October 28, 2005
President Wilson convened the seventh SPBC meeting of 2005-06 at 3:30 pm.
The first discussion item was a question brought to the Committee by the Teaching and Learning work group. At issue was the level of specificity desired in the language of the strategies to be proposed. The President emphasized that we were seeking something narrower than the language of the goal statement itself but less directive and pointed than a specific action that should be taken by a particular person or group. In seeking this intermediate level of detail, however, he stressed that he wants the strategies to set priorities. To illustrate, rather than a strategy as vague as “expand the curriculum in areas such as …,” the President hopes to see “areas such as” omitted and a strategy read, “expand the curriculum in X, Y, and Z,” where X, Y, and Z are particular fields or interdisciplinary areas that the work group believes are priorities for curricular development. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate to develop strategies that are so narrow that they prescribe the creation of individual courses covering particular subject matter. All work groups will make interim reports to the SPBC by November 14, and it is anticipated that these reports will reveal the extent to which the groups are working at different or similar levels of detail. After the SPBC reviews the interim reports, it can then give additional guidance to the work groups for the remainder of their term.
The Teaching and Learning work group also wondered what will happen after the strategic priorities are determined. The President stated that he considers it his responsibility to see that tactics are developed that will allow all strategies to be accomplished. In general, he plans to approach that responsibility by first looking to existing committees, structures, or offices in whose normal purview a strategy falls. Where existing structures do not exist, we may need to form ad hoc groups to develop tactics for a particular strategy. We will not know whether ad hoc structures are necessary, however, until we see the strategies the work groups propose.
Work group convenors reported that all but one group had met once, and some have met several times. The groups are on track to meet their end-of-semester deadline.
The Committee then discussed the structure of the brief interim reports that are due on November 14. It was decided that these 1-to-2-page documents should have five parts: (1) proposed language and rationales for one or two sample strategies, ideally one with a shorter-term horizon (1-3 years) and another with a longer horizon (3-5 years); (2) a list of additional emerging themes that are not crystallized into strategies but that are headed in that direction; (3) unresolved issues or questions for the SPBC; (4) a list of persons/groups consulted thus far; and (5) a list of evidence/resources/documents examined. It is understood that the reports are indeed interim and that the language and rationales proposed in Part (1) of the report will not commit a work group to a particular strategy if something emerges to change the group's priorities by the end of the term. Rather, the purpose of Part (1) is to allow comparison among work groups as to the level of detail at which they are focusing. As noted, the SPBC will review the interim reports and offer feedback and advice to the work groups thereafter. Final work group reports will be due on December 13, and the SPBC will meet to consider them for the first time on December 15 or 16 before the holiday break begins.
Before the meeting adjourned, the President reported that the Trustees had agreed to a maximum tuition increase percentage of 5.75%, with a lower percentage preferred if possible, given budgetary constraints. A final decision will be made in December.
Distributed to all faculty and staff: November 11, 2005