1 E-mail received February 24, 2009 from Rosemarie Bernardi The Art Department met this afternoon and discussed the Honors Proposal. There were many concerns: * that an entry level honors program still appears to be elitist * that the current proposal appears more as a renovation of the current iteration, and most Art faculty feel it should be looked at again from the ground up with more faculty input and discussion, as a new beginning * that the honors program works against the majors, with limited classes offered, students must choose between their major and the honors program *freshman acceptance into the honors program does not mean acceptance into a major. In the case of Art, there is at least one honors student who has been rejected twice from the Art major based on the quality of academic art work. What message does this send to the student, who believing they are honors material is now rejected as a major. Should there be coordination with majors? * some faculty felt there should be a broader and more generalized honors program that takes into account majors more than Integrative Studies. Students would would [work] towards honors in their major not arriving as an honors student their freshman year acceptance. Departmental programs such as the Art Departments BFA program should be considered a Studio Arts Honors Program. * at this point it is difficult to provide honors courses in many departments. For instance the Art Department's Art Historian's plate is full with providing for ISP and for the major. *With the restrictions placed on departmental offerings for ISP courses (ie no reserved seats for majors), it makes course offerings for Honors almost impossible. More flexibility is needed. The Art Department voted: 7 Against / 2 Abstain in support of this proposal. Helen - I just want to say how much I appreciate and admire all the work you have done here for the Honors Program and the college. E-mail received March 3, 2009 from William Stroup English Department Advisory Opinion Honors Program We appreciate the revisions to the main proposal and the attention to earlier advisory opinions in this version, and we recognize that much effort has been made to involve the 2 entire campus in the process. Some members of the department support the proposal and believe that it will greatly benefit our students. However, many members of the department continue to have concerns about the proposed program. While the majority of us do not object to an honors program on principle, many faculty in the English department shared concerns that the courses in the program, particularly the capstone, privilege the social sciences and service learning and devalue the humanities, in direct conflict with the college’s liberal arts mission. It was noted that the emphasis on “experiential” or “out-of-classroom” learning undercuts the value of work inside the classroom—reading, writing, thinking, discussing, and reflecting—that is at the heart of our discipline. This is most evident in the program outcome that asks Honors Humanities courses to “transcend boundaries between experiential and classroom learning” and the Interdisciplinary Senior Seminar that asks students to “examine a complex current issue from multiple perspectives” in “interdisciplinary teams.” It is difficult to imagine what a “disciplinary argument” on a contemporary social issue from the perspective of English might look like, much less how this might develop as the result of working in an “interdisciplinary team.” To many of us, the 401 proposal is vague at best and, ultimately, disqualifies the majority of us from teaching the course. A related concern is the emphasis on global issues as a component of the program. While we appreciate the value of introducing students to new cultures and perspectives, does a visited country have one particular (“the”) perspective that our students can quickly ascertain? What is “the perspective” of a nation? And how can we claim to help them acquire a global perspective in a program without any foreign language requirement? Given the concern with “Global Engagement” named in several parts of this proposal, it would seem that Honors students should be charged with the acquisition of competence in a language other than English, even if this is not required of all Keene State students. It is still not clear to many in the department how most Honors courses differ substantively from other kinds of courses, particularly ISP courses. The learning outcomes for Honors ITW, for example, are identical to the outcomes for the non-honors ITW course. Many department members wondered about the oversight of the courses within the program. We appreciate the efforts that have been made to revise this proposal thus far. It is the hope of many members of the English department that if the program does go forward, it is a program to which we can all contribute equally, and one that honors our liberal arts mission. Advisory vote: 3 for, 8 against, 1 abstention, 2 absent Dear Helen: The English Department met on February 26th to discuss and make an advisory vote on the revised version of the