.50PM.





APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND LAST MEETING’S MINUTES

Both were approved unanimously.



REPORTS

Chair’s Report

1. Chair Lovettnoted that there were two Senate meetings left.



2. She also announced that the next University Faculty Senatemeeting would take place at Alfred State next Thursday.



3. The latest Senate ballot was on paper this time becauseCIT did not have time to post it online. Over the summer, however,she would work with CIT to design a new, stand-alone, templatefor a Senate ballot. The Provost added that C. Bickle was attendingworkshops meant to help with this process.



Lovett said that she had sent the Administrative ballotsyesterday and Faculty ballots this morning.



President Dahl said his office had also started working onthe administrative election.



PRESIDENT’S REPORT

1. PresidentDahl began with sad news: Dr Lucien Potenza, the Medical Directorat the Lauderdale Health Center has died from cancer. Dr Potenzajoined the staff in 1987 and became Director in 2000. His memorialservice would be held on Saturday, 6 April at 11AM at the Interfaith Center.



2. Two Geneseo students have been selected for Goldwater Fellowships(probably the most prestigious national undergraduate scienceaward). The Fellowship provides scholarship money and researchfunding. Our honorees are Matthew Fleming, a sophomore in biochemistry,and Summer Raines, a junior in biochemistry. These awards meanGeneseo has this year’s strongest list of Goldwater Fellowships (Vassar, for instance, has one).



3. The State Budget was due on 1 April but will probablynot be in place until the end of the month. Whether we will seefunding restorations is unclear, but we should encourage lettersto legislators to restore money for salaries. While salaries cannotnormally be rescinded for faculty and staff, the one area inwhich salaries can be rescinded is in the management/confidentialstaff (administrators, deans, administrative assistants).



4. The President has been in the final stages of puttingtogether the Task Force on Evaluation of Goals and Rewards [Jan:is the proper name?? The tape is inaudible here.??] Dahl had appointedthe Chair and was working on the rest of the membership. The TaskForce would be able to get started quite easily before the endof the semester and then be set up to work more efficiently inthe fall. Dahl was trying to create a balance among specificallyinterested faculty (junior or senior, in the arts or sciences,etc.), as well as among students. The Provost will serve as Co-Chairand Administrative liaison. Dahl invited any strong recommendationsto the membership.



Dahl stressed that this Task Force was a high priority forthe College. In keeping with that priority, the College wouldfind funds to hire an outside consultant. The College has becomea very different place from what it was fifteen years ago. Wehave now become a selective public liberal arts college with resultinghigher expectations for faculty (mentorship and supervised research). So an outside consultant would be the best method for reviewingwhat we have been doing on paper and in practice for rewardingfaculty.



5. We were officially notified by the Middle States Associationthat we have been reaccredited for ten years. The notificationletter from Middle States, which the President will share withthe College, commended the quality of the self-study, reaccreditedus, and asked us to continue improving diversity on campus aswe approach our regular five-year report. Middle States also commendedour Faculty Governance system yet thought it would be good toassess it.



Provost’s Report

Provost Dixon noticed Middle States’ call for ways to assessFaculty Governance; we have already started to think about this.To assess the system, we need to look at some outcomes beforegetting into the actual details of Faculty Governance changes.



Former Chair’s Report

No report .



Vice-Chair’s Report

Vice-Chair Bazzett said that the Excellence Committee had sentits nominee to the President. The name needs to go to Albany beforethe Committee can announce the nominee’s name. The nameof the person not nominated this year will most likely be nominatednext year.



President Dahl thanked Bazzett and Excellence Committee for takingon this task at last minute. Bazzett thanked Chair Lovett in turn;she and Bazzett wrote the letter over Spring Break.



Treasurer’s Report

No report.



University Faculty Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman said that the next meeting would occur on 12 Aprilat Alfred State. The University Senate will discuss expected issues:the State budget, transferability of credits, and general education



Central Council Report

1. J. Liebermanreported that the State Student Assembly conference would takeplace on 12 April. Lieberman, SA President Duxbury and three otherswill attend.



