Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)

Minutes 2/26/04

(revised 3/23/04) 

Present:  J. Manzella, C. Wieder, J. Feng, G. Kowalczyk, G. DeJarnette, R. Glinka, H. Podnar, J. Tait, C. Coron, B. Eldridge, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, N. Henderson, M. Shea, E. Schmitt, M. Thompson, N. Chrissidis, L. Bier, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Burke, K. Gatzke, K. Cummings, K Buterbaugh, C. Novosad, S. Jackson, C. Dellinger-Pate, W. O'Brien, C. Barrett, J. Mielczarski, B. Butera, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro 

I.  Call To Order 

The meeting was called to order by J. Tait at 9:40 a.m.

II.  Announcements 

There were no announcements. 

III.  Dean Fredeen's Presentation on the Response to the BOT Resolution on Student Preparedness 

Dean Fredeen reported that a SCSU committee started reviewing the BOT resolution on student preparedness in Fall 2003.  Specifically, the committee focused on two issues: 

a) English and Math requirements for new students

b) New and diverse ways of performing placement for students 

During the committee's deliberations, the Vice President remarked that SCSU had already taken steps to tackle English and Math preparedness in the last five years, on the basis of a UCF resolution. 

Dean Fredeen reported that the BOT resolution was a step in the right direction, and she did not view it as an infringement on faculty rights with regard to the curriculum.  She also mentioned that the committee preferred to speak of measures for student "proficiency" rather than of "remedial" measures.  SCSU has now completed the conversion to Accuplacer for all Math placement exams.  However, there are not enough  computers to hold placement exam sessions for large (600+) groups.  Ten placement exams have been scheduled with a limit of 200 students per exam.    

Dean Fredeen reported that SCSU's Proficiency policy for Fall 2004 has now been sent in a letter to all current students.  This letter explained the proficiency policy for entering students and the impact of this policy on the current students.  Specifically, most of the MAT 095, MAT 100, ENG 098, and ENG 100 sections in Fall 2004 will be reserved for entering students.  Therefore, current students who have not taken the placement exam and/or not taken composition and/or math should plan to do so by the end of the summer.  New students will have to sign a contract if they place into ENG 098 and/or MAT 095.  This contract states they understand and agree to abide by the terms of the SCSU proficiency policy.  The plan foresees that by July 1, 2005, all incoming students will have to take placement exams before matriculating.  In response to a question, the Dean reported that this policy will also apply to transfer students. 

Dean Fredeen further remarked that the number of courses available remains a big problem.  For this reason, starting in Fall 2004, the University will offer more sections of ENG 098, ENG 100, MAT 095, and MAT 100, and several of these sections will be reserved for incoming students. 

The University has also decided to reduce tuition and fees for non-credit bearing, summer courses.  In response to a question regarding the reasoning behind the reduction, Dean Fredeen answered that such a measure was taken in order to make these courses more attractive to current students, who otherwise may seek such courses outside the University. 

Dean Fredeen requested that UCF deliberate on the following issues: 

a) English 098 and MAT 095: How should the University reward the effort students put in English 098 and MAT 095?

Should the grades count towards the GPA, but without the course bearing credit? 

A member asked if the students would be wasting money by failing such a course.  Dean Fredeen answered that this was true. 

b) Do our majors require too much Math? 

Dean Fredeen mentioned that the BOT wants us to review Math requirements for all majors. 

This remark caused concern among UCF members.  One member remarked that UCF had already sent a letter to the BOT outlining the ways in which decisions on requirements for majors are made by each individual major. 

c) Could UCF look into SAT scores? 

SAT scores in 1999 had a cutoff score of 500 for entering into 100-level courses.

The Dean also reported that there are already two CSU committees reviewing SAT scores for English and Math. 

Further, the Dean announced that there is web page facilitating registration for placement tests.  Students will be notified of their grades by email.  The Dean requested that faculty review the web page for accuracy, and that they report any problems to her. 

Dean Fredeen added that SCSU had intensified its outreach to high schools.  This had proved successful for English.  The Math Department will do the same for Math.  The plan is to ask high schools to offer Accuplacer exams during the junior year in high school. 

