Faculty members protest core curriculum revision

Armstrong faculty members have united in opposition to suggestions of a revised core curriculum. As of yet, they are the only consolidated group among the University System of Georgia (USG) to express concerns. On Feb. 3, 45 representatives of learning institutions around Georgia gathered in Atlanta to discuss a revision of USG's core curriculum. Two conceptual models that could frame the design of a new core emerged from that meeting: "Framing World Views in a Global Context" and "From Self to Global Society." Dr. Mark Finlay, assistant dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, who represented Armstrong at the Board of Regents, said the group received parameters to work within while brainstorming for new ideas. He added that "putting more 'global' issues into the new core seemed to be a priority." Some of these guidelines included providing "flexibility to institutions for implementing a curriculum responsive to their student populations and missions," "focusing on written and verbal communications" and "quantitative reasoning." A new buzzword was "WOVEN" communication, which stands for "written, oral, visual, electronic and non-verbal." Dr. Richard Nordquist, director of liberal studies and faculty development, said when faculty members learned of the developments at the April 4 Faculty Forum, many complained about the way the curriculum revisions were created. "No one's objecting to revising the core; that's done traditionally every 10 to 12 years anyway, but it's the top-down approach," Nordquist said. He added that part of the accreditation of the university is based on an understanding that the faculty has control over the curriculum. At the end of the forum, Nordquist offered to draft a resolution based on wording that other academic groups had already put forward. On April 14, those present at a faculty meeting unanimously approved a resolution in which the faculty members stated they "have grave reservations about the Systemwide process of reevaluating the core curriculum, and we strenuously object to the absence of adequate academic representation in the review process." Nordquist said any objections to the resolution concerned wording, not the basic premise of the document. It was posted online that day at www.georgiacorecurriculum.org, a Web site created as a forum for USG faculty members who are concerned about the project. "The fact is that they were talking about planning this restructuring of the core, but there was no evidence that they had ever assessed the current core; how good, how bad, how effective or ineffective it was," Nordquist said. "Nobody's defending the present core … it's more like, 'look, before you engage in large-scale changes, make sure you do a study' … faculty by definition are people who do research and who act not on impulse or the 'flavor of the week' but on a study of the problem." There is also a petition online at www.petitiononline.com/corecur/petition.html addressed to USG Chancellor Erroll B. Davis, Jr. and the Board of Regents of the USG. The petition urges the chancellor to "end the current Strong Foundations process and to engage in a genuine critical review of the current core curriculum." Of the 407 signatures on the Web site on April 19, 25 are from Armstrong faculty members. "I think we're maybe a little early on getting worked up on it, because what finally happens will probably be a lot different from what we have on the web right now," Finlay said. "It's a long way from a nebulous idea to actual deans paying for courses." Finlay said he has not signed the petition because he believes he should remain neutral as a representative of the university. "Those two models were crafted so hastily and with so little attention to real students and real faculty and real universities. It was all nebulous talk without any thought of what does it mean," he said. The group didn't take into consideration whether students would take those courses, whether the faculty would teach those courses or if the deans would pay for those classes. Finlay added it makes sense to speak up with concerns, as it does appear to be a "top-down process." Edwin Richardson, assistant professor of English, has signed the petition. "It's the general principle of not having core decisions handed down from on high," Richardson said. He added that situations such as these put him immediately on guard for protecting the liberal arts. Dr. Dorothy Leland, president of Georgia College and State University and leader of the Strong Foundations group and Chancellor Davis were not immediately available for comment. "There are times when you can compound an error by keeping silent," Nordquist said. "We're [Armstrong faculty members] not known as a rabble-rousing group in Atlanta, so we hope that this message will resonate."