2. SA elections take place on 22 and 23 April; the new termwould begin on 1 May.



3. SA Merit Award selection would be coming up shortly.



4. Student Senator M. Brummel was forced to resign from StudentAffairs Committee; Lieberman had a possible replacement in mindand would inform the Executive Committee.



At this point, Lovett added a reminder that the Roark Nominationswould be due on Friday.



COMMITTEE REPORTS

Faculty Affairs Report

1. J. McLeanasked when the Task Force on Development and Evaluation wouldbe starting its work. His Committee would appreciate hearing fromthe appropriate authority because Faculty Affairs wanted to beinvolved in the process. President Dahl noted that there wouldalso be structural links and overlap between the Task Force andother bodies.



2. Professor B. Glass, Director of the Teaching and LearningCenter, said that UUP money to hire a consultant for the TaskForce.



Graduate Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz wanted the Executive Committee’s advice on a newcourse proposal. He did not feel it would be a controversialproposal, but he did want to consult Executive Committee first.



Each semester, Metz explained, approximately five or six studentsin the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences (CDS)take the Honors Digital Signals Processing course, which Metzteaches. They then usually do research in CDS’s joint projectwith RIT. We have been handling this as directed studies. So whatwe’ve done now is to provide a specific 400-level coursefor this kind of research. (Some of our students have alreadycompleted the NIH requirements.) Metz wanted to know how to proceedwith a proposal within a short time frame.



Lovett said Metz could move to waive the first reading. GCC wouldhave to meet and approve the proposal and then take to Senatebefore the last meeting on 30 April. Metz would move for the waiverwhen he proposed the course at the 30 April meeting. If it wasnot controversial, it should be approved.



Bushnell pointed out that Senate rules say that proposals couldbe posted on the Senate agenda for a second reading—skippingthe first reading—if they were published in the SenateBulletin at least seven days before the Senate Meeting when theproposal was to be considered. Lovett confirmed that if GCC metin the next two weeks, she could put the proposal in the Bulletin.



Policy Committee Report

C. Filice said that his Committee had met on 19 March to considerthe School of Business’s request that two of their minorprograms be permitted to require a grade point minimum for admission.They had already discussed and approved the requirement, but Filicesaid there might be a question about whether Policy Committeewas the right one to consider the matter.



Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

J. Bushnell reported two action-packed meetings during March;she would have a long set of first readings at the next Senatemeeting, including History General Education Core requirements.



Student Affairs Committee Report

D. McPherson said his Committee had met two weeks ago and wouldconvene again after the next Senate meeting. They were continuingto discuss the sexual assault issue.



NEW BUSINESS



Policy Committee Proposal

C. Filice referenced the following proposal from the School ofBusiness:



Revised Requirement: Students declaring a Business StudiesMinor or an Economics Minor must have earned at least a 2.5cumulative GPA at the time of declaration.



Rationale: The School of Business requires that students applyingto become majors meet a 2.5 minimum GPA before being acceptedinto their progress. The minor students should have similar backgroundsif they are to be successful in the minor. The classes that theminor students complete are the same as those taken by the majors.



(This requirement is similar to that of the Public Relations minor,which requires the completion of a writing course with a B orbetter and a cumulative GPA of 2.70)



Approval and Impact: The School of Business Faculty have approvedthis change. No other departments are impacted, nor will any additionalresources be required.



Lovett had thought this would be a program change for UCC to consider.But Associate Dean Bailey thought this was actually a policy change,so Lovett sent the matter to Filice. The issue was whether admissioncriteria should be viewed as policy or program changes.



Bushnell recalled that last semester there was a discussion ofa change in admission requirements to the School of PerformingArts’ music program. Wasn’t that passed by PolicyCommittee? Gohlman said that when the School of Business had proposeda minimum GPA of 2.5 for admission to the program, the PolicyCommittee discussed it. These have gone to Policy Committee inpast. Bazzett added that, when he chaired UCC, his Committee discussedsimilar proposals that went to Policy Committee. Provost Dixonsaid that she had discussed the matter with Dean Greenfield; thiswas an issue about minors in general.



Lovett pointed out that, in minors like biology, a lot of peopletook courses and decided as a part of their graduation paperworkthat they would declare a minor and finish any necessary courses.Would the School of Business’s proposal mean that certainpeople are barred from some School of Business courses?



