The Core Curriculum at King's is nearly 20 years old. It grew out of a rather typical "ࠬa carte" system of distributed electives in various categories; literature, science, history, philosophy, etc. In the early 1980s, many of the faculty became dissatisfied with the lack of vision and common experience-a unique King's experience-that resulted. A new Core curriculum was formed to address this. It was implemented in 1985 and has been in place with few modifications since. As part of the Strategic Plan, leaders among King's faculty, staff and administration decided that one of the things we should do in the near future is to revisit the Core and decide if any changes need be made.
What is crucial to stress here is that we are only required to ask if there should be changes made. (Faculty Council, Sept 9, 2003) We are not required to MAKE changes. If we as a faculty decide that all is well, nothing changes. If we decide to go to a radically different system, we will tell the administration what type of system we should implement. We, the faculty, make the decisions on curriculum. (If we're obviously crazy, the administration can fight us, and should.)
It is my hope that ALL issues and suggestions be entertained at this time. Everything is "on the table." Make suggestions to me or other members of C&T and we'll soon get a campus-wide discussion going based upon some of these initial seeds of discontent-or content. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Well, not forever, but probably for the next 20 years. What follows are a couple links to documents that may spark some ideas and arguments. If the items aren't active it means I haven't put that part on the web yet. Keep looking for updates and nag me as necessary!
History of The Core Curriculum
Current Concerns and Suggestions (preliminary data gathering in 03-04 AY)
Faculty Survey on the Core: Report to the Faculty Meeting Oct. 29, 2004 The Survey form itself The Written Responses
Another momentous decision by Faculty Council on Sept 9, 2003 was that C&T should begin another daunting task, the review of the SET forms, their use and effectiveness. It has long been noted by faculty and administrators that the 0-5 scale on these forms routinely yield faculty averages in neighborhood of 4.6, with very little variation among faculty. Furthermore, the averages are very similar in all categories. Either we as a faculty are terribly uniform in our excellence or these forms really aren't giving us the discriminating data we would like to have. Playing Devil's Advocate, we'll assume the latter. We can believe we're that excellent, but we can't believe we're that uniform!
Last fall, Dr. Dan Ghezzi, our resident Supreme Exalted Statistician, crunched some numbers for us and produced a report (see link below). We began talking about the issues in our Jan. 30, 2004 meeting. We identified a large number of issues. Stay tuned!
Our current SET form Dr. Ghezzi's Report on current SETs An Interesting Article on Evaluating Teaching (if link fails, go here)