To be approved
FS #10
FACULTY SENATE
APRIL 30, 2009. 3:15 p.m.
MYERS COT 105
Present:
T. Allen, S.A.M. Anderson, K. Bauserman, S. Brake, M. Brennan, H. Chait, B. Corcoran, N.
Corey, L. Cutter, P. Dutta, J. Fine, S. Frey, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, A. Halpern, C. Hoffman,
R. Johnson, P. Jones, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, N. McEntire, M. Miller, G. Minty, C.
Montanez, D. Richards, P. Shon, S. Pontius, M. Sample, T. Sawyer, V. Sheets, E. Strigas,
David Worley, Debra Worley, T. Zaher
Absent:
H. Minniear
Ex officio:
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard, R. English
Deans:
B. Balch, A. Comer, J. Gatrell, T. Sauer, R. Willia
Guests:
G. Bierly, M. Boyer, P. Carino, J. Kuhlman, D. Malooley, L. Maule, M. Murphy, J. Powers,
SGA reps
I.
Administrative Report
President D. Bradley
a.
Budget is looking better than expected. There is about a 1% reduction in base budget.
Some money will go towards capital projects.
b.
Tuition hearing will be at end of the month.
II.
Chair Report
a.
President has forwarded a phased retirement proposal, passed on to FEBC.
b.
Proposal for new position of Vice President for Community Engagement.
c.
Received a formal draft from D. McKee re recommendations from University Health
Benefits Advisory Committee. Accepts most of the FEBC & EC recommendations.
III.
15 Minute Open Discussion
a.
K. Byerman – stated his observations about Foundational Studies program proposal and
faculty involvement. Asked, why the emphasis on expediency of program rather than
quality? Why are changes necessary? Also raised questions about specifics of program
(esp. exceptions from core requirements based on SAT scores or honors program
participation). This is the worst liberal studies program in years.
b.
P. Carino – re proposed Foundational Studies program: Why was the task force even
set up? Objectives are not clear.
IV.
New Business
a.
15-hour Rule (CAAC: 7-0-0, EC: 6-0-3 via email)
1
1)
CAAC approved last year (after conclusion of Senate meetings). Never brought
forward (as “rule” was distributed out as option to colleges), but is a change in
policy that should get Senate review. Policy allows students to transfer in hours
to finish their ISU degree as long as 30 hours taken at ISU (9 at 3/400 level).
MOTION TO ACCEPT: (S. Pontius/S. Lamb 30-0-3)
b.
Name change: School of Graduate Studies (SOGS) to College of Graduate Professional
Studies (CGPS) - (CAAC: 6-0-3, by email; GC: 5-0-1; EC: 6-0-2)
1)
M. Boyer – presented rationale for name change –
 it would acknowledge the diversity of our programs, field work, etc…all
the essential pieces of ISU and School of Graduate Studies.
 it would also allow difference(s) between a college and a school to be
determined without baggage of trying to fit existing “schools” in.
2)
Dean Gatrell – other universities have similar names. The name change also
represents some important areas of growth. Sometimes the use of the word
“professional” can attract more students as enrollment shifts towards
professional development programs. The rationales and motives of students
are different today than 15 years ago. The name change will help to enhance
these programs.
3)
A. Halpern stated that he did not support this resolution per se. Doesn’t this
separate out “professional” from “graduate” but all are post-baccalaureate?
4)
David Worley – CAAC is looking at definitions of schools versus colleges. This
action will allow for more clarifying distinctions to be made.
5)
M. Boyer – suggested that we look carefully at the title – she sees it as an
inclusive title. Our focus is to utilize the title, which is what we are doing now.
MOTION TO ACCEPT: Name Change of School of Graduate Studies to College of Professional
and Graduate Studies. (E. Hampton/S. Pontius 26-6-3.)
c.
Foundational Studies Proposed Proposal (CAAC: 7-0-0; EC: 7-0-1)
L. Maule – presentation of proposal:
1.
She thanked the Senate for this charge given to her and the Gen Ed Task Force.
2.
Proposal reflects various clarifications/studies/changes that have occurred
over/during different reviews by governance bodies, including GenEd Council
and CAAC. She noted that the Gen Ed task force is not the provost’s task force,
but a partnership between the provost and this body (Senate). The task force
took its charge seriously and assured transparency and review by all proper
bodies. This process took two years to complete.
3.
Some ideas were agreed on by all, others were not. However one may feel
about the proposal, all decisions/suggestions came from your governing bodies.
But, most can see how the research people reached the conclusions they did.
There is no question that the paradigm we adopted is different from what K.
Byerman supports or from the traditional canon, but we are less interested in
courses and more interested in learning objectives and ways of knowing.
Comments from Senate/faculty:
2