Filice was not sure how they do that. The request was that, tobe a declared minor, there needed to be a certain GPA. Lovettwondered whether it would be possible for a student who had theprerequisite and signed up for a course suitable for a minor withoutactually declaring a minor—which would circumvent the wholeissue of the minimum GPA. But Filice was not sure about this.



President Dahl noted that sometimes such matters are driven byaccreditation. The Provost, however, was sure that the specificissue of a minor is not an accreditation issue, since the minoris not accredited. President: If we want the School of Educationto be accredited by NCATE, we will need to require minimum sophomoreand junior GPAs.



US History General Education Core Requirement

This Core Committee has been wondering whether it should sendrecommendations through UCC and on to Senate if Senate has alreadydecided that this was SUNY Central Policy, not campus policy.



Bushnell explained that UCC had recently had a guest (the minutesdetail this) who felt that very strongly that Senate should carryout the process. Bushnell noted that when Policy Committee discussedthis issue previously, they came up with a step-by-step process.They simply ended with a step that had the US History RequirementCommittee submit its paperwork to UCC. They did not say UCC wouldor would not submit the proposal to Senate. But some on the USHistory Requirement Committee thought it should definitely goto Senate. The visitor thought it would be insulting to our ownlocal governance and our own faculty if we treated this requirementdifferently just because we have protested that this requirementhad been imposed from outside the College. This has become a donedeal, but it still should be treated procedurally as other corerequirements are treated.



Gohlman did not think there had been any other situations which had required us to add a course to our own Core? The other partsof the Core that don’t fit the academic areas such humanities,science, social science, etc., were verbal and oral communication—phased into courses we already teach. The US History Core wasthe only part of the mandated core that required a separate course.



Bushnell reminded the Committee that the Foreign language requirementwas imposed from outside, and if students did not meet certainlanguage qualifications, they would have to add another courseto their graduation requirements. Gohlman replied that we hadhad that requirement before; we altered the foreign language requirementbecause we could have only added one course. Bushnell said thatwe added a course in response to the Board of Trustees.



In reference to the US History requirement, the Policy Committeehad said that of course UCC and Senate had to approve a courseto be taught at SUNY Geneseo, and that would be as far as it hadto go. Senate did not have to approve a graduation requirementimposed from Albany. So if the Core Committee said that thiscourse, which had already been approved or was about to be approvedby UCC and the Senate were to pass, we would recommend it to Albanyas a graduation requirement for American History. The course itselfwould have to be approved or it could not be offered.



McLean asked if SUNY Central had mandated or advised on how acourse would be approved for satisfying their general educationrequirements. Dahl said there was no mandate about campus procedure.SUNY Central simply reserves the right to examine whether proposalsmeasure up to the policy standards. The Provost added that SUNYCentral assumes that it all goes through and is approved by somekind of campus governance procedure, whatever that might be.



McLean then asked whether SUNY Central looks at that process.The Provost explained that there was a form that briefly describedhow the learning outcomes here would meet the learning outcomesthere. But right we were not discussing the issue of the coursecontent, but the governance procedures.



Lovett said that this particular proposal would go to UCC. Shedid not know if the proposal had been passed before the Senatevoted not to participate in the SUNY General Education requirements.If Senate said no to the process after the proposal was passed,then we might need to revise that again.



Bushnell replied that the person who visited them felt very stronglythat the Senate should take up the issue again—regardlessof what Senate or the Policy Committee had decided in the past.We should not remove our ability to talk about these things. Aworst-case scenario in this regard might be that the US HistoryCore Committee and UCC would approve the course, but then themajority of Senate would decided that the course was a bad idea.At that point, we would no ability to vote on approving the coursefor Core



Bazzett wanted to know whether Senators who object could go onthe record as abstaining. Dahl said they could and had alreadydone so. Lovett said that in the fall, they could vote somethingdown. Bushnell pointed out that we had not even had a chance todiscuss the proposal.



