In her latest message, Dr. Leland offers the following rationales for the Strong Foundations General Education Core Curriculum Initiative:
"The Board of Regents’ interest in restructuring the USG Core Curriculum Framework at this point in time is linked to the University System’s recently adopted strategic plan, which calls for renewing “excellence in undergraduate education to meet students 21st century needs.” This plan states that undergraduate education “should be a transforming experience for students” and also notes, “each generation anew must re-examine and define the value of the liberal arts education in contemporary circumstances.” "
[Where is evidence that the current core curriculum does not provide excellence in undergraduate education relevant to the 21st century? Does our current curriculum not provide a transforming experience? I say it does. It is similar to a core curriculum that I experienced that was transforming in my life and my view of the world. Also, I see evidence of transformation in the lives and viewpoints of my students.]
"More specifically, the Board of Regents has asked us to present for its consideration a USG Core Curriculum Framework explicitly focused on competencies that will enable our students to work, live well and lead in the technologically interconnected global environment of the 21st century. Regents are aware of levels of student performance on the Regents Test and also national studies that indicate a need to ramp up expectations with respect to students’ understanding of concepts and new developments in science and technology, their abilities to apply knowledge in real-world situations, their understanding of global issues, communication skills, analytical and quantitative reasoning, etc.. See for example the study at http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf."
[The Regents Test does not assess five of the six knowledge and skill areas listed as examples. It only assesses reading and writing. Furthermore, it does not and is not meant to assess student gains in reading and writing as a result of the core curriculum. It is not administered as a pretest and is administered too early in the curriculum to be a fair assessment of the core curriculum. Mostly, it assesses skills developed before college, and our students’ performance on the tests reflect more our admission standards than the quality of our core curriculum.
The national study that she cites is a good source for information about learning outcomes that should be emphasized in a core curriculum. I believe that our current core curriculum covers the learning outcomes that the report advocates. If data shows that it is lacking in any area, let’s look at that and see if the curriculum can be modified and improved. Importantly, the report lists several major knowledge and skill areas that should be covered. It does not specifically recommend that any one of them (such as awareness of global issues) be elevated above the others.}
Dr. Leland refers to Models A and B as being “very preliminary,” “first stabs” offered for our consideration. I am relieved. The facts that both models include global awareness as the main theme, that there was no suggestion that other models might be offered in the future, and that a final model is to be selected by January 2009 led me to believe that there was a high probability that something like Model A or B would eventually be adopted. It would be interesting to know what other models are being considered or are still on the table.
Dr. Leland offers this explanation of why the System is not offering data to support the need to change the core curriculum: "But in order to meaningfully assess how well the current core curriculum framework is preparing our students to work, live well and lead in the globally interconnected world of the 21st century, we must have first determined what knowledge and abilities (“competencies”) would count for us as best preparing them for this future. The current USG Core Curriculum Framework was not created based on explicit answers to this question and does not include a common set of measures against which we could assess system-wide its strengths and weaknesses."
[A long list of specific “learning outcomes” in the current core curriculum is available at http://www.usg.edu/academics/programs/core_curriculum/outcomes.phtml. I concede that some of the specific learning outcomes are difficult to assess, but I hope that we won’t limit learning outcomes to things that are easy to measure. Importance of learning outcomes is not correlated to ease of measurement. Also, I don’t see any learning outcomes on the current list that are more difficult to assess than some of the “threads” in Models A and B (e.g., non-verbal communication, ethical thinking, teamwork, visual communication, and creative thinking). At least the learning outcomes in the current curriculum are clearly defined and specific.]
Our current core curriculum is not harming our students. Any problems with it do not constitute an emergency. There is ample time to collect data, discuss, consider, and reflect on what we are doing. I propose that we stop and start again. Put everything back on the table and restart the clock. Let’s spend six months to a year discussing among ourselves and with all interested parties what it is that we want our students to gain from the core curriculum. This should not be a discussion among members of a small, select group. We should hold open forums on every campus in the university system. (MCG was excluded from representation on these committees because they do not offer the core. Are they therefore not interested in what our students learn in the core?) Based on the consensus from this process, a committee should select learning outcomes that are most important to most interested parties. Next, we should spend a year assessing how well the current core provides for those learning outcomes. If the current core is found lacking, only then should we begin exploring revision, overhaul, or replacement of the core. This is a big job. Let’s start over, start right, and do it the right way.
Brian Schwartz, Professor of Biology, Columbus State
Curriculum is a faculty responsibility. The responsibility to shape and revise curriculum, including the core curriculum, lies with the faculty. Any effort to shape and revise curriculum not based in faculty governance is not leadership but tampering.
Malinda Snow
Associate Professor of English
Georgia State University