|Bulletin 22 |
Pages 659 - 775
17 March 2000
|660-662||March 28 College Senate Meeting|
|663-669||UCC (29 February)|
|669-672||UCC (9 March)|
|673-771||UCC (14 March)|
|772-775||Policy Committee (14 March)|
Summaries of proposals which passed UCC are printed in this Bulletin. By March 17, the complete paperwork will be on reserve at Milne and Fraser and on-line at www.geneseo.edu/~senate/Bulletins/Bulletin031700.html
Correspondence: Becky L. Glass, Department of Sociology, Sturges 122C
E-mail: email@example.com Phone: 245-5336
4:00 pm, Newton 204
In everyone's life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being.
We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit.
Call to Order
Adoption of Agenda
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(22 February, Bulletin pp. 611-617)
|Chair's Report||B. Glass|
|President's Report||C. Dahl|
|Provost's Report||B. Dixon|
|Treasurer's Report||M. Mohan|
|University Faculty Senator's Report||E. Wallace|
|Central Council Report||A. Gridley|
|Undergraduate Curriculum||T. Bazzett|
|Comm. Disorders & Sciences|| |
|Course Revision||CDSc 228 title and description change (p. 682)|
|New Course||CDSc 310 Literacy Development (pp. 683-687)|
|Major Program Revision||Add CDSc 310 to major (pp. 688-689)|
| || |
|School of Education|| |
|New Courses||Intd 376 Advanced Mathematics Topics for Early Childhood and Childhood Education (pp. 690-694)|
| ||Curr 320 The Arts and Career Education in the Community (pp. 695-702)|
|Course Revisions||Intd 203 Social Foundations of American Education |
| ||Curr 213 Reading and Writing Processes (p. 704)|
| ||Educ 214 Dimensions of Teaching and Inquiry (p. 705)|
| ||Curr 313 Classroom Reading and Literature Programs |
| ||Curr 316 Teaching Science and Mathematics to Children (p. 707)|
| ||Curr 317 Social Studies and Curriculum Integration |
| ||SpEd 319 Diversity and Inclusion in Classrooms (p. 709)|
| ||Educ 326 Classroom Management in the Elem. School |
| ||Educ 354 Family and Community (p. 711)|
| ||SpEd 231 Introduction to Special Education (p. 712)|
| ||SpEd 234 Instructional Strategies and Inquiry in Special Education (p. 713)|
| ||SpEd 382 Assessment Strategies and Prescriptive Teaching for Students with Disabilities (p. 714)|
| ||SpEd 383 Special Education Classroom Management Skills (p. 715)|
| ||SpEd 385 Team Approaches to Education of Students with Disabilities (p. 716)|
| ||ECEd 351 The Teaching of Young Children (p. 717)|
| ||ECEd 352 Introduction to Early Childhood Education |
| ||ECEd 353 Curriculum Development for Young Children (p. 719)|
| ||ECEd 355 Diversity and Inclusion in EC Classrooms |
(B-Gr 3) (p. 720)
| ||H&PE 350 Health and Safety Issues in the Schools |
| ||ECEd/Educ 331 Student Teaching-Primary (p. 722)|
| ||Educ 332 Student Teaching-Intermediate (p. 723)|
| ||ECEd 333 Student Teaching-Early Childhood (p. 723)|
| ||SpEd 391 Student Teaching-Spec. Ed. Prim. Or Intermed. |
|Program Revisions||Early Childhood Education major (pp. 724-734)|
| ||B.A. or B.S. in Liberal Arts with Certification in Early Childhood Education (pp. 735-739)|
| ||Childhood Education major (pp. 740-749)|
| ||B.A. or B.S. in Liberal Arts with Certification in Childhood Education (pp. 750-754)|
| ||Childhood Education (with Special Education added) major (pp. 755-765)|
| ||Changes in Concentrations (pp. 766-771)|
| || |
| || |
|Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review||B. Gohlman|
Motion: A standard of proficiency in foreign language at Geneseo shall be defined minimally as:
Proficiency through fourth semester (202), college level of a single language;
Completion of four units (level IV) of NYS high school foreign language or its
Other appropriate performance- or competence-based equivalency as approved by the Foreign Language Dept. or other appropriate body.
