CCVC and Faculty Governance
The need for general education reform at CSB/SJU is supported in the previous sections of this report. Most importantly, input from CSB/SJU faculty, stakeholders, and mission statements have provided the groundwork to begin discussions regarding the needs and outcomes of a revised general education program at CSB/SJU. In addition, an extensive amount of current literature on general education, data from the needs expressed by employers in industry and corporations, and discussions with AAC&U faculty and other institutions undergoing reform at the 2015 AAC&U Institute for General Education and Assessment have helped to mold a proposal for a plan and timeline for the revision of our Common Curriculum.
If the steps and timeline below are followed and resources are provided, the goal is to have a general education curriculum model approved by the end of the spring semester in May 2017. This would include JFS endorsement of process principles and vision & design principles and possible faculty endorsement of the essential learning outcomes by the spring semester of this academic year.
CCVC will send a call for targeted suggestions and curriculum models during the spring semester 2016 with models presented to the faculty at the end of fall semester, 2016. After discussion and revisions of these models, a final model will be voted on in May 2017. Depending on the model chosen by faculty, a timeline for implementation will still need to be developed. A more detailed timeline towards an accepted, revised common curriculum is described below.
As mentioned previously, it is desirable to dedicate a special task force (CCVC) with the role of shepherding the process forward. Thus, CCVC proposes that the JFS give us a new charge (text below). Standing committees will still need to become involved at various stages of the process. CCC may need to consider policy considerations, such as whether introductory courses to a major should count toward general education requirements. APSAC will need to review the assessment protocols. APBC will need to consider the budgetary implications of proposed models. The R&T committees will need to discuss whether participation in the general education program should be more explicitly rewarded in third-year review, tenure and promotion decisions. CCVC will remain a process committee of the JFS, while the other standing committees do their work.