"Keeping Faith": A Plan to Strengthen the University Core Curriculum


Keeping Faith A Plan to Strengthen the University Core Curriculum at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2001-2006 March 30, 2000
Executive Summary The Plan Core Problem 1: Budgetary Resources When the new Core Curriculum was formally established by the Faculty Senate in 1993, there were no provisions made or even recommended on how this new program would be paid for. It was indeed more expensive than the general education program it replaced: it required additional staffing, especially GTAs, to lead discussion and laboratory sections in the 17 new lecture classes; and its average class size shrank 13 percent overall (from 30 to 26) to increase the interaction between students and instructors, most notably in the Integrative Studies area. In four years, the program has added 21 more courses and 175 more sections, while enrollment grew modestly by 1,267. The funding for the new Core, however, came not from a Resource Allocation and Management Plan request to the IBHE for additions to our base budget. It came instead from existing programs in the participating academic units. Many of these units grudgingly diverted instructional staff from graduate and major programs in order to meet the added demands of the Core. In the context of budgetary constraints, particularly with the shortfalls arising from declining overall enrollments and internal reallocations to fund salary increases, the additional expenses needed to deliver a large, new program came at an unfortunate time. The Core does not have either the budgetary or the administrative means to ensure reliable, quality instruction. For example, the annual turnover in instructional staff is more than a third. Of the 38 Core courses taught at the 100-level since 1996, only 1 (2.6 percent) has had a single instructor of record; persistence for all Core courses in the same period is less than 25 percent. Meanwhile, the least expert and least experienced teachers in the Core -- term-faculty and GTAs -- have risen from 45 to 65 percent of the total staff. Unlike the faculty's commitment to graduate education, very few of our colleagues have an enduring stake in the Core. This instability in undergraduate instruction is directly attributable to both poor planning and inadequate incentives to keep the best faculty in the Core. Of course, not all problems with the program are directly attributable to resources, but the quality of instruction most certainly is. Cuts in the academic budget are almost always reflected first in entry-level courses, where expertise and experience are perceived to be less critical than they are elsewhere in the curriculum. Instructional quality needs to be addressed forthrightly and wisely by a larger budget, one administered in such a way to guarantee that the funding stays in the program. Possible solutions to the Budgetary Resource problem are: a RAMP request of the IBHE for additions to the University's base budget specifically earmarked for the University Core Curriculum, in a manner consistent with the Illinois Commitment and other state-wide educational initiatives, to address the most pressing problems -- especially in instructional turnover -- discussed at greater length below under the overlapping rubrics of course sufficiency, instructional quality, and learning technology. Cost: None Responsibility: Core, Academic Affairs collaboration in the use of internal monies earmarked for closely-related programs, for example, in distance learning, classroom technology, GTA training, faculty development, and the Saluki Advantage. Cost: None Responsibility: Core, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs applications to external agencies to fund the faculty development and GTA training needs of the Core instructional staff. Cost: Subject to cost-sharing provisions Responsibility: Core establishment of an endowed fund in the SIUC Foundation that is devoted exclusively to supporting the Core Curriculum and that can be made attractive to potential donors to the University. Cost: None Responsibility: Core, Institutional Advancement Core Problem 2: Course Sufficiency Core Problem 3: Instructional Quality Core Problem 4: Learning Technology Conclusion Acknowledgment The generous assistance of Todd Bernhardt and Brenda Yucas in the Core Curriculum office is gratefully acknowledged.