аЯрЁБс>ўџ 35ўџџџ2џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСa №П jbjb‡t‡t ",ээ џџџџџџˆьььььььVžžžž ЊV ъвввввввв‚„„„„„„,ѕRGXАьвввввА‚ььввХ‚‚‚вFьвьв‚‚44"ььььв‚‚‚ьь‚Ц ”YŽРžj‚‚л0 ‚Ÿ‚Ÿ‚‚ьVV$z $VVz CEPP Minutes April 12, 2006 Pat Oles Deb Hall (scribe) Gordon Thompson Matt Hockenos Ruth Andrea Levinson Mike Mudrovic Muriel Poston Beau Breslin Writing Task Force Recommendations Members of the Writing Task Force (WTF) attended the meeting and presented their recommendations to CEPP (see document attached). Discussion focused on the findings of the WTF and their recommendations. The WTF maintains there is a strong need to strengthen EN105 and insure that students are able to complete EN105 before the end of their third semester at Skidmore. Parents expect their incoming students to have freshman composition. Currently there are 50 sections of EN105 (last year there were 35) There is a serious backlog of students who have not had the opportunity to take EN105 in their first three semesters. The English department is unable to staff the Scribner Seminars, all the sections of EN105, and provide all the courses necessary for the major. Several new tenure-track faculty lines would be one way to address the current backlog of students. Employing contract hires (2- or 3-year nonrenewable) to teach EN105 exclusively is another option, which the WTF strongly recommends. Contract hires would not be tenure track faculty lines. CEPP asked the committee if they were prepared to address the concern among some colleagues about the size of the English Department and related concerns about the teaching assignments of the English Department faculty. Can we discuss these issues in such a way that preserves a focus on student learning? Expressing the need for new lines or contract hires or adjuncts may frontload the argument against the recommendations. Michael Marx reminded us that we are not starting from zero. The surveys revealed that the majority of faculty support a continuation of EN105 and want to see it adequately staffed. The WTF suggested that EN105 not be viewed as a part of the English department. Eighty-five percent of the surveys indicated that EN105 should be the centerpiece of the writing requirement. Of the tenure track faculty in English (approx. 20) all but one faculty member teaches EN105. Many also teach Scribner Seminars. Since Faculty are required to teach Scribner Seminars on a 3-year cycle there are just not enough English faculty to cover all sections of EN105 and the Scribner Seminars. Adjuncts are currently teaching many of the sections. Adjuncts cannot be developed and nurtured in the same way that contract hires or tenure-track faculty can. Ongoing workshops, guidelines, and resources for faculty are needed to make sure that all faculty feel comfortable offering significant and helpful comments on students’ writing. A constant influx of new faculty teaching EN105 and the Scribner Seminars require that specific guidelines be in place. The Scribner Seminars, required of all entering freshman, provide an opportunity for faculty to set expectations and set guidelines. Writing assignments are one of the stated requirements of each of the seminars. Surveys the WTF conducted indicate that consistency is needed in teaching writing. Students do not think there is consistency in expectations regarding writing. CEPP asked if new WI courses were recommended for first-year students? The WTF believes that if new WI courses are developed that they need to follow the same established guidelines as the EN105 courses. The task force strongly recommends a capstone writing experience in the senior year along with strong writing intensive experiences during the sophomore and junior years. Judy wanted to emphasize that writing is not appropriate in 100% of all courses. The WTF would like to see that all new courses proposed to the Curriculum Committee state the role of writing in that course and if writing will not play a role in the class then justify why writing is inappropriate. Both the Curriculum Committee and the Department Chair will be gatekeepers in this process. The level of the course, number of students, discipline (science and math for example) and respect for faculty members’ academic freedom are all factors that have to be considered. Guidelines would need to be provided to the Curriculum Committee. CEPP questioned the reliance on