CAPC Minutes 1/25/13

Curriculum and Assessment Policy (CAPC)

Meeting 1/25/13

I)  In Attendance: Susan Steele, John Swinton, George Cazacu, Brian Mumma, Cara Meade, Ryan Brown, David de Posada, Kay Anderson, Steve Elliott-Gower, Julia Metzker, Joe Mocnik

II) Establishment of quorum

III) Approval of November 30, 2012 Minutes – Unanimously approved

IV) Approval of Agenda – Unanimously approved

V) Unfinished business

a.   

MAT in Early Childhood Education     

In-depth discussion. This proposal has been lost in the pipeline for over a year.  It was approved by CAPC in Jan 2102 so this makes it a year, almost to the day since it has been considered and approved.  It was entered into the Senate database yet fell through the cracks somehow. 

It is now on the table for our review.

Discussion.

Motion to approve.

Seconded.

Further discussion - The proposal before us now has been amended.  A committee member requests a new signature sheet, signifying approval by all parties involved that the new (amended/updated) proposal is the one that should and will go forth. Then, CAPC should vote again on the amended proposal.  New concerns were voiced regarding the proposal that weren’t necessarily concerns a year ago. [College of Education Dean was consulted].  Concerns were discussed in detail.

Discussion- We are in a time crunch. Can this vote to send this forth to Senate occur electronically so that it won’t be tabled for a month?  Committee agreed that an electronic vote would be appropriate.  Voting will be conducted via Survey Monkey. Votes must be cast by Thursday, Jan. 31.

b.  GCY course assessment 4th hour successes - open discussion based on November discussion. We will continue this discussion in light of the credit hour discussion that has gone to APC.  The 4^th hour is in addition and beyond and should be regarded as one of curriculum, assessment, value, quality, and distinction to us.  Please lets not let this escape the purview of CAPC after the policy has been set.

VI) SoCC

a.  SoCC investigated the use of ‘The Cube’ as the name for our core curriculum.  The Provost disagreed that faculty can name a curriculum and decided that our core curriculum will not be named ‘The Cube’.  Discussion ensued.  In terms of naming conventions, what will make our core distinctive? (an original charge of the UCC)  Do we value naming our core in the near future? What role do faculty play in naming our core? How can we go about doing so if we so desire?

VII) New Business

None

Adjourned 3:14