McPherson asked for clarification on the controversy. Bushnellsaid that the controversy had been that we did not invent thispart of the Core; therefore, we want to protest it. The Presidentsaid that we had already done this, indicating that this was aTrustees’ requirement and not part of our Core for thatreason. Bushnell reminded the Committee that at that point, therewere people who wanted to totally divorce themselves from theentire process. The courses were approved by UCC, so apparentlythey were sent to Albany. But no one else had a chance to votethem up and down. Dahl specified that this had not been a voteon the courses, just a vote on designating existing courses intograduation requirements.



McLean said that, in the end, SUNY Central would decide whetherthese courses met their graduation requirements. For our Core,Senate would have the final say. But there was no clear reasonwhy Senate had to be involved in the intermediate step.



Bushnell explained that some people felt this removed one aspectof our self-governance, and that this could turn into a slipperyslope that would remove more of our own decision-making on curriculum.



Gohlman then explained why the Policy Committee voted on thisin the first place. The Committee thought that if, in the nearor distant future, a new Board of Trustees were to say we no longerneeded the requirement, it would immediately disappear from ourgraduation requirements, and the Senate would not have to approveany action. On the other hand, if the Senate approved the Trustees’ mandates for Core, and then a future Board of Trustees said weno longer had to require these courses, then Senate would haveto formally remove it from our graduation requirements.



The President said that the person who visited UCC was arguingthis was a way to assert our control, but Gohlman’s originalmotion was an attempt to assert our local control.



Lovett asked whether we should send this issue to Policy Committee.Gohlman saw no objection. Dixon reminded the Committee that theissue was not our own Core requirement even though was part ofGeneral Education.



McLean wondered whether a motion from the person who visited UCChad to be made before it was sent to Policy Committee. Gohlmansuggested asking the Policy Committee to revisit the questionabout whether the Senate should vote on the Trustees’ AmericanHistory graduation requirement. Dahl added that the Committeeshould weigh the plusses and minuses of the issue because of theimplicit argument that because Senate refused to deal with theissue in the first place, we abdicated our philosophical oversightresponsibility. Gohlman’s motion in Senate had had theintention, if not to reinforce, then at least to underlie sucha responsibility.



After some further discussion, Gohlman moved that the ExecutiveCommittee ask the Policy Committee to revisit the question ofwhether the Senate should approve courses to fulfill the US HistoryGeneral Education requirement. The motion passed with two abstentions.



Old Business

Ad Hoc Governance Committee



Lovett moved the discussion on to the structure of the Ad HocGovernance Committee. She initially proposed that membership bedrawn from the 15% of Faculty Senators and 25% of AdministrativeFaculty Senators not assigned to a Standing Committee. (100% ofStudent Senators are assigned to Committees.) We should probablyhave some administrative people on the Committee as resource personsabout documents and policies we should be in accord with. So wecould combine the unassigned members and a few Student Senators,and we would have the Committee.



Lovett asked whether these people be recruited only within Senate.Bushnell preferred recruiting people specifically interested inthis task. Otherwise, we might get people for whom the Ad HocCommittee was not their first choice. McPherson thought we couldsimply add this Committee to the list that each Senator ranksin order of preference. Bushnell added that this Committee requiresan entirely different mindset, whereas some people might lookat this as they might have looked at the old Budget Committee.



Dahl asked whether Senate had to staff its Ad Hoc Committees withSenators. Lovett said they did not. So the President encouragedfinding interested and experienced people—for example,former Senate Chairs or chairs of major Committees.



Bazzett said that those who had been nominayed for Senator-at-largebut weren’t elected could provide another pool of candidates.He then asked if there were a reason for the current balance offaculty and students now on the Committee. By adding Student Senators,would we create an imbalance? If we wish, Lovett responded, studentson the Ad hoc Committee would not be voting members of Senate.She said that she had planned to ask the Student Association torecruit three more students.



Lovett asked how many people thought we should not necessarilycreate an Ad Hoc Committee with Senate members. Gohlman askedif people would need to make a two-year commitment; Lovett didnot think so. But the Provost countered that shifting personnelwould result in uneven assessment of the governance structure.Bushnell did not see this as performing an assessment. This wasa matter of examining governance structure; there were no assessmentoutcomes involved.



The President asked whether we wanted people with experience andsome opinions of governance to look at the governance structure.We needed people with informed opinions about what kinds of committeestructures worked or did not work, for instance.



