SUMMARY  REPORT

                    Edison State College CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
           FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 2010,  at 1:00 pm in Taeni Hall, S - 117

Action Item # 1

Proposal:  Associate Dean Kim Gresham, Professor Marty Ambrose, Academic Services Manager Pam Mangene, Judith Grasso, Monique Ward and Professor Mary Conwell proposed a revised Curriculum Committee Process and revised Curriculum Committee Critical Deadlines. The applicable date would be September 1, 2010 of the Fall 2010 Semester.

Explanation:  These updates and revisions meet the emerging needs of Edison State College as it transitions into a comprehensive, bachelor-degree granting institution.  Vice Chair and Professor Jennifer Grove asked about the February date, and Ray Medhurst responded that February is to make sure there is inclusion in the college catalog.  For Curriculum Process # 2, Vice Chair Grove asked if the last sentence-Please note that syllabi are no longer included with the proposal-applied to new courses.  It was agreed that here there needed clarification to SAC.  Vice Chair Grove also wanted a visual flow chart, and Academic Services Manager Pam Mangene pointed out that there is a flowchart.  Vice Chair Grove then suggested a checklist for the whole process and elaborated that there might be different checklists/timelines for programs, new courses, and existing courses.  Pam Mangene agreed that a checklist is a great idea.  Professor Myra Hale observed that each part of the process needs several weeks for review.  Professor Hale was concerned about the last sentence in CC Process #3 discussing proposal rejection. Professor Hale wondered if a proposal can be rejected outright and not be reconsidered. District Director of Institutional Effectiveness Kevin Shriner suggested rewording the sentence in question so that if a proposal needs revision, it is resubmitted. Regarding CC Process #1, Dean Tom Rath noted that on some Edison State campuses there are no full-time faculty in certain areas.  Chair Mary Conwell noticed that there were some incorrect dates on the CC Critical Deadlines.  Professor Don Ransford worried about pressure on faculty.  Dean Rath spoke about how sometimes the state comes down with a course number change, which would be an FYI to the Curriculum Committee.  Professor Ransford needed clarification about the February deadline.  Professor Dave Rohrbach was concerned, regarding CC Process #1, that faculty members were not being approached, and he wondered what type of full-time faculty endorsement was being referred to in CC Process #1.  Professor Lisa Rice stated that it does not matter if branch campus faculty endorse a proposal because they are outnumbered by the Lee Campus faculty.  Professor Rice recalled that at one time it was going to be one vote, one campus.  

Recommendation:  On a Voice Vote, the Proposal was Accepted with Minor Corrections.

Status:

Action Item # 2

Proposal:  Associate Dean Kim Gresham, Professor Marty Ambrose, Academic Services Manager Pam Mangene, Judith Grasso, Monique Ward, and Professor Mary Conwell proposed modernized Curriculum Committee Proposal Forms.  The applicable date would be September 1, 2010, of the Fall 2010 Semester.

Explanation:  The modernized CC Proposal Forms facilitate efficiency in the process of submitting proposals to the Curriculum Committee because they are easy to use and eliminate the complexity and confusion of the earlier versions.  Vice Chair Jennifer Grove wrote, “Along with Word 2007 being mandatory, not all browsers work. Mozilla for sure doesn’t, Internet Explorer had problems from campus, but Chrome works well.  The notes on the Critical Dates obscure the dates.  The checklist is great…All the rest look inclusive. Why are the Registrar Important Dates in the Curriculum Process folder? ”  Vice Chair Grove suggested “including SCNS information (that it’s in the Manager or give website) for course prefixes and numbering on whom to call to verify.”  Professor James Ward had the following concerns.  “Do we want the minimum grade of prerequisites default to ‘D’?  If no grade is entered, should this default to ‘C’?”  Professor Sabine Maetzke suggested, “Provide an indentation for questions that are related to the question above.  For example, ‘if so, explain’ should be shown as a subsection of the above question.  Just a simple change, but it may make it a little easier to follow along.”

Recommendation:  On an Electronic Vote, the Proposal was Accepted.

Status:

General Discussion

Professor Marty Ambrose praised Judy Grasso’s contribution.  Professor Ransford thanked the subcommittee members for their hard work.  Chair Conwell expressed appreciation for the wonderful job Monique Ward did modernizing the forms.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Conwell, J.D.
Chair of Curriculum Committee