Joint Meeting of CEPP and the Curriculum Committee

Minutes of February 23, 2000

Present: Sue Bender (convener and chair), Kate Graney, John Brueggemann, Joanna Zangrando, David Peterson (chair of CEPP), Gerry Erchak (chair of Curriculum Committee), Rob Linrothe, Gordon Thompson, Monica Raveret-Richter, Patty Rubio, Chuck Joseph, Paul Arciero, Abby Swormstedt '00, Kelly Sullivan '02, Ann Henderson, Jon Ramsey (scribe).

I. Background: The joint meeting was convened by Sue Bender in response to Academic Staff discussions of February 11, 2000, regarding the setting of enrollment caps for courses. The central questions are: a) what pedagogical issues, enrollment resource needs, and space and equipment limitations influence the establishment of enrollment caps? b) what rationales are currently provided and approved for the various caps? c) who has the authority to set enrollment caps?

Sue provided, as background, excerpts from the minutes of the Feb. 11 Academic Staff meeting, an excerpt from the original reconfiguration white paper issued by CEPP and the Dean of the Faculty, and the CEPP subcommittee report on "First Year Student Curriculum Resources" (which was presented to and approved by CEPP in September 1998 and discussed the same month by Academic Staff).

II. Further contexts and discussion:

1) Members of the Curriculum Committee and the reconfiguration subgroup described

historically "approved" caps that emerged through faculty discussions of pedagogy and resources once we moved (in fall 1985) from the relatively simple task of delivering the "area distribution" requirements to the much more structured "liberal studies" curriculum. In the years leading up to the adoption of a new curriculum and after, caps were set by the faculty for LS1 discussion sections, EN103/105/107 and writing-intensive courses, and the LS 2-3-4 sections. During the next decade or so many majors also moved toward more structured and sequenced curricula. Especially during the 1990s we saw use-rates of enrollment slots rise, most critically in a number of 100-level and 200-level courses, along with increased frustrations among students and their faculty advisors as they attempted to plan coherent course schedules. Each semester of at least the past 5-7 years has required the Dean of Faculty and the Registrar to request a number of adjustments upward of enrollment caps in over-subscribed courses and the addition of course sections just to meet the most critical demands. It was also observed that the course crunch has emerged in recent years as one of the major reasons cited by students for their leaving Skidmore.

2) Faculty offered perspectives on perceived and actual enrollment cap inequities, especially those made evident through the examination of reconfiguration plans. These often unexplained inequities affect not only faculty teaching loads but the students' learning experiences. While it is clear that some departments undertake very careful planning of enrollment caps to meet departmental and all-college needs, it appears that other caps are without a particular departmental rationale. There is even unexplained variance among multiple-section courses in the same discipline, and from one semester to the next, that seems to be dictated by individual faculty preference. It was also observed that a number of enrollment caps have been decreased by the departments in recent years, and not always with a larger plan for meeting departmental or all-college needs.

3) Faculty remarked on the skewed use of the time slots across the teaching day and the abundance of two-day teaching schedules as another exacerbating cause of enrollment pressures. They also remarked on the need to add some number of new faculty lines in areas where the enrollment pressures exceed even the best-faith planing efforts. (The Assoc. Dean reminded the group that faculty increases have been promised in many discussions with faculty, but that the 3-4 lines foreseen will not comfortably address all of the enrollment cap and course resource issues.)

4) The student and faculty members of the discussion remarked on the educational desirability of relatively small class sizes whenever that proves possible, the student concern that course caps may increase at the same time that their choice of courses (because of reconfiguration) decreases, the desire of students to retain some wiggle room during the add/drop period in ostensibly closed courses, and the desirability of flexibility (the use of flexible ranges) as the Curriculum Committee approves max caps.

5) A number of faculty commented on the necessity of "someone's" observing the broader institutional patterns of course availability and enrollment equities and the need for "someone" to manage such broad questions of the college's academic resources. Whatever the structure for arriving at such decisions, the faculty within the departments and the elected faculty representatives should be closely and powerfully involved with the Dean of the Faculty (it was observed that this is what the Dean of the Faculty has been trying to bring about during the past two years through conversations with CEPP and the Curriculum Committee).

III. Remaining issues, questions, and requests:

1) Faculty who have not been working directly on the reconfiguration reviews would like to see more of the enrollment data confronting the review groups (the Registrar will supply summary data at the next CEPP/Curriculum Committee discussion).

2) Faculty believe that the faculty at large should receive even more information about the broader institutional issues regarding academic resources.

3) The question of optimum enrollment caps might also be examined as departments present reconfiguration plans. Are there caps too high to meet the promise of Skidmore learning opportunities for students? If some caps must be higher than we would desire, are there creative means of deploying faculty and student time to enhance the teaching and learning experience? (Some of the reconfiguration proposals show evidence of such creative thinking regarding flex crediting hours, shared teaching responsibilities, and learning enhancements through discussions, research, special topic sessions, site visits, etc.)

4) A number of discussants remarked on the need to examine the workload complexities of overseeing theses, independent studies, and internships, effective use of the full course schedule, and the ongoing conundrum, for both students and faculty, of early-morning classes.

5) It is clear that the "equity" of students' leaning experiences in the various disciplines, electives, and required areas deserves at least as much consideration as the equity of faculty teaching loads.

6) All agree that the next joint meeting of CEPP and Curriculum Committee

(March 6, 8 a.m.) should examine some summary data on enrollment cap issues (to be provided by the Registrar), should consider ways to bring more faculty into a better informed discussion of the local and college-wide issues, and should expect an expanded breakfast menu. In the meantime, we will report the basic substance of these discussions at the next Faculty Meting (March 3).