What forces lead to curriculum committee outcomes?

• Use clickers!A. Faculty reputation/popularityB. Preserving collegialityC. Regulatory inputsD. ExhaustionE. Management pressureF. CoercionG. Indifference

Survey Results

Tough love: exploring how to make the “right” curriculum decisions

1. Curriculum committee role2. Academic senate support3. Case studies and strategies4. Conceptual framework on negotiation5. Tie up any loose ends

Gate keeping role of the curriculum committee

• Title 5 Section 55002 gives curriculum committees the responsibility for recommending to the governing board in areas regarding curriculum , including course approval, grading policies, prerequisites, and others.

• Under Title 5, even areas in which decisions are properly made by discipline faculty are subject to processes established by the curriculum committee—for example, section 55050 on credit by exam.

Gate keeping role of the curriculum committee

• Because of this authority under Title 5, the overall responsibility for the integrity of the academic program at the college falls to the curriculum committee.

• Therefore, curriculum committee members, even those who represent specific departments or disciplines, must always see the good of the college and students as a whole as the primary basis for their decisions.

Role of the Senate in Supporting the Process

• Education Code Section 70902 (B)(7) gives academic senates the “primary responsibility for making recommendations in the area of curriculum and academic standards.”

• Title 5 Section 55002 states that the curriculum committee “shall be either a committee of the academic senate or a committee that includes faculty and is otherwise comprised in a way that is mutually agreeable to the college and/or district administration and the academic senate.”

Role of the Senate in Supporting the Process

• Academic senates delegate the responsibility for curriculum given to them by Ed Code to curriculum committees as outlined in Title 5 and should respect curriculum committee processes and decisions.

• Academic senates retain oversight authority for curricular decisions and processes and must ensure that curriculum committees are functioning properly.

Case Study #1• A friendly and charming full-time Art colleague is attending the

curriculum committee for the first time in a number of years. He is bringing forward a proposal to add a vocational multi-media degree to the college’s offerings. He shares with the committee that a valuable set of video production equipment was purchased for the college by an outside organization and he would hate to see the equipment go to waste. Here is the institutional knowledge related to the request:– For a while people have been “whispering in the halls” wondering why

the existing digital photography class has been doing video production when it is not a component on the official course outline of record.

– The vocational faculty were frustrated to learn that a significant chunk of the college’s Perkins money was given to the art program because one course in the art program had a vocational top code.

– The faculty member has not been an active participant in faculty matters.

– Students LOVE the digital arts courses.

What information would be helpful for this discussion?

• (fill in as we go)

What are the potential outcomes of this scenario and what forces would

have led to such an outcome?

Outcomes Forces(fill in as we go…)

Case Study #2

• A long-time part-time faculty member is proposing a new military history course. He teaches the course online at a number of other institutions. None of the professors in the history department are interested in developing the course because they don’t see a need for it in the program and they are concerned about displacing another course on the rotation. The history department has essentially punted the decision/discussion to the curriculum committee because they don’t want to have to say “no” to him.– It is common knowledge that the instructor lacks rigor in his online

courses.– The college board has openly supported the development of online

curriculum.

What information would be helpful for this discussion?

• (fill in as we go)

What outcomes might be experienced in this scenario and what forces would

have led to such an outcome?

Outcomes Forces(fill in as we go…)

Case Study #3The English Department at your college offers an associate degree

applicable, non-transferrable course in Technical Writing. The Business Department has now brought forward a proposal for a similar class, titled “Business Writing,” that would be offered at the same level. The Business Department does not intend for the class to be cross-listed with the English course, but rather plans to offer it separately and for it to be taught by business faculty.

Scenario One: The English Department faculty have been silent

regarding the course proposed by the Business Department, but the dean of the school in which English is included claims that the Business Department course and the English Department course are identical and that therefore the Business Department course is not needed. After reviewing the outlines of the two courses, you conclude that the content and purposes of the courses do indeed show very little difference. The Business Department faculty insists that the course should be moved forward through the approval process.

Case Study #3 part 2 The English Department at your college offers an associate degree

applicable, non-transferrable course in Technical Writing. The Business Department has now brought forward a proposal for a similar class, titled “Business Writing,” that would be offered at the same level. The Business Department does not intend for the class to be cross-listed with the English course, but rather plans to offer it separately and for it to be taught by business faculty.

Scenario Two: The English Department faculty protest the creation of the Business Department course, claiming not only that the courses are similar in purpose and content but that writing courses should be taught by English faculty. After reviewing the outlines of the two courses, you conclude that the content and purposes of the courses are very similar, though the Business Department course does focus slightly more narrowly on writing for business as opposed to other types of technical writing. The English faculty are asking that the course be rejected, while the Business Department faculty insist that it should be approved.

What information would be helpful for this discussion?

• (fill in as we go)

What outcomes might be experienced in this scenario and what forces would

have led to such an outcome?