The Dean emphasized that higher education representatives had no input in the CAPT exam for graduation from high school.  The SCSU action plan suggested the Chancellor request such input. 

Further on the issue of proficiency, the Dean announced that there is deliberation on a contract with Gateway.  Students would be able to take proficiency courses there, in a form of "outsourcing."  This plan would take 3-4 years to implement. 

Finally, the Dean announced that a copy of the report on the BOT resolution on remedial courses would be sent to UCF. 

Discussion ensued.  One member remarked that the Dean was rather too generous with the BOT regarding infringement on faculty rights over the curriculum.  The same member asked that the committee tell the BOT that the curriculum is the responsibility of the faculty. 

Another member asked if SCSU would have any control over the curriculum, were students to be "outsourced" to Gateway.  The Dean responded that in such cases, only transfer credit would be awarded. 

David Walsh reported that in one local newspaper editorial SCSU was called "Dropout University."  He proposed that CSU ask the BOT to "straighten up" SCSU before "straightening up" high schools.  He further called the BOT resolution "total fantasy" and a "ridiculous policy" which would lead to disaster.  He wondered why CSU was cooperating. 

Dean Fredeen agreed that certain aspects of the BOT resolution were problematic, and brought up a hypothetical case of a student with a 3.3 GPA, who may have to leave the University if unable to enroll in remedial courses within the first 24 credits. 

On behalf of UCF, J. Tait thanked Dean Fredeen UCF for her representation. 

IV.  David Walsh, CSU AAUP President 

The floor was then given to David Walsh who reported on the proposal to merge CSU with the community-technical colleges, and on the D.H.E. proposal to mandate general education requirements. 

After introducing himself, David Walsh remarked that he came to UCF with two aims: 

1) To ask for help in opposing the proposal to merge CSU with the community-technical colleges under a single Board of Regents.  This proposal is now pending at the Assembly. 

Prof. Walsh announced that the community colleges are against it, as is CSU, and that UConn is excluded from the merger.  If passed, this proposal would confuse the very different missions of CSU and the community-technical schools.  For example, it would lower the expectations of the CSU curriculum, since community colleges have open admissions policies.   It would also entail contract negotiations with inexperienced negotiators who have little or no knowledge of higher education.  Lastly, Prof. Walsh remarked that there is nothing to be gained from such an arrangement, even in terms of finances for higher education. 

2) To warn UCF that the Department of Higher Education is proposing mandatory general education requirements.  Ellen Beatty has openly opposed this step.  Prof. Walsh asked that we convey to the Vice Chancellor our displeasure at this policy, which he (Walsh) called a "bureaucrat's dream" and a "violation of joint governance" principles. 

Discussion ensued.  One member asked what would happen to contract negotiations if CSU were to merge with the community colleges.  Prof. Walsh responded that contract negotiations would be conducted with a central office. 

Another member asked if there was a sense that the incoming President of SCSU might be supportive of the merger.  Prof. Walsh answered that our BOT and the Chancellor opposed this move. 

On behalf of UCF. J. Tait thanked Prof. Walsh for his presentation. 

V.  Approval of Minutes  

Steering Committee 

There were no minutes to report. 

Notifications Management (NMC) 

The minutes of Feb. 19, 2004 were received.

The motions were put to vote and were unanimously approved. 

The minutes of Feb. 5, 2004 were received.

The motions were put to vote and were unanimously approved, after a brief discussion. 

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) 

The minutes of Feb. 19, 2004 were received.  A motion was made and accepted to table the NPIC motion until the next meeting of UCF. 

Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) 

The minutes of Feb. 19, 2004 were received. 

One member remarked that NCATE had approved SCSU for the next five years with certain recommendations. 

Writing Across the Curriculum Committee (WACC) 

The minutes of Feb. 20, 2004 were received.

The motion was put to vote and was unanimously approved. 

University Wide Impact Committee (UWIC) 

The minutes of Feb. 19, 2004 were received. 

VI.  Adjournment 

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. 

Minutes recorded by:

Nikolaos Chrissidis