Honors program. The attached document was edited collaboratively by those at the meeting (I was not there, though my vote is recorded) and includes our vote, which as you’ll see was 3 in favor, 8 opposed, 1 abstaining, and 2 absent. As you add this document to the others in your collection, please allow me to add two other points: 3 1) The English department, including many of those who voted against the proposal, has been gratified and delighted to see the request to continue shaping the capstone course that was communicated back to us through Professor Schur. We feel that many of our concerns are continually being addressed, and that this bodes well for the flexibility and receptiveness of this program. As you might imagine our meetings on these issues are complex and passionate, and we all appreciate the work of Anna and Anne Marie on individual proposals in this process. Even though the vote might not be what you would like to see, no one is saying that your committee is unresponsive, and we look forward to Anna being able to bring back suggestions from others in the department for these possible future refinements. 2) This second note might sound like it contradicts the first, but it’s an important one as far as the Senate is concerned. When a revised program proposal is sent out for advisory opinions (as with the request you made at the Chairs and Coordinators’ meeting) it is important that everyone reads the same document throughout the process. What you brought to the A&H chairs meeting on the 27th, for example, anticipates and speaks to some of the attached concerns raised on the 26th, AND YET, if those are now part of the proposal they need to go to everybody from the beginning or else it’s STILL outside of the cumbersome-but-reasonable need for different levels of curriculum review to have the same reference point. This, too, was a concern that came up in our subsequent discussions while we celebrated, paradoxically, the constant reflectiveness of your committee. Self-reflection is good, but something course-specific might simply have to wait until the first proposal has gone through the process. Hope this makes sense, and again thank you for this work, William e-mail from Therese Seibert received March 3 Sociology/Anthropology Faculty Advisory Opinion on Honors Program VOTE: 3 Favor, 4 Opposed, 1 Abstention Comments from Faculty Members Below: After a lot of thought and reading all of the e-mails, I vote in favor of the Honors Program. While the program should have gone through the proper curriculum process, I believe Helen and the Honors Committee have worked hard on listening to faculty concerns and making changes to the program within the parameters of serving students already in the program. I know that one of the big concerns is lack of resources, but after looking at the program, I don’t see our department having to teach a lot of honors courses. In fact, I agree with one of my colleagues that we welcome the opportunity to teach a small class of very bright students. Also, since we are lucky to have adjuncts who can teach an array of courses and support them doing, I don’t think covering an occasional honors course will tax our department. Finally, the Honors Program clearly promotes academic excellence and encourages bright, academically motivated/successful students to come to KSC. I definitely support that. ************************************************************************************** **** 4 Hi everyone, I am voting for the program with confidence that the good questions and concerns raised in our department will be addressed over the next year by Helen Frink and others. ************************************************************************************** ******* I really appreciate Dr. Frink's efforts to make the changes, and taking the time to talk to us. However I share the reservations that some of you have, and am voting against it. ************************************************************************************** ****** I am also voting against the proposed Honors Program. There are serious resource implications so I won't restate what they have contributed. I do think it is important to add that when you combine the honors low-cap courses with demands of the ISP program (300/400 level classes that we have not been able to staff with TT faculty or anybody), there simply aren't enough TT faculty to teach these courses and stay committed to the department. The College continually responds that we will hire more adjuncts when TTfaculty are pulled away from their program to teach other courses: this is unacceptable to me. We already rely too much on adjuncts, just look at the ISP. If the College is committed to this program they should hire more TT faculty to cover the courses. KSC is generally understaffed and this only exacerbates the problem by adding more new courses. There are also too many unanswered questions and ongoing problems for me as well. Here are some of them: The changes thus far have been very superficial. The Ad Hoc committee has suggested many significant changes but they have generally been ignored. The