STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE GENERAL EDUCATION DOCUMENTS

The campus-wide debates and faculty discussions that informed the development of the General Education Requirements justify the documents approved by the Council.  The burden of proof lies with those who would overturn the compromises reached, and represented in Documents 95-19Rev and 95-20Rev.  The arguments presented against the current requirements are not supported by the evidence and historical record of the last three and one-half years.  Arguments cited include the following:

- "The issue of general education is of sufficient importance that all faculty should be included in the process of its development."

-- All drafts of each document were shared with all faculty, and feedback was requested.  The Task Force held three town hall meetings, and two meetings with all academic department heads and program directors, during which each component of the program was discussed.  In the department heads/program directors meetings, votes were taken on several proposed revisions, each of which failed to receive a majority vote.  These included the separation of science and technology and the addition of three hours of science requirements, the requirement of a foreign language, and the elimination of the "wellness" requirement.  Several of these revisions were proposed as amendments during the Council's deliberations and were not approved.  In short, the concerns of all faculty were heard and every effort was made to address those concerns in a manner acceptable to the majority of the faculty.

- "We don't need a core."

--While the importance of the student's major is undeniable, it is not the whole of a college education.  In addition to the need to achieve depth in a specialty, there is a need to achieve a well-rounded education - one which contains the basic skills that society expects of an educated person and the breadth of knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences required for a productive life.

--There are 20 general education programs on the campus, with no clear philosophical or conceptual foundation or framework.  As a result, there is potential for little commonalty among our graduates with respect to basic skill and understanding of humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.  Is there evidence that our students are inadequately prepared as a result?  No hard evidence, but most of us believe we could be doing a better job.  Do we know that the proposed program will better prepare them?  No, but we have every reason to believe it will -- if implemented with creativity and commitment.

- "It is ill defined--no courses are identified yet."

--When the Task Force attempted to identity potential courses to meet various requirements, department heads and program coordinators told the Task Force that that was not its role.  The Task Force accepted the will of the majority and set out to develop the "requirements" as guidelines for use by an elected body of faculty representatives.

- "The core lacks rigor."

--"There should be a foreign language requirement."

--"The writing requirement is inadequate."

--"The science/technology requirement is inadequate.  There should be more science."

--"Eliminate the wellness requirement."

--The Task Force does not disagree with the request for foreign language, more writing and more science.  But, those calling for more science made it clear they would not accept foreign language.  Those calling for technology made it clear they would not accept a stronger writing requirement.  The Task Force realized that a compromise would be needed--one which was even a compromise to its members.  The compromise was accepted by a majority of department heads and program coordinators.

- "There are too many required courses."

--As noted above, there is no effective way to address the concerns of those who want more requirements and those who want less.  We must remember that all lose when none compromise, with our students facing the greatest loss.

Having listened and responded as best we could, we have developed a program which presents a challenge to all of us.  We believe the program provides sufficient flexibility to address its perceived limitations.  Should that not be the case, one or more components can be revised.  We believe those faculty who dare to be creative and collaborative in the articulation and implementation of the requirements within their academic programs will see the flexibility and will find strategies for addressing the perceived limitations.  In short, we believe our colleagues are up to the challenge and we look forward to working with them in our mutual goal of educating our students for the challenges they will face in the 21st century.

-The General Education Task Force

*** Comments submitted by faculty are posted on the General Education Bulletin Board.