Gohlman thought we could consult a list of past Faculty Chairsfor recruitment. Lovett confirmed that the Executive Committeedid not necessarily want the Ad Hoc Committee to consist of Senators,but interested people.



Lovett then asked whether this would be a reasonably-sized committee(eight Teaching Faculty, four Administrative members, three StudentRepresentatives). The Administrative members would not necessarilyhave to be voting members.



Filice suggested there might be a Chair with past experience aboutgovernance. Lovett said that the entire Ad Hoc Committee wouldin fact be appointed. Filice said Lovett would do the appointing.



Lovett asked further if we could have this in place by early fall.McLean inquired whether members who were also Senators could berelieved of other duties.



Leary remembered that the Senate Constitution says that Senatorswill serve on a Standing Committee. He also thought that, sinceit would be difficult to get fifteen people together, the membershipshould be cut by a third. Dahl agreed; since the Ad Hoc Committeewould be spending time poring over the Constitution and by-laws,the group would need to do this together, and so a smaller workinggroup made sense.



The Executive Committee thus decided to opt for a smaller group—about ten people, with a two-year term, appointed by the Chairof Senate in consultation with the Executive Committee.



Bushnell noted that Article 4, Section 8 of the Senate Constitutionstipulates that each Senator (students included) would normallyhave one, though not more than one, assignment to a Standing Committeeof the Senate.



Lovett pointed out that the wording was “normally,” not required. So we might give a Senator an option on that.



Lovett said that the next meeting would discuss the Ad Hoc Committee’s charge.





ADJOURNMENT

Chair Lovett adjourned the meeting at 1.55PM.



Respectfully submitted,





Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary





Agenda:

College Senate Meeting

April 9, 2002



Call to Order



Adoption of the Agenda



Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings

p. 270-273, Senate Bulletin 14.



Senate Reports

President's Report Christopher Dahl

Provost's Report Barbara Dixon

Chair's Report Janice Lovett

Vice Chair's Report Terrence Bazzett

Treasurer's Report Charles Freeman

University Senator's Report William Gohlman

Central Council Report Joshua Lieberman





Report's of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula Judith Bushnell

First Reading,Course Revisions:

Anth 310 (Bulletin 15, p. 280, 281)

Anth 321 (Bulletin 15, p. 280, 282)



First Reading, New Courses:

Acct 315/Mgmt 315 (Bulletin 15, p. 279, Bulletin 16,p. 319-322)

Anth 335 (Bulletin 15, p. 279, 382-385)

ArtH 310 (Bulletin 15, p. 292, 298-300)

ArtH 386 (Bulletin 15, p. 293, 301-304)

Intd 210 (Bulletin 15, p. 293-294, 305-306)

Writ 201 (Bulletin 15, p. 279-280, 286-287)



First Reading, Program Revisions:

Economics Minor (Bulletin 15, p. 281, 282)

Human Development Minor (Bulletin 15, p. 281, 282)



First Reading, New Programs:

Film Studies Minor (Bulletin 15, p. 294, 307-308)

Early Childhood Education Major with Childhood Educationadded (Bulletin 15, p. 294-297, 309-313)





Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review Carlo Filice

First Reading: Change in Requirements for Business and Economics Minors (Bulletin15, p. 289-292)



Graduate Academic Affairs Dale Metz

Second Reading, RevisedCourses:

ECEd541, Child Development and Assessment in Early Education, p. 213-216

ECEd 542, Advanced Curriculum Development, p. 217-220

ECEd 543, Policy Issues and Programs in Early Education,p. 221-225

ECEd 544, Family Relations in Early Education, p. 226-230

EDUC 5--, The Writing Process: Pre K-8, p. 246-249

Second Reading, New Courses:

ECEd 545, Action Research Seminar in Early Education,p. 231-235

ECEd 546, Language and Literacy Across the Early ChildhoodCurriculum, p. 236-241

ECEd 547, Leadership/Inquiry Internship in Early Childhood,p. 242-245

First Reading, revised program:.

M.S. in Education: Early Childhood Education, p. 250-254



Student Affairs Duane McPherson



Faculty Affairs James Mclean



Old Business

New Business

Adjournment