the Curriculum Committee and Department Chairs as primary oversight, noting that many courses already in place may not revisit the CC. Chairs vary in their ideas. How will the shift in culture (toward a culture of writing) come about? What are the mechanisms to make it happen? The WTF recognizes writing as a part of the mission of the college and hopes to establish a common culture on campus. Implementing a Writing Director with more authority and continuity than a committee chair would help in establishing and maintaining a writing culture. CEPP noted that there is a cost associated with these recommendations, including faculty development dollars, cost of a director, and contract hires to teach EN105. If we are to proceed with these recommendations it was suggested that we include a provision to require the DOF to allocate resources to this endeavor. What about assessment? The writing of first year students is evaluated after the first semester, not at the end of the first year. What are the goals at the end of each year? Beau is a member of the assessment task force and he said that one of the objectives of the ATF is ongoing college assessment in writing. The Writing Task force has a good deal of data, including a comparison with other colleges, as well as the survey results, which they are eager to share with the faculty. Budget, Academic Needs, and Compensation On other business, Pat and Muriel expressed concern that CEPP may be overestimating the amount of money available through optimization and that CEPP may not have enough information to prioritize new academic initiatives. CEPP needs to recognize that, given an adjustment in compensation, there may be precious little remaining for academic support. CEPP was largely in agreement that our role is to support academic needs even if all of the optimization monies are allocated for compensation. The need for resources, new lines and space all impact faculty. Are we making choices between writing and compensation? Pat strongly objected to CEPP endorsing the prioritization of academic needs without a more extended consideration of the budget, especially the tension between academic program needs, compensation, and financial aid. The large majority of CEPP preferred to back the DOF's recommendations to IPPC regarding the budget given the short time frame and the strong need to recognize academic support. —К‡п р  Ќ­e§ъ~ ѓшлшЮшПшИшЮшЊшПшhzTжhј `5CJOJQJ hzTжhј `hzTжhј `OJQJ_HaJhzTжhј `CJOJQJhиThј `CJOJQJhzTжhј `OJQJhиThNFЂCJOJQJ&8HVky‡”•–—КЛ†‡п р М B C гњѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕњѕѕѕ№ѕббѕѕ Ц& 0`Р№ P€Ар@1$7$8$H$gdј `gdј `gdј `gdј ` ўгджзxyFGђѓDErs89ЎМНde§ў;<щъіёёёёёёёёёёёшёёёёёёёушёшёшgdј `„а`„аgdј `gdј `„а^„аgdј `ъst}~ њёьёььЭь Ц& 0`Р№ P€Ар@1$7$8$H$gdј `gdј `„а`„аgdј `gdј ` 1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %АЅD@ёџD NormalCJOJQJ_HmH sH tH >@> Heading 1$@& 5CJ\DA@ђџЁD Default Paragraph FontZiѓџГZ  Table Normal :V і4ж l4жaі _H(kєџС(No List 6B@ђ6 Body TextCJPJ6P@6 Body Text 2CJ ,џџџџ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™H e ‹˜&8HVky‡”•–—КЛ†‡прМBCг д ж з x y F G ђ ѓ DErs89ЎМНde§ў;<щъst}~ 0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы˜0€€ Ы€˜0€€ Ы€&8HVky‡”•–—КЛ†‡прМBCг д ж з x y F G ђ ѓ DErs89ЎМНde§ў;<щъst}~  08PXQ08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП 08џП 08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џП08џПœж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€œж0cџП€08џП08џП 08џП гъ  !%MUpxŒ“‹‡ЋЏ,„юѕ1 д . 5 ‡ D]hz::::џ@€А*˜pЪџЃh P @џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџGTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial3Times"qˆ№аh{Ѕ&{Ѕ&Фz -Ф№ЅРДД>4_^3ƒq№№џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџzTжџџPat OlesnewuserDeb Hallўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0p˜ЌИШдр№  , 8 DPX`h' Pat Oles.2[ъ0newuserewuewuNormal Deb Hall.22ъ0Microsoft Word 11.2@FУ#@ZћЖ:xЦ@ZћЖ:xЦФzўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hpŒ”œЄ ЌДМФ Ь с'91ЖЖвљ- _  Pat Oles Title ўџџџ !ўџџџ#$%&'()ўџџџ+,-./01ўџџџ§џџџ4ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF"s9xЦ6€1TableџџџџџџџџџџџџŸWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ",SummaryInformation(џџџџ"DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ*CompObjџџџџXObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ"s9xЦ"s9xЦџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8