¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ

MINUTES: Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate

General Meeting, Tuesday October 18, 2022, UMC 382/4/6, 3:30-5:00pm

In attendance: not noted due to lack of administrative support

Chair’s Remarks:

The chair provided an update on the current salary process, including annual merit reviews and compression raises. There is a 3% campus raise pool. The Provost will take no skim from this – it will go entirely to the College. The College plans to take only a small skim to address the need for better Chair’s raises, as well as any grievance issues. Thus it will be up to the departments to address any compression issues at the local level. The College consulted with the ASFS Budget Committee on the decision of whether or not to take a substantial skim, and the Budget Committee agreed that the College should take only the minimal skim.

The chair indicated that the Campus will not share their EPEWA algorithms, which led to EPEWA raises in the recent past, with the College, nor will they be sharing their own Compression algorithm (which includes factors for EPEWA and Market) with the College. They also said they do not have time to take feedback from departments on their department-specific views of compression, in order to test or tweak their compression algorithm. The Chair indicated disappointment with these decisions.

Dean’s Remarks:

The Dean added that the Provost does have a $750k pool of money to deal with compression. They have indicated that they will use this to give $5k raises to Full Professors who were promoted during the last 5 years, and did not get the larger promotion raises that came into effect as of last year. This information should allow the individual departments to better distribute any money they decide to allocate to address compression issues. It is not clear at this point if those amounts will be added to the merit spreadsheets already when departments receive them, but that was stated as a goal by the Campus, according to the Dean.

Presentation: Common Curriculum (Senior Vice-Provost Katherine Eggert and Vice-Provost Daryl Maeda)

This presentation summarized the proposed new Common Curriculum for the campus. Details are not included in the minutes, as they are available at this website: /academicfutures/common-curriculum

After the presentation, a motion was made and seconded, in response to a query from the Chair, that this proposal be put to a vote of the entire Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair indicated that he would work with the BFA to set up a vote, using a Qualtrics survey.

Presentation: Quality Teaching Initiative

Noah Finkelstein provided a presentation on the status of the Quality Teaching Initiative. His focus today was on teaching evaluation specifically, and the ways we can improve teaching evaluation as well as the way annual evaluations reward quality teaching. There are three main dimensions of quality teaching (inclusive, goal-oriented, scholarly), and three forms of evidence for evaluating these (self-study, peer review, and student feedback). He indicated that most departments are on track, with regards to the timeline, for completing their departmental teaching evaluation plans through their departmental teams. Around 50 departments and programs have worked with the QTI so far. Many resources are available on the QTI website. A handful of departments have not yet responded on their plans/reports. In detail, within A&S, 24 departments are on track, 9 need some realignment, 5 need to report still. Noah stressed that each unit must create its own teaching evaluation criteria, this is not a top-down approach.

Some criticisms of the process were voiced by one representative, who said that the report-and-feedback process has been somewhat confusing between QTI and the departments.

Motion on Instructor Promotion Process (from the Planning Committee)

The following motion was presented for discussion and a vote:

Planning Committee motion on the formation of a Teaching/Clinical Faculty Personnel Committee 

The Planning Committee moves that the Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate establish a Teaching/Clinical Faculty Personnel Committee (TCFPC) as a standing committee of the ASFS. The TCFPC will be constituted of experts in teaching (primarily Teaching/Clinical Full Professors, but some Full Professors, as well) and chaired by a Teaching Full Professor. The TCFPC will evaluate promotion and non-reappointment cases in the teaching and clinical faculty ranks and provide recommendations to the Divisional Deans. Until the number of Full Teaching Professors reaches a sufficient level, some Associate Teaching Professors will serve on the TCFPC to evaluate promotions from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor. All Divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences will be represented on the TCFPC. TCFPC members will be appointed for staggered three-year terms.

The motion was presented by Albert Bronstein of MATH and Annje Wiese of HUMN, both of whom spoke in favor ot it. It was then discussed at length. Those speaking in favor argued that by instituting a more formalized promotion process, at the College level, the following goals would be accomplished:

- Provide more respect for Teaching Faculty
- Potentially protect Teaching Faculty from bad decisions at the department level with a second level of review
- Take the final decision on promotions out of the hands of a single person (the Dean of Division in each division) and put it in the hands of a committee

Those arguing against the motion made the following points:

- The process will cause increased work for Teaching Faculty on the proposed Promotion Committee
- Many Teaching Faculty feel that increasing the level of scrutiny for Promotion – without any guarantee of raises for promotion – is an added burden on the individuals in question, with no compensatory reward, and that no step of this nature should be taken until automatic raises are first instituted
- Some Teaching Faculty are worried that the increased level of scrutiny is part of an effort to require more work of TF, or even to eliminate TF positions

Some faculty indicated they had queried the TF in their departments, and that the TF were opposed to the motion. Others, having done the same, said the TF were in favor of the motion.

