[Plsfaculty] SPLS Curriculum Review and Re-Imagining

[Baltrus, David A - (baltrus)]

Hi all,

Thank you for sending out this document Judy, it does help to clarify things a bit.

As a request, my personal opinion (and I don't think I'm the only one), until actually seeing and digesting the data my intuition is to inherently disagree that SPLS is "being subsidized" by other Schools to the degree that feels like is being relayed in the communication. It's a common refrain by now to us, but we teach many majors and high enrollment classes that don't necessarily count as teaching SPLS majors. If I recall correctly, SPLS has/had one of the highest SCH/FTE ratios of any School in the College. While this exact ratio may have changed, I don't think many of us have seen lower enrollment in our classes or lower SCH since this problem first started being talked about.

I think a first step in this process is to define what the actual problem is because (again, my intuition) is that we are teaching many high enrollment classes. Can we see the data that is being pointed towards to make these decisions? Is this just that we have a low enrollment major compared to other Schools without considering the shared programs that we participate in? So I'll ask specifically for clarification and definition of the problem that the new committee is tasked with fixing outside of "enrollment is decreasing" and does this take into account the work we put in for shared Majors?

Thanks,
Dave
________________________________
From: Plsfaculty <plsfaculty-bounces at list.cals.arizona.edu> on behalf of Brown, Judith K - (jkbrown) <JBrown at ag.arizona.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 10:13 AM
To: Plsfaculty at list.cals.arizona.edu <Plsfaculty at list.cals.arizona.edu>
Cc: Mclain, Jean - (mclainj) <mclainj at arizona.edu>; Staten, Michael E - (statenm) <statenm at arizona.edu>; Chorover, Jon - (chorover) <chorover at arizona.edu>
Subject: [Plsfaculty] SPLS Curriculum Review and Re-Imagining




Dear Ravi, Mark, Curriculum Committees [and SPLS Faculty],



I appreciate your thoughtful feedback and additional questions. I have given your comments and questions genuine and systematic consideration. There is far too much information to cover the scope in faculty meeting this week, so i will attempt to capture it here in this draft document, as a starting point.  The committees may add to or revise the document as they move forward.



The goal of this communication to charge the SPLS Graduate and Undergraduate curriculum committees to begin thinking about re-envisioning the PLS and PLP curricula for several timely reasons shared below.  I know others will have excellent ideas as to how to proceed. Finally, given the potential for miscommunication by email, even though i have tried to convey my thoughts effectively, if clarification is needed, please let’s speak in person. I’m always open and pleased to meet with you and others as the process moves forward.



In the attached draft document, I have shared my current understanding of our charge, and information that may be helpful (or not?) for reviewing and potentially arriving at a revised curriculum. Please also consider the supporting contexts and rationale, the proposed role and involvement of the ad hoc committee, which you will see is intended as a starting point, while also complementing the independent deliberations of the grad and undergrad curriculum committees (CCs). Finally, several examples of possible remedies based on conversations with colleagues in other units facing similar challenges are provided.



In summary, though not much can be achieved before summer break, what is accomplished by mid-May, will position the full-blown kickoff for fall 2024. The goal is aim for Dec 2024 approval deadlines, with launch in 2025-26. The CCs are charged with convening mini-retreats or other preferred discussion format.



The end goal is to evolve strategic, effective solutions for reshaping PLP and PLS curriculum offerings, in the context of constraints imposed by the 14% fewer FTEs, while not compromising our mission and commitment to high-quality education. These challenges cannot be met by one or even a few individuals. Everyone’s input is essential. Realizing this project will require time, there is no imperative to do other than establish careful, deliberate well-defined processes at the outset to guide the teams/deliberators. However, given our new climate, it is important to complete the review as expediently as possible to guide next steps.



In our next three faculty meetings, the SPLS standing committee reports will have been presented, before the ad hoc ‘Curriculum Re-imagined’ Committee reports initial metrics/findings at our May Faculty meeting. Your CC teams will not begin their hard work until after summer break but if you have time to put thought into any of this when your committee presents its’ report and next steps, touching on a plan for next steps would be timely, to prepare the way for the initial reporting by the ad hoc committee at our May meeting.  That said, more time and discussion will be needed to bring all ideas together, and we don’t expect to comprehensively digest the ad hoc committee report and conclusions in 35 minutes. Please note the ad hoc committee is meeting for the first time this week, so it is unrealistic to expect great things (yet!), but a status update by Barry should be doable.



Please consider whatever information is most helpful to aid in the process in time.



Best wishes,



Judy






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cals.arizona.edu/pipermail/plsfaculty/attachments/20240322/bbeba98b/attachment.htm>