Minutes of Combined CEPP-Curriculum Committee Meeting

Monday, March 6, 2000, 8 AM

Present: Sue Bender, John Brueggemann, Joanna Zangrando, David Peterson (chair of CEPP), Gerry Erchak (chair of Curriculum Committee), RobLinrothe, Gordon Thompson, Monica Raveret-Richter, Paty Rubio, Kelly Sullivan '02, Candace Berdichevsky '00, Mark Manilov '00, Ann Henderson, Kate Graney

I. Background: Continuation of discussion on issue of setting enrollment caps for courses.

II. Discussion:

a. The first issue on the table was a question about the actual numbers of courses that would be affected by a potential standardization of caps for courses across the college. Ann Henderson provided data on this issue drawn from Fall 1998 and Fall 1999. From the data Ann circulated, it appears that roughly 15% of 100-level classes open to first year students (35/221, 35/231), 15% of the 200-level classes open to first-year students (14/95, 15/95), and 30% of other 200-level classes (30/90,29/90) currently DO NOT meet the proposed caps of 35 for 100-level and 30 for 200-level courses. Ann also told the committee that at the 300-level, a higher percentage of classes (roughly 50%) currently do not meet the proposed caps of 20. (The numbers and percentages of classes that do not meet the proposed cap limits noted here excludes those with pre-existing constraints such as EW designations, LS, lab sizes, and studio spaces.)

b. After the presentation of these numbers, a general discussion about the utility of standardized caps ensued. Student representatives voiced concern about the potential reduced effectiveness of larger classes. Faculty representatives voiced concern about intellectual and pedagogical freedom. It was suggested that pedagogy workshops concerning teaching strategies for larger classrooms might be a useful tool in the future. A point of agreement was that the ultimate goal of this process was to maximize student choice and effectiveness of teaching/learning while taking into account institutional goals and resources.

c.Having established the numbers of courses that would be affected by a potential standardization of caps across the college, and having reiterated that the common goal of the group was to try to "meet the most students' needs most effectively" the group resumed discussion about the question of WHO, that is, which bodies should be empowered to decide the question of caps on classes. It was variously suggested that the authority to decide caps should remain with department chairs, that the authority to set caps lay with Curriculum Committee, and that the authority to set caps lay with the Dean of Faculty. A consensus appeared to emerge around the idea that these three entities should work together in a sort of "triadic nexus" (OK, OK, so its Rogers Brubaker's term, not mine, but he did win a MacArthur Genius award) to set caps. That is, the group decided that the best decision-making structure in terms of setting-caps would be one that allowed some departmental autonomy (ie, the ability for department chairs to lobby for special reduced or increased cap limits for certain classes), some peer review by elected faculty on Curriculum Committee, as well as input and oversight from the "all-college" perspective of the Dean's and Registrar's office and student representatives. No concrete policy or decision-making structure was decided upon. Some faculty voiced concern that any potential policy or decision-making structure should be submitted to and approved by the entire faculty, and asked whether any changes of this type might need to be reflected in changes in the faculty handbook. Other faculty proposed that some type of review or evaluative process be instituted which would assess the impact that cap-standardization was having on individual departments and faculty.

d. Other issues that remain concerning the issue of cap standardization which were discussed at the meeting without resolution include the following. First, should the group decide to go ahead with a policy of implementing the standardization of caps, what should those caps be ? Many members of the group voiced the opinion that caps should be set as a "desired range", rather than a firm number. The question remains, what should the appropriate cap ranges for each of the course levels be ? Second, should departments be allowed to "bargain" or "negotiate" with total numbers of student seats in classes ? That is, should individual departments be allowed to supersede caps at the 100 and 200-levels in order to maintain lower caps at the 300-level?

e. In terms of Fall 2000, it was decided that the Registrar's Office should ask those departments which have already reconfigured to meet the caps they agreed to in the reconfiguration plans that they submitted to curriculum committee. The question about caps for non-reconfigured classes in Fall 2000 was unresolved. The group decided that while it may ultimately be empowered to set and enforce standardized caps (see point c above), for Fall 2000 only reconfigured classes would be subject to the caps recommended by Curr. Comm. in the reconfiguration plans.

III. Issues for Next Meeting (Wednesday March 22, 8 AM ? ):

1. Sue Bender asked that members of the group think about the potential recommended/standardized caps for the next meeting. Should the group continue to use the caps Curriculum Committee has been using ? If a "range" idea is more favorable, what should the ranges be ? Sue also asked that members think about devising a set of criteria/rationale explaining the proposed caps.
2. b. Further, members were asked to think further about the issue of a decision-making structure for setting caps, and about the question of whether and in what form this new policy on caps should be brought to and discussed by the faculty.

c. Finally, the group also decided that the series of issues relating to faculty role/responsibility form an institutional perspective would be more fully debated at the next meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Kate Graney