A final vote was taken. This motion FAILED by a vote of 7 yes, 14 no, 4 abstaining

Introduction of motion on Graduation Requirements (from the Curriculum Committee)

The following motion was introducted, to be considered at the November meeting:

Motion to Update the Description of the A&S 

General Education Foreign Language Requirement

[Draft]

September 15, 2022

Whereas the ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ System administration has decided to eliminate MAPS (Minimum Academic Preparation Standards) requirements for all students who matriculate in Fall 2023 and beyond; and 

Whereas the current description of the A&S General Education Foreign Language requirement reads:

1. Foreign Language (third-level proficiency)

The goal of the language requirement is to encourage students to examine the formal and semantic structure of another language, significant and difficult works in that language, and one or more aspects of the culture lived in that language. This enables students to understand their own language and culture better, analyze texts more clearly and effectively, and appreciate more vividly the dangers and limitations of using a translated document. The language requirement concentrates on reading, although in some languages other abilities may be emphasized as well. Understanding what it means to read a significant text in its original language is essential for a liberal education according to the standards of this university.

All students are required to demonstrate, while in high school, third-level proficiency in a single modern or classical language. Students who have not met this requirement at the time of matriculation will have a MAPS deficiency. They may make up the deficiency and fill this Gen Ed requirement by passing or earning AP or IB credit for an appropriate third-semester college course that is part of a three-course sequence of at least 12 semester credit hours or by passing a ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ Boulder approved proficiency examination. Third-semester language courses offered at ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ Boulder that meet this requirement are listed below. 

Students who are subject to the General Education requirements, but not subject to MAPS, must complete the Foreign Language Gen Ed Skills requirement to meet degree requirements.

and

Whereas it has been the longstanding practice since 1970 to allow A&S students to complete the Foreign Language Requirement by 1) completing a Level III foreign language course in high school (usually 3 years in the same language); 2) completing a third-semester college-level language course that is part of a three-course sequence of at least 12 semester credit hours; or 3) demonstrating college-level third-semester proficiency in a foreign language via an examination; therefore let it be 

Resolved that the Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate recommends that the description of the General Education Foreign Language Requirement be immediately revised to read:

1. Foreign Language (third-level proficiency)

The goal of the language requirement is to encourage students to examine the formal and semantic structure of another language, significant and difficult works in that language, and one or more aspects of the culture lived in that language. This enables students to understand their own language and culture better, analyze texts more clearly and effectively, and appreciate more vividly the dangers and limitations of using a translated document. The language requirement concentrates on reading, although in some languages other abilities may be emphasized as well. Understanding what it means to read a significant text in its original language is essential for a liberal education according to the standards of this university.

All students are required to demonstrate third-level proficiency in a single non-English modern or classical language. Students may meet this requirement by

1)    completing a Level III course (typically the third of three consecutive years) of a single non-English language while in high school; 

2)    graduating from a high school that uses a non-English language as its principal mode of instruction, or receiving, in high school, a Colorado or other state-sponsored Seal of Biliteracy; 

3)    passing an appropriate third-semester college course that is part of a three-course sequence of at least 12 semester credit hours, or earning AP or IB credit equivalent to such a course; or

4)    passing a ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ Boulder approved proficiency examination.

Third-semester language courses offered at ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ Boulder that meet the Foreign Language Requirement are listed below. 

One representative noted in relation to this general question (not to the motion per se) that he was concerned that the MAPS to HEAR transition has eliminated the specific requirement that all students take at least one lab in chemistry or physics. He wondered if this needed to be either included in this motion, or presented as a separate motion. 

The Chair of Curriculum noted that the current motion simply keeps a current A&S graduation requirement in place, with the motion simply altering the language needed to describe this requirement in light of the new HEAR language governing campus. On the other hand, adding the specific physics/chemistry requirement to graduation requirements would require a change to the Core Curriculum itself.

It was agreed that this would have to be a separate motion, and that a motion to change the Core Curriculum would be a more substantive matter than simply clarifying an existing requirement.

The Chair queried the representatives as to whether the vote on the above proposed resolution on Foreign Languages should also be a full faculty vote. It was agreed that a vote of the ASFS representatives would be sufficient.

New Business:

The Chair noted that he (and others) have concerns about the overall EPEWA and compression processes in relation to salary, in that faculty control over self-evaluation is at risk of being at least partially lost to unit- or campus-wide processes and algorithms. Further discussion of this issue is needed.