(See proposal p. 566 and discussion p. 588-589)
|Graduate Academic Affairs|| ||Judy Bushnell|
|Faculty Affairs||N. Schiavetti|
|Student Affairs||E. Crosby|
Members present: S. Bailey, B. Brennan, M.E. Carney, J.F. Morse, K. Hahn, A. Happ,
H. Howe, K. Jones, J. Kirkwood, B. Mason, O. Nicodemi, M. Stolee, R.Vasiliev, S. West
Guests: B. Dixon, F. Edizer, D. Granger, J. Holman, M. Jensen, D. Marozas, S. Salmon, M.E. Schmidt, D. Showers
T. Bazzett called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and asked for approval of the agenda. The agenda was approved unanimously and minutes from the February 15th meeting approved unanimously with minor editorial changes.
M. Jensen provided new proposal forms detailing SOE revisions to original program proposals. She noted that SOE had engaged in extensive discussion before coming to agreement on changes that had been made. She further noted that some accomplishments originally hoped for by SOE faculty in the new program would not be realized as a result of these revisions.
Revised early childhood program proposals were then distributed and discussed. Particular attention was given to the advisement guide as a summary of overall changes to the program. In response to concerns expressed earlier by the UCC, an elective course was added to the freshman year (as with most of the other revised program proposals). This elective gives students more opportunity to explore prior to committing to a particular concentration. It was also noted that in the revised proposal, students with 30 or more hours of credit may combine blocks 1 & 2. This feature of the program is also available to transfer students. The originally proposed 6 hours of science and math credit had been reduced to 4 hours, to ease the originally proposed requirement credit load. One credit hour was removed from EDUC 354 (from 3 to 2) for this same purpose. The originally proposed Inquiry course had been dropped from the program, and the materials from this course integrated into EDUC 214. In response to concerns of UCC, SOE also moved some concentration courses from the last semester to earlier semesters. This move results in the potential for more electives in last semester senior year.
J. Morse noted that the net result was a reduction in 6 required credits accounted for by 1 credit from EDUC 354, 3 credits from removing the Inquiry course and 2 credits from combining the math and science course.
M. Jensen added that there had been some conversation about allowing students to test out of Math 140-141. These conversations, however, have not progressed far enough for a proposal. The * added to the current proposals was to indicate this idea has been discussed and further discussion is forthcoming. The general descriptions used for the new proposals were described as being very similar to those of the old, but with fewer hours.
R.Vasiliev questioned why the proposals list 6-12 hours of electives.
M. Jensen noted that 6 are needed for completion of the major, but that 12 are possible with the reduced number of credits required, particularly in the last semester senior year (as indicated in the advising guide).
O. Nicodemi asked for clarification regarding the net changes in terms of hours compared to the current program (rather than the originally proposed new program).
D. Showers responded that in general, the current proposal represents a reduction of 6 hours in education, a reduction of 3 hours in required related course, and an increase of 0-6 hours in concentration coursework (this increase resulting directly from State requirements).
M. Jensen then provided the committee with revised childhood certification program proposals. In an overview of these revised proposals, it was noted that many of the changes in the early childhood proposals carried over into the childhood proposal. Specifically, reduced credit requirements from combining math and science, dropping the proposed Inquiry course, and reducing EDUC 354 by one credit. It was also noted that with the revised proposal students with 30 or more hours could elect to combine INTD 203 with 214. The net result of these changes allows students 9-12 hours of electives and completion of the program in 120 hours.
M. Stolee asked if the new proposals still assume foreign language requirements have been met, and sked if the college has data on number of SOE students entering with foreign language.
S. Bailey responded that data had not been collected for SOE students, but overall approximately 60 % of students currently entering the college would meet the foreign language requirement.
M. Jensen noted that the new proposals have elective credits for those students needing to complete the foreign language requirement. She further noted that some incoming students will have AP credit, freeing up even more potential elective hours for completion of language if needed. She then explained that both childhood program proposals could be completed in 120 hours. She summarized by noting that in terms of areas of changes, these proposals are very similar to the early childhood program proposals.
O. Nicodemi then questioned if these proposals still represented an increase in credit requiements over the current elementary education program.
D. Showers responded that they do not, noting that required hours in education are the same, required related hours are down by 3, and that concentration hours are up 0-6 (but in most cases by 3). He also stressed that most students will have a concentration course that will fulfill a core requirement freeing up an additional 3 hours over what is outlined in the proposals.
M. Jensen then distributed revised proposals for the double major (early childhood and childhood). She prefaced discussion by noting that in this program students would be opting for a concentration as well as two certifications and that this option necessitates a heavier load than single certification programs. As such, she then pointed out that this proposal contained 119 required hours. She did note that the advisement sheet now allowed combining blocks 1 and 2. The same reduction in credits as seen in other program proposals were also integrated in this proposal. The basic description of the blocks was not different from other programs except that the additional required field experience had been integrated into course work.