Foreign Languages program has always been an issue since time of
original proposal – most of the focus being on non-native language,
about which there has not been a consensus.
 S. Lamb expressed his desire for a great deal of structure and rigor in
Gen Ed program.
 H. Chait – re proposal and content – seems to go over the line re process.
L. Maule asked what he would view as “appropriate” content. Chait: We
want to expose students to things that they are not exposed to on their
own. Proposal is devoid of content that students read about and listen.
 C. Hoffman –There should be a basic body of knowledge that each
student should have. But this program removes that. Foundational
studies requirements do not matter for anyone coming in with an
associates (from wherever), and any college can forgo a requirement.
 Dutta - The content of Foundational Studies courses should balance
areas like human logic and math logic. We are lagging behind in
science/math education. Courses are too watered –down. Need to ask
ourselves how we are preparing our students for future employment.
 R. Guell (in response to Chait) noted that he was brought up in a content
driven Gen Ed program, but the century has changed along with our
students. We may have had real philosophy (Hobbes-Locke), but we did
not always see application (or failure to apply) to society. Need to put
things in present social context. Having an ethical understanding is
important. Further, with regard to process vs. bodies of content - We
may never bring bodies of knowledge together, but our students need to
draw the connection. The Foundation program makes sure our students
know about the many ways of knowing combined with their individual
major.
 P. Dutta mentioned that he was mainly talking about the rigor of the
program. Students do need to get involved with culture.
 R. Goldbort - mentioned that he sees faults in current program and sees
many differences. He also stated that he doesn’t view the time spent
on working on the proposal as a long time (per L. Maule earlier
comment). Why not another two years?
 L. Cutter – ways of knowing – teaches people to think. The world has
changed and will continue to change in the future. We need to
encourage our students to “think out of the box.”
 T. Zaher – students don’t need multi courses – need basic math so
students understand materials. If base of course is covered, we don’t
need to get into multi courses. Students will continue to learn in their
specialized area (field).
 M. Sample – how do you envision critical thinking taking place in
Foundational studies courses? L. Maule – it will be a shared
responsibility. However, some people seem to view this separately.
Critical thinking will be infused into courses, not developed. It will be
determined by the pedagogy we use. What about improving student
motivation? L. Maule stated that we envision working with faculty to
3






enhance certain skills. Gen Ed encompasses critical thinking but students
will need to work with faculty to develop certain skills.
D. Richards – expressed his concern re content of program, core
requirements. Distance Ed students may be able to opt out because
course is closed? But non-distance education students may fill up
sections; seems a mockery is being made by what is being proposed. L.
Maule: True, distance ed programs should meet needs of distance ed
students. D. Richards also raised questions about Math 102. L. Maule
mentioned the definition of Quantitative Literacy for the program and
that courses would need a review to assure that it meets definition
(There is no guarantee that Math 102 will be QL course). Also noted that
this is another area in which there is not a campus consensus. Students
are going elsewhere to meet gen ed requirements.
B. Corcoran – I feel there is an inappropriate use of word canon. I am
concerned that the program is being heralded as new canon. L. Maule
noted that she is concern that people believe there is not enough
content. Courses will have content. But there is not agreement among
people about what the core content should be. For instance, some
people may be concerned that there should be certain things governing
economics, whereas, others may not agree.
H. Chait stated that what he is hearing is that there is some basic
content which every person should know/have if we are preparing
people (students) to do a certain job. We have a basic body of
knowledge that students need.
J. Fine – I didn’t see this proposal as all that different. What used to be
Gen Ed is now Foundational Studies? I see this proposal (Foundational
Studies) as the major and primary place where students need to do
critical thinking. Where we put out our professional label, not
vocational label. I see that this as a good effort to bring our Foundation
courses together. Many of the issues being raised were not resolved
with the last (current) Gen Ed program.
C. Montanez – I am concern re quality/quantity of Spanish courses. One
semester of Spanish is not enough. A professor would not be able to
meet his responsibility to his students. L. Maule stated that nonnative language is a very complex issue - on one side exposing student
to a non-native language and on other side fulfilling language
competency requirement (diversity.)
J. Maynard noted that Linda Maule is not the sole author of this
proposal. R. Guell and D. Worley have also been actively involved. He
noted that he has been quiet on this issue because he trusted the work
of the faculty members involved. He mentioned that he felt that the
Task Force did a marvelous job, and he commended them for their
work. He stated that he supports the proposal even though he might
not have agreed with everything in it. He further stated that the
proposed document is not etched in stone. It may change over time as
the world changes. He believes that it is supporting a rigorous program
where teachers can challenge our kids.
4




Debra Worley asked the faculty to ask themselves why we wanted to do
this in the first place. We are responsible for building the courses in
this program; we can build the courses to make the difference we want
in our students’ lives.
S. Lamb – I do not believe our authority has been challenged. L. Maule
and her group asked for feedback. We are responsible for curriculum. I
do think most issues are related to style/substance of language. This is
a foundation that students can learn on – to think critically. Faculty
have been taught not to waiver from content. Cannot modifications
and improvements be made? This is not etched in stone. This is our
authority – this is what we should be about.
T. Zaher – we must be willing to change for the future. Some things we
may need to add/cut out to continue on to survive. Some courses may
need to be sacrificed to achieve other objectives. Extra program
materials may be needed, etc.
L. Maule – stated that she respects the role of the Faculty Senate. With
that being said, you (referring to faculty present) have had a chance to
look at these materials and talk about them. The process was open and
transparent. The Gen Ed taskforce worked in good faith on the charges.
Consider when making a vote what it means to act on good faith.
MOTION TO ACCEPT: Foundational Studies Proposal (R. Guell/Debra Worley, secret
ballot 20-10-1.)
IV.
Old Business
a.
Tenure extension revisions (FAC: 7-0-0; EC: 8-0-0)
Comments/Discussion
1)
Wording of proposal: EC was not comfortable with language (“elect”) in
concert with “open-ended” nature of conditions to allow for an extension.
2)
A friendly amendment was proposed to allow for people to be given less than
normal load in extraordinary conditions. R. Guell declined amendment.
MOTION TO AMEND: (S. Lamb/L. Cutter 15-12-1)
3)
4)
Another amendment proposed.
Sheets suggested that rather than re-writing here, we table.
MOTION TABLED: (H.Chait/T. Zaher 28-0-0).
V.
Meeting adjourned 5:50 p.m.
5