General Education Implementation Team (GEIT)
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why was the structure of GEIT chosen? That structure—a series of working groups
coordinated by a steering committee—seems overly burdensome and potentially topdown.
The implementation of the revised general education program is a multi-faceted, multiyear process. The process will require the time and skills of many individuals. The
essential work of GEIT will be performed by working groups, comprised mostly, but not
exclusively, of faculty. The working groups will tackle specific issues that might be
difficult to address in a focused fashion in other settings. Their work will need
coordination and guidance, especially as unforeseen and/or common issues arise. Without
a steering committee to support their work, groups might work in silos without effective
collaboration and communication and might unintentionally move off task or get behind
schedule. The steering committee will include three senior administrators with faculty
rank, a student, three staff members, and fourteen faculty members. The fact that twothirds of the steering committee is comprised of faculty reflects the purview that faculty
exercise over the curriculum. A similar structure was chosen for the Periodic Review
Report (PRR) team and for the College-Wide Assessment Committee and School
Assessment Committees. Both efforts have proved successful.
2. Why are staff members on the implementation team if the faculty exercise purview over
the curriculum?
Some of the working groups will tackle issues, such as transfer agreements and degree
audits, that explicitly concern the day-to-day work of staff. In addition, as many as three
faculty/staff working groups will include one staff member each. Those groups—global
awareness, experiential, and mid-career reflection—may touch on non-curricular issues,
such as the logistics of language testing, that these staff members are equipped to address.
In addition, providing exceptional curricular and co-curricular experiences for our
students is the concern of everyone at Ramapo College. Thus, including staff members,
where appropriate, underscores their importance to a Ramapo education. That having
been said, only tenured/tenure-track faculty may officially propose courses.
3. Why did you call for faculty volunteers rather than simply going to the convening group
most closely aligned with a course or category?
General Education Task Force II operated under the guiding principle that the revised
general education would serve as an invitation for faculty participation. In that spirit, the
call for volunteers was issued. In addition, it is not a foregone conclusion that a particular
convening group will own a specific course or category. In fact, many of the
categories/courses lend themselves to interdisciplinary approaches, and in the final stages
of its work, the task force intentionally renamed some categories to expand the potential
representation of disciplines. That having been said, two courses—FYS and CRWT
102—do not have working groups. FYS and CRWT 102 are current general education
courses with relatively little to do to prepare for the launch of the revised general
education program. The Vice Provost communicated directly with the
coordinators/directors of those courses the day after the call was issued to outline the
work that needs to be accomplished and to offer support and guidance. Their work,
including revisions (if any), will be communicated through the existing governance
system.
4. Who will select the working group members from the slate of volunteers?
The Vice Provost will collect the names of the volunteers and communicate those names
to the steering committee, which will identify the working group membership. The
steering committee will likely give preference to tenured/tenure-track faculty with a
commitment to teaching in the GE program, with disciplinary expertise associated with
the category and outcomes, and with a track record of working collegially and effectively
to achieve institutional goals.
5. What will happen once the working groups have completed their tasks?
Most of the working groups will tackle curricular issues, such as new or revised courses.
As always, new or revised courses must go through the full governance system. That is,
new or revised courses will go back to the convening groups associated with the
existing or proposed courses’ subject codes (e.g., INTD), move through the respective
unit, and go to GECCo, ARC, and the Provost for final approval. In other words, GEIT is
designed to augment the existing governance system under these special circumstances,
not to replace it.
6. What happens if a working group sends a course to a convening group and the convening
group does not support the course?
As always, the convening group exercises the prerogative not to approve a course. The
same holds true for the unit/dean, GECCo, ARC, and the Provost.
7. How was the GEIT process communicated prior to the call going out in mid-December?
The Vice Provost met with FAEC (including one additional time just after the call was
issued); shared the process with General Education Task Force II, GECCo, ARC, and the
Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs; and led a faculty forum
on the issue.