Revised childhood education with special education program proposals were then distributed. The committee was reminded that the state has mandated that special education could no longer be offered as a stand-alone certification and as a result it is now integrated as part of a dual program. It was further noted that such a dual certification necessitated a heavy credit load (as in the past), but that such dual certification programs are very popular among students. In the revised proposal, students with 30 or more hours can combine SPED 231 and INTD 203 with SPED 234 (instructional strategies). It was also noted that content from the Inquiry course (dropped from the original proposal) had been integrated into SPED 234. Reduction in required credits from other courses were the same as other revised courses, with a total credit requirement of 119-120 credits total in the revised program.
J. Morse reiterated that the current special education dual certification programs are restrictive (as is the proposed program) but remain a very popular choice among students.
S. Bailey complimented the SOE on the proposed revisions to the programs. However, she also noted that one area that she felt a credit reduction could have been accomplished in this dual certification program was in the Arts and Career Education course. She then asked if it would be possible to reduce this course to two hours.
M. Jensen responded that there is a field component tied to this course, reducing time allowed for instruction. She added that it is also one of the few courses that addresses careers in arts for integrating students with disabilities into the community, and that this has become more important in recent years.
J. Morse also noted that integrating students with disabilities is one area of the new State regulations that has received additional stress. This course also has two primary components, integration and career education, further hindering the ability to reduce credits.
M. Stolee questioned the need for 6 hours of assessment and teaching approaches (SPED 382-385). In particular she noted that in the workplace, teachers do not normally engage in extensive assessment of special education students.
M. Jensen responded that special education is in fact very focused on instructors understanding assessments done by others (even if the instructor doesn't actually do assessments).
J. Morse added that without adequate ability to interpret assessments, it is extremely difficult to develop learning plans for these students
M. Stolee then asked for clarification about what is covered in SPED 382 that is not covered in 231 and 234
D. Marozas explained that 231 focuses on identifying special education students and does not cover assessment at all. SPED 234 is designed to teach students how to develop learning plans, and the "nuts and bolts" of teaching special education. He added that most special education instructors currently utilize some form of assessment in developing IEPs (individual education plans) for students. He also noted that teachers are now expected to work closely with occupational, speech, and physical therapists; all of whom utilize assessment.
O. Nicodemi asked why, when considering that these students will be attending graduate school very soon after their undergraduate education, some of these more specific courses can't be left to graduate schools.
D. Showers noted that it is not necessarily the case that graduate work will be in the area of special education. Thus, special education courses can not be assumed to be a part of graduate work.
J. Morse noted that the emphasis on special education has actually been reduced in the new proposal because the state no longer allows special education as a stand-alone program. Thus, the courses that are being used in the new proposal are trimmed from a more extensive program and are considered to be basic skills courses. In this regard, the courses do not represent "added on" or new credits.
S. West expressed appreciation for SOE revisions of the proposals. However, he was concerned that the most significant decrease after the revisions appeared to be in content areas, particularly the reduction in math and science methods courses. He questioned the wisdom of reducing credits in these areas noting that in his opinion, elementary teachers could (for example) probably teach very well without a course in foundations of American education, but that he didn't believe they could teach well not having had a course in math and science methods. He added that he was not proposing the removal of foundations of American education, but rather, was questioning why generic teaching courses were emphasized, seemingly at the cost of math and science methods. He then asked if math and science were not topics currently believed to be most deficient in education. He assessed this perceived weakness in the revised proposals as "false economy"
M. Jensen noted that as students move through more technical teaching courses, math and science are re-introduced in these courses. She also noted the mathematics requirements.
S. West suggested that M. Jensen had misinterpreted his question, reiterating that he was concerned with the lack of courses in teaching math and science rather than a lack in math and science content courses.
M. Jensen felt that in education programs, the two are directly related. She further noted that in developing these programs, SOE had to consider many issues. Among those issues were staffing requirements, course content, field experience, working with principals. The current proposals reflect a balance, taking all of these factors into consideration.
J. Morse noted that Geneseo educates good teachers in part because of the core and the concentration. But there is also need to have well-rounded teachers, capable of teaching all types of content. The pedagogy courses teach many aspects that are common to planning of all types of courses. The current programs also contain a good number of math and science content courses (more credits than several other areas). In the pedagogy planning courses, this background in math and science can then be applied.
D. Showers noted that separate 2 hour science and math courses were considered. However, it was felt that a single 4 hour science/math combined course could better utilize resources and take advantage of some common themes between these areas.
