Baccalaureate Core Committee

Voting members present: Kathy Becker-Blease, Daniel Faltesek, McKenzie Huber, Matthew Kennedy (remote), Filix Maisch, Lori McGraw, Bob Paasch, Rorie Spill Solberg, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Heather Arbuckle, Aidas Banaitis, Steven Morris, David Roundy
Ex-Officio members present: Faculty Affairs – Heath Henry; Ecampus – Craig Rademacher (remote); WIC Director – Vicki Tolar Burton
Guests present: JoAnne Bunnage, John Edwards, Tam Belknap

11:05-11:40 – Visit with USSI Subcommittee on Curricular Excellence Co-Chairs – JoAnne Bunnage, John Edwards

• Framing of USSI Curricular Excellence Subcommittee – Background; Student Success Initiative is in its third year. Charged with coming up with things that are actionable and can get early success based on recommendations.
• The charge is rather vague. It steered away from Baccalaureate Core (BC) due to effort by the Faculty Senate (FS) Executive Committee (EC). They have no intention to start recommending BC structures. Low-hanging fruit – might have an impact, but easy to get off the ground.  Recommendation – director of BC: asking them to fund a position that the FS already approved. Lengthy report evaluating the BC – did not suggest structural changes, but did recommend learning outcomes (LOs) and a director and team to be funded. Provost funded .5 position to implement LOs, which was previously done. It was not funded as FS requested. Probably more relevant today than in 2010. Last year EC formulated rule that the Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) has decision-making authority and was approved by the FS. Don’t have support for the BCC. Needs to be communications and someone formulating a strategy – no one charged with communications strategy and no one is in charge of the BC website. No unit training for what proposals look like, purpose of BC, etc. Academic Programs & Assessment does a great job, but is understaffed. They need someone to coordinate BC assessment, which accreditor care about. Training units related to accreditation. Need someone to deal with transfer issues. The person could do pre0reviws for proposals. Need an advocate who has an eye on value on general education.
  • Problems that may manifest? Scope of authority that is delineated and policies approved by BCC and FS. Potential issue is budget issues.
• This is through the lens of student success. What does the BC mean to students and fit into their academic journey. 
  • FS already voted on this.
• BCIL formed 2 years ago. A written Position Description was drafted and recommended by different groups.
• In terms of faculty suspicion, a team makes sense from the social sciences and humanities sides. If the BC is restructured, this person(s) would be part of the implementation team. BCC moved to a 10-year schedule for reviews because 7-years was too difficult time-wise. A BC director could assist with these reviews. It would also give a year to assess what is being assessed – looking at the big picture. If there was a team, perhaps there could be a process.
• When Vickie Tolar Burton was the interim director, one reason she was able to implement the BC changes was that she had some intern help. She got CSSA students without having to pay their tuition because they were required to do internships. Perhaps there are interns from other programs who would be interested. They could work with faculty in units to assist them in making changes requested by the BCC.
• Provide training on curricular best practices. New energy within CTL and APA and some collaborations already occurring, there would be new practices. Felt there may be capacity in several areas that would only be an hourly cost.
• Need someone to track those on warning, determine whether it’s decertified, etc., since there is not capacity for the BCC to do that.
  • If a course is not offered in the year it’s being reviewed, the course is not reviewed –a course could go years without being reviewed. BCC does not have the authority to decertify courses. It was stated that there used to be a form that the BCC completes and sends to the Registrar to decertify courses.
• The Provost will do what he feels needs to happen. Likely he would talk with the EC.
• Since the student success target – are there particular hot buttons related to student success and that the provost is interested in? What might a director do to make things easier for advisors and transfer students, then look at how other institutions make things work, or have better ideas? Assessment may also be affected.
• Discussion in USSI that components are not connected, majors, certificates, etc. They are still discussing. There is no overarching structure – best practices may be a structure.
• Involved are quite difficult issues that are handled at the provost’s level – would this person be involved in these issues? 
  • Often it’s related to the HECC and at the state level. Likely individual would not attend state-wide meetings. Having someone who’s knowledgeable is important at the state level. Heath is the representative for LOs at the state level.
• The average faculty member to may apply has no idea of these issues.
• Are there things beyond what has been discussed, are there things that the BCC would like the USSI to discuss?
  • BC is not being delivered efficiently – i.e. right mix and access to BC courses, there are frequently open seats.
• Do assessment to determine what parts are bottle necks that may delay student progress, some courses are not offered very frequently and perhaps have a policy that BC courses shall be offered regularly and determine which courses are undersubscribed.
• Messaging for director – helpful if there is a big splash and part of an organized culture.
• If a team is appointed at a .5 FTE, it may be attractive to some if they didn’t have to give up teaching or research.
• It was suggested that a structure could be faculty who apply as a team, or BC speed dating.
• A presence on campus is also important.
• The co-chairs are happy to take further feedback. The BCC was invited provide feedback to the subcommittee.

11:40-11:50 – Category Proposal

• Discussion Needed
  • ANTH 380 – Contemporary Global Issues
    • Much improved over a previous version. Should think about the way in which this course lists pre-requisites. States “ANTH 101 or Completion of non-Western requirement” – this is not sufficiently open to all students. Instructor lists enforced pre-requisite. His advice is to decide what students should have – perhaps it should be removed from the BC.
    • There is an on-campus and Ecampus, but same instructor. The pre-requisite is a lasting legacy from the former instructor. It’s a Synthesis course and can have pre-requisites. The pre-requisites are BC courses, so there is a gen education dynamic.
    • They can’t say it’s enforced if the catalog doesn’t allow and strongly suggest dropping the pre-requisite. It could say that the student needs cultural diversity, which would make the course open to more students.
    • From advising perspective, they can tell the student that the pre-requisite is not required, but can they be successful if they don’t have the pre-requisite?
      • Approve, with comments for the instructor to update the syllabus