Joint Meeting of CEPP and Curriculum Committee

March 22, 2000

Present: Sandy Baum, Susan Bender, Gerry Erchak, Kate Graney, Ann Henderson, Chuck Joseph, Rob Linrothe, Mark Manilov, David Peterson, Monica Ravert-Richter, Paty Rubio, Joanna Zangrando

Susan Bender articulated three goals for the meeting:

1) To make a decision about whether the class size caps should be defined in terms of ranges

2) To discuss how it would be possible to negotiate within those ranges

3) To decide exactly how the committee would make its recommendation and what that recommendation would be

The group discussed advantages of defining a range. It would allow more flexibility and might diminish the problem of wait lists. The range will be for levels of courses. Each individual course will have a specified cap. The ranges should not be so large as to generate inequities across departments. The ranges are designed to be flexible. Department chairs could negotiate with the Dean of the Faculty and/or Curriculum Committee about modifying the caps.

The main goals of the system are to improve conditions for pedagogy, to allocate resources more efficiently, and to increase workload equity. We discussed the particular problem of caps in courses with multiple sections offered at some popular and some not so popular times. This is the sort of issue that will be handled through negotiation and flexibility.

In some cases, caps for courses at particular levels may be adjusted as long as a reasonable number of seats are offered in a department. The committee agreed to propose the following ranges for class size caps:

100 level 32-38

200 level 27-33

300 level 18-22

We discussed the problem of required senior seminars and the circumstances under which additional sections should be added. Several options for proceeding were suggested. An open forum to discuss the issue was suggested, but the conclusion reached was that Sue will email Academic Staff with the proposal and then we will announce the plan at the April faculty meeting, allowing questions. This proposal does not have to be voted on by the faculty because it is administrative policy. To the extent that it is educational policy, the committee believes it falls within the limits of decisions delegated to CEPP and Curriculum Committee.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Sandy Baum