Outcomes Forces(fill in as we go…)

Case Study #4• Professor Sally Smith, a well-respected, tenured professor of 20 years, in the Art department

has revised the course called The Art of Jewelry Design. She is bringing it forward to the Curriculum Committee for approval. Professor Smith assumes that the course will continue to be listed in the Humanities: Fine Arts area for the Associate Degree Requirements since it was approved for that area 17 years ago. In addition, she would like for it to be included in Area C1: Arts in Art, Literature, Philosophy and Foreign Languages area in the CSU General Education Breadth Requirements.

• The objectives for the class are as follows:– Create individual works by a process of conception, design, execution, finish and presentation.– Select, describe, and use appropriate tools and technology (such as forms, molds, crucible, burn out furnace,

centrifugal casting, rolling mill, and oxy/acetylene soldering equipment) to create art works.– Examine and discuss the historical, cultural and aesthetic aspects of both design and techniques in jewelry. – Explore and describe experimental methods of jewelry casting, fabrication and finish.

• After reviewing the course outline, you don’t believe that there is enough within the COR to

approve the course for inclusion in the GE categories Professor Smith has requested.

What information would be helpful for this discussion?

• (fill in as we go)

What outcomes might be experienced in this scenario and what forces would

have led to such an outcome?

Outcomes Forces(fill in as we go…)

Strategies to “Stand Strong”

• Redefine “standing strong”– Stages of negotiation*

1. Evidence and reason2. Do it because we are friends3. Do it because we are friends and don’t want to be

enemies4. Red button

– Standing strong is refusing to move beyond evidence and reason (Stage 1)

* As synthesized by Jim Kanthank, Chief Negotiator for Washington Education Association during the 80s.

What does stage 1 look like?

• Proposals and concerns relate to evidence– Examples here would relate back to whichever

scenario(s) we use.

Stage 1• Why we need to stay here– It is our professional obligation– Encourages, if not requires, use of regulations and

guidelines– Allows for a more robust debate and encourages

full development of the positions taken on the issue

– Focus of discussion is on the applicability of the evidence and importance of the reason rather than personal wishes

– Builds a culture of evidence

Stages 2 and 3• What they look like in practice:– Members hesitate to bring up real concerns– Some faculty seem to get what they want and

others don’t, but you don’t quite know why– Intimidating feeling, often when an opinion leader

is fronting an issue– Curriculum discussions follow political lines

Stages 2 and 3

• Why they should be actively avoided:– While collegiality is important to the function of the

institution, it isn’t an objective in the regulations– Leads to decisions that may not adhere to minimum

legal and regulatory guidelines– Can lead to horse-trading– Behavior builds on itself and it becomes more and

more difficult to introduce valid evidence in a meaningful way

Why stage 4 should be avoided:

• If the reasons to avoid stage 4 aren’t intuitively apparent to you, it may be a good idea to consider resigning from all shared governance committees as soon as you get back from plenary.– Horrible precedent– Extremely uncomfortable work environment– Lacks professionalism and undermines faculty role

in the institution

Stand strong: Insist on evidence and reason

• Universal application leads to best outcome– Avoids favoritism– Improves culture– Adheres to guidelines– Defensible– Maintain personal integrity

• Although you may not like the position I took on the issue, you know it was based on a fair interpretaiton of the relevant evidence at the time.

• Maintain a willingness to reconsider should additional evidence be brought forward.

That’s all fine in theory, but can it work in practice?

• Strategies to get a discussion focused on evidence and reason:– Ask questions• What Title 5 regulations apply to this issue?• Are there alternative approaches that would

accomplish the same goal for the students?• How has this been handled at other colleges?• What evidence is there that this will work well?• Do you see any downside to what is being

recommended?

It’s easy to accelerate to the “Red Button” and very difficult to decelerate

• A person can be frustrated and stay in Stage 1. Compliment him, you appreciate him remaining calm.

• If evidence and reason are nowhere in sight, consider the following:– Be willing to say: “To be productive we need to bring

this back to an emotion-free discussion.”– If that fails, stop the discussion and bring it back next

week, emphasizing the need to incorporate evidence into the debate.

Can’t get the jerk to calm down?

• Ask the individual how he would describe his current emotional situation with respect dealing with this issue.

• Rather than responding in kind to your emotional state, we will suspend this discussion to give you time to collect your thoughts and gather your evidence so that your position can be fairly considered.

• Remind the group that our goal is to entertain a fair discussion, gathering evidence in support of multiple perspectives. Pressing the red button is not an option.

Stage 1 requires preparation• Are all of the members of your curriculum committee

familiar with Title 5 guidelines?• Has everyone read the PCAH? Do they bring it with

them to curriculum committee meetings?• What is the mission of your school? What are the

strategic initiatives?• Does your faculty discuss program outcomes and

institutional data that would inform curriculum development?

• Is your faculty trained to look up articulation agreements in assist?

Thoughts?

• Can this simplistic model improve outcomes?• Is it consistent with our

professional obligations?• Can it be implemented?