program has been presented as one that was open to revision but that seems to have been understated. Most of the changes thus far have been technical not structural. What is the student getting honors in? Now that it is separate (sort of) from ISP what are they getting honors in? How do/will graduate schools interpret this? What if students can't afford to do the study abroad option? Do they get kicked out? I know of couple of honors students who are planning on not going cause can't afford the trip. I know they get support from the College but it does not cover the full cost, which is another (although different) resource issue. Those are just a few of problems I see, I could write more but I'll stop. These are the major ones from my perspective. ************************************************************************************** ****** I vote yes on the Honors proposal. It's not perfect, but then nothing that has to go through so many iterations with so many voices chiming in (which on many levels is a good process) ever is. I know that Helen Frink has worked very hard addressing the concerns of the dozens of departments and groups on campus that she has met with, and she and the Honors Program Advisory Council (which I have not been involved with this year) have made changes to the proposal in response to concerns. Part of the difficulty is that the original voice saying "we must have an Honors Program by the fall" was Helen Giles-Gee's. I think we have been scrambling ever since then (2 springs ago?) to come up with an acceptable program. Again, I think Helen Frink's work has been exemplary, and I support her and the Program, with the assumption that it is a work in progress. ************************************************************************************** ******* For similar reasons, I'm not voting in favor of this new iteration of the Honors Program. 1. For Honors, don't we usually ask the programs for a four year projection of the courses they will offer each semester and who will teach them? 2. Also for Honors, can they use a new prefix HNRS and then use the generic IS courses already in the stable? With new HRNS course designations, wouldn't these need their own individual course descriptions? And does this create resource issues? The last part of question #2 also seems to be relevant if, in fact, an adjunct is teaching an Honors course. In a meeting last year, the Ad Hoc Honors Committee was told by the Honors Program representatives that adjuncts could not teach in the Honors Program. I think the new prefixes (HNRS) are an attempted end-run around issues between Honors and ISP that 5 were brought up last year during the Ad Hoc Honors Committee meetings. ************************************************************************************** ******* There are many problems but the most serious is lack of resources. The proposal states that tenure-track faculty are invited to teach these courses. That is an interesting way to word it because right now they have Charlie Kerwin, an adjunct, teaching an INGEOL honors section. This speaks more loudly than anything that there are not enough tenure-track faculty to teach these classes. Whether it's because faculty, for whatever reason, do not like the program or because they do not have room in their schedule, doesn't ultimately matter. The fact that tenure-track faculty are not stepping up to do it does matter. There is no staffing listed for next fall, let alone for the next three years. The program is simply not sustainable. Also, by changing the prefixes in the way they propose, students in honors will not be held to the same standard as students in the regular ISP in terms of not being able to take two courses within a category (Art & Humanities or Sciences) from the same discipline because the discipline will no longer be listed in the prefix. So a student could for example, take an IHHIST and then an HNRSH taught by an historian (in fact, it could be the very same course) and there would be nothing to prevent it. There are other problems but I'll stop there. March 5, 2009 Library Faculty Advisory Vote: College Honors Program Vote: 7 in favor; 1 opposed; 0 abstentions; 0 absent Peg Barrett, Chair Helen, The Department of Communication, Journalism and Philosophy met on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 to talk about the Honors Program. Here are our advisory opinions. College Honors Program Vote: 11-1-0-0 We support the program with the understanding that program changes for the Honors Program be allowed in the same way that they were amended to the Integrative Studies Program proposal when it passed in April 2007. This would bring the Honors Program more into line with our current curriculum model. The ISP Amendment Process that was passed unanimously by the Senate in April 2007 is included for your convenience: “The Integrative Studies Program Committee (ISPC), any faculty member(s), or academic department(s) may propose a change to the structure, principles, or policies of the Integrative Studies program by submitting the proposed change in writing to the ISPC. The ISPC