T. Bazzett then noted the late time, and that at least one member had to leave the meeting. He then asked if the committee was ready to participate in a nonbinding straw vote (as outlined in the agenda) to determine if the UCC should continue with discussion of these proposals.
B. Brennan asked if a straw vote could be taken over e-mail.
T. Bazzett responded that he wanted a vote today to determine if the committee would move forth with the proposals.
M. Stolee expressed hesitation about participating in even a nonbinding straw vote at the present time.
T. Bazzett responded that past delays had already resulted in the proposals missing their "required" deadline for Senate readings, and as such he did not wish to delay any longer.
M. Stolee responded that she felt she needed time to review the revised proposals further before voting.
R.Vasiliev expressed appreciation for the SOE's revisions and their addition of flexibility and elective hours. In this regard she felt that SOE had responded to some of the UCC concerns and that she would be willing to participate in a nonbinding vote.
T. Bazzett then addressed the committee by noting that the straw vote was proposed for the benefit of the committee. Specifically, he wanted the committee to know whether or not they would be required to continue work on these proposals. He added that he did not want to pressure the committee, but that a backlog of proposals from other departments was building as a result of lack of progress on the current proposals, and that those proposals also needed to be addressed in a timely fashion.
S. West asked what consequences would come of the straw vote.
T. Bazzett responded that support for the revised proposals would allow the committee to move forward with consideration of course proposals. Lack of support would mean that the committee would dispense with consideration of the SOE proposals and move on to other business.
D. Showers pointed out that what was being proposed sounded like a binding vote. Noting that a straw vote is used only to assess opinion, not to determine outcome of an item of business.
T. Bazzett then explained that the idea of the straw vote was to allow the committee to determine if it is worth the time to consider individual course proposals. He added that this was an unusual situation in which the committee could not officially approve program proposals until the individual course proposals required for those programs had been approved. Because of the large number of individual course proposals it would be an immense waste of committee time to approve these proposals with the knowledge that the program proposals lacked committee support.
B. Dixon clarified this issue by suggesting that if the programs appear to lack committee support, then the committee will have to use a different approach to deliberations.
T. Bazzett noted that the outcome of the straw vote was not intended to sound definitive, but that it would determine a new course of action for the committee.
S. Bailey then notified the committee that the Dean's office is not ready to sign off on these program proposals until issues with staffing are clarified. As such, no official approval could be accepted until the Dean's office had cleared the programs for staffing. She further expressed hope that staffing issues would be clarified within the next week.
B. Brennan requested a secret ballot straw vote, considering the potential consequences of the outcome and with particular concern for student members of the UCC.
S. West then noted that in his opinion the revised proposals put forth by the SOE were not so unacceptable as to prevent the committee from moving on individual course proposals. He also expressed hope that in the process of discussing course proposals there may be some additional revisions of the programs. He added that he felt it would be "foolhardy" to dismiss further consideration of the program proposals at this point
T. Bazzett agreed, noting that the straw vote had been proposed at the previous meeting in the wake of lengthy discussion of unrevised program proposals. However, with consideration to the efforts put forth by SOE and the current revisions, he also questioned the potential decision to halt consideration of the proposals.
O. Nicodemi added that she was in agreement with S. West!
T. Bazzett dismissed the proposed straw vote. He asked that the committee members be prepared to move for approval of course proposals at the next meeting.
S. West requested that the next meeting begin with consideration of course proposals and that overviews and presentations be excluded from the agenda.
B. Dixon then addressed the committee noting that after observing the meeting, she had come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that all participants in this discussion will be satisfied with the final outcome. She complemented the will and determination of all participants, but also noted that eventually all those involved will have to "give" a little bit for this process to work. She asked that the participants consider starting fresh with the knowledge that no one individual is going to get exactly what they want in this process. She also pointed out that curriculum is not "cast in stone", and that change over time is anticipated (even expected). She further noted her desire to not intrude on the process, but also a willingness to participate at any time when requested. She commended the SOE for their work and acknowledge the unreasonably short amount of time within which the State had dictated they work. She also commended the UCC for their attention to detail in this enormous process. Noting the abilities of both the SOE and the UCC she expressed confidence that these two bodies should be able to generate a reasonable compromise. She also cautioned that these two bodies do not want all of their work disregarded by lack of compromise, and a final decision left to the Provost's office. She asked that both UCC and SOE keep in mind that, for example, in the case of 1 credit (one way or another) "what is the value to this program and this school for decisions made about that credit".
Meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M.
Submitted byTerry Bazzett