will consult with the proposal originator(s), and within three weeks of receiving the proposal, the ISPC will submit the proposal with an advisory opinion to the School Curriculum Committees. The School Curriculum Committees will forward their recommendations to the Senate Curriculum Committee (SCC) and the Academic Standards Committee (ASC). The SCC and ASC will bring their recommendations to the Senate for approval.” HNRSTW Honors Thinking and Writing Vote: 10-1-1-0 As a department, we would be willing to contribute to this course only with significant additional resources. HNRSH Honors Humanities Vote: 11-1-0-0 6 We support the course proposal with the addition of “or permission of instructor” to the last line of the proposed course description. HNRS 301 Global Engagement Vote: 10-1-1-0 While we understand that the issue of providing funding for students has been addressed, we continue to have reservations regarding the lack of solid funding for faculty and concern about the continued availability of faculty to participate. HNRSI 401 Interdisciplinary Senior Seminar Vote: 10-1-1-0 As a department, we would be willing to contribute to this capstone experience only with significant additional resources. Ann J. Atkinson, Chair Department of Communication, Journalism and Philosophy Social Science Steering Committee 0 for 6 opposed 3 no vote as of 11:20 am. Chuck weed March 6, 2007 The Computer Science Department is in favor of the Honors Program 3 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention Mike Michael J Hanrahan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor/Chair, Computer Science Department Keene State College 603-358-2558 Celebrating 100 Years of Achievement received March 9, 2009 from Chemistry Chair Rich Blatchly Helen: I have already sent this to Steve Bill (our school curriculum committee chair). The Chemists met on Thursday, 2/26, and discussed the new Honors Program proposal. We voted against the proposal by a 0-4-0 vote. We are primarily concerned about the availability of the resources to teach this program from the sciences. As the program requires the creation of a new course, as opposed to modifying the existing courses within the major offerings, this would remove a faculty member from teaching in the major offerings. While the college has promised resources to cover the loss in teaching capability, they have provided only money, not the availability of expert personnel capable of safely instructing students in lab courses. We are also concerned that there seems to be very little guidance with respect to what constitutes an honors course. The language describing the honors offerings is vague, and 7 there is no identified process for seeking clarification, or for reviewing honors courses to ensure their appropriateness. Of secondary concern, but still important, is the sense that this honors program is not really a College honors program, but one suited more to a subset of the disciplines on campus. Without the ability to control prerequisites, and to build a coherent expertise over more than one semester, it does not fit the sciences well. We also reviewed the HNRSN course proposal. The vote on that proposal was similarly 0-4-0. The concerns raised about this course were similar to those raised for the program, specifically the resource, definition and process issues. We were disappointed to have to vote this way. The vote should not necessarily be construed as a vote against the concept of an honors program (although some do perhaps oppose the concept). We do note, however, that this is not the first time we have raised these concerns. That the proposal does not address the concerns we raised is very discouraging. Let me quote from my email of last fall, to show you what they have seen (sent to the program director on 10/16/08): We are concerned that it may be impossible to choose honors students based on the relatively vague standards set up in the proposal. We base this on our experience in seeing thousands of first year students pass through a rather challenging hurdle: General Chemistry. Our experience with self-identified honors students during the last two years has not changed our opinion. In addition, the portfolio application most likely is a disadvantage for students most engaged in the sciences in high school due to the difference in the style of assignments in high school classes. Secondly, the proposal as written and conceived excludes the pedagogical style required by real pursuit of the sciences. As an exercise in broadening a students education, the ISP with its aversion to prerequisites is acceptable. As an honors program, it prevents us from participating in a meaningful way. One member of the department suggested that this proposal gives privilege to certain programs on campus, while withholding support to others in the same way the participation in Division II athletics focused on a few programs to the detriment of others. These are fundamental and thorny issues that make it unlikely that we could effectively mount courses to support the effort, regardless of our staffing levels. Thanks for your attention- Rich Blatchly Richard Blatchly firstname.lastname@example.org x8-2564 Chair, Chemistry Department http://academics.keene.edu/rblatchly/ 8 From: Dolenc, Patrick Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:04 PM To: Bill, Steven Cc: Leversee, Gordon Subject: Econ & Poli Sci Information Vote on Honors Proposal Steve, The tenure-track faculty in my department vote five “against” and one in “favor” of the honors proposal. We included all adjuncts teaching for us in the discussion and gave them the opportunity to vote. When I include adjuncts in the tally, the department votes 8 against, 1 in favor, and 4 abstentions. The primary reasons people gave for opposing the proposal include: • Continued concerns over resources (we don’t feel resource questions have been adequately addressed) • Frustration that the program targets students who have not yet demonstrated academic achievement at the collegiate level while relegating students who do succeed in their first year at Keene State College to “program-fillers” Pat Dolenc Honors Program Advisory Opinion Technology, Design & Safety Department The TDS Department voted: 7 in favor of the Honors proposal 0 against the Honors proposal 1 abstention 0 absent Larry McDonald, Chair Dear Dr. Frink; I regret to inform you that by a vote of 1 for, 7 against, 2 absent, the Department of Psychology voted against an Advisory Opinion supporting the Proposed Honors Program. The primary objections are summarized briefly as follows: 1. Despite the changes made, there remains concern that potentially highly qualified but disadvantaged (by poor SES or underperforming secondary schools for example) students could be missed by the selection process. 9 2.There is still considerable concern regarding the Interdisciplinary nature of the program outside of the Student’s declared major program of study. It seems unlikely that such a program would help a student adjust to and succeed in a content focused program of graduate study. 3. The travel component could be a financial hardship for some students. If it is going to be required, the College should pay for it. In addition it could be a logistical impossibility for many students including those with double majors or other high demand curricula in their major. 4.There continues to be considerable concern about the “elitist” appearance of creating a special category of students that extends throughout their tenure at the college. The department feels that the mission of the college should be to provide an experience of academic excellence to all students. 5. there is considerable concern as well with regard to staffing issues, especially with the concurrent implementation of the ISP. The department is experiencing difficulty staffing major classes including upper level courses with Full Time Tenure6track Faculty as it is. It seems that the Honors program and ISP are intended to be staffed by these FTTT faculty members rather than adjuncts, increasing demand on an already understaffed faculty. Sincerely, Gary Bonitatibus Ph.D. Co6Chair Department of Psychology Hi Helen and Becky – First of all, Helen, thank you for coming yesterday and talking with the education faculty. I’m sorry about the mix-up on rooms – a typo on my part. ☺ Our vote is as follows: Yes: 13 No: 4 Abstain: 2 Hope this helps! Shirley [McLaughlin] March 10, 2009 Helen, My computer has problems so that I don't have access to all my computer files. So I am not sure whether I need to fill out a specific form. If so please let me know. But the ENST voted 1 in favor and 1 against the newest honors proposal. Some of the discussion points were: The program is generally in support of the idea of an honors program and the changes made so far were recognized as moves in the right direction. One of the sticking points is still are quality control and how courses for the programs are approved (one of the related questions is whether faculty do have ownership of the program, or does is basically represent of a small committee). The other sticking point is also the question of whether the criteria used to select students for the program are good predictor for the performance at the college level. For example, in both of my 10 courses where I had honors students I noticed that they were good, but that there were 2-3 students in the class who earned at the end much better grades. As Ann mentioned at the faculty meeting last friday, I recognize that you really invested much energy and time in moving the program forward and thank you for it. I am curious how the entire vote turns out to be Best Renate Helen/Becky, As the Chair of the Management Department, I am responding to your request for an advisory opinion from each department by March 10. The Management Department chose not to vote on the proposal at this time for two primary reasons: 1) Need for additional specificity; such as who can and cannot teach honors courses and what courses will be offered, and 2) Concerns about resources and future funding of the program. Several department members expressed support for the Honors Program concept, however. We look forward to additional feedback (from our School Curriculum representative) and clarification of the program. Sincerely, Linda Hadden Management Chair March 5, 2009 TO: Dr. Helen Frink, Director of the Honors Program FROM: Mathematics Department RE: Advisory Opinion Concerning the Honors Program Proposal The Mathematics Department has discussed the revised version of the Honors Program Proposal you have forwarded to us. As with earlier versions, we are generally very supportive of the program, though several concerns emerged from our discussion. 1. We are wondering whether a draft assessment plan for the Honors Program has been developed. Will assessment of the Honors Program be linked to assessment of the Integrative Studies Program? For instance, could artifacts from HNRSTW be selected as part of the sample used to assess the Thinking and Writing course more generally? Or will assessment of the Honors Program generally be independent of assessment of the ISP? 11 2. The Mathematics Department is committed to assisting in the creation of an Honors Quantitative Literacy course. We suspect that for many (though probably not all) of the Honors students, IQL 101 will not be sufficiently challenging or stimulating given the academic background and motivation of these students. We would like to work with you (and others) during Fall 2009 to develop a proposal for an Honors Quantitative Literacy course that can tap the enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity of the Honors students. 3. In describing the required courses for the Honors Program, we note that Honors students must take four additional Integrative Studies Perspectives courses. The proposal then goes on to state that these courses must be taken in four different disciplines. But must the four courses be distributed so that one is a Natural Sciences course, one a Social Sciences course, one a course in the Humanities, and one a course in the Arts? We hope this feedback will be helpful and wish you luck with the program. By a vote of 9 in favor and 0 opposed, the Women's Studies Department enthusiastically supports the Honors Program. While some members have questions about procedural issues, those questions do not lessen our support for the Program as a whole and for the good work being done by the Honors Program Advisory Council. We believe an Honors Program is a huge step toward our goal of achieving greater academic excellence on this campus and will help bring highly motivated and talented students to KSC. -Karen Honeycutt for the Women's Studies Council March 11, 2009 Hi Helen, Here is the vote from the Health Science Department during our meeting yesterday: 3 in favor, 2 opposed 1 abstention, 1 absent. This vote reflects the mixed feelings of the entire group. Everyone is in favor of the concept of an Honors Program but our concerns are mostly about resources. As a College, it’s a challenge to provide full&time faculty for the basics including majors and ISP. The provision of faculty to teach in the Honors Program is not fully explained and we are uneasy about that. Rebecca Brown Health Science & Women's Studies March 11, 2009 Hi, Helen: I can report back from six members (including yours truly) of the HSC—all voting in favor. I’ve yet to hear from Larry, Steve Clark, Graham Warder, and Rabbi Sarah. But as a majority has already registered its acceptance of the program, I believe I’m in line in saying that Holocaust and Genocide Studies is in favor (6 yes; 0 no; 4 abstain or absent). Best, Paul "To Remember . . . and to Teach" Dr. C. Paul Vincent, Professor of Holocaust Studies and History 12 Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies March 11, 2009 Hi Helen: Find below, the history department advisory vote on the honors program: Thanks, Greg March 6, 2009 History Department Honors Program Advisory Vote: 0 in favor; 5 opposed; 2 absent. The department's general substantative concerns from its Oct. 3, 2008 advisory vote still stand. In addition, we are concerned about the dropping of a minimum SAT requirement for admission to honors. Also, while we appreciate the separation of six honors-specific courses from the general ISP program, the honors program remains a general core of requirements that parallels the ISP program and still draws upon it for the majority of its credits. Additionally, the department is concerned that students will graduate from a "college honors program" with only six courses (24 credits) in honors classes. March 11, 2009 Becky and Helen, Below is the result of our lengthy discussion about the honors proposal. The majority are in favor and we voted 5 yes, 2 no, and 1 absent. We would like the committee to know that we definitely support the concept of an honors program but are quite wary of the college’s ability to support it. To suggest that it won’t take additional resources is simply not true. Any honors course in biology, or any science for that matter, needs to include a significant laboratory component. These are labs that would need to be offered IN ADDITION to those of the ISP program. Instructor time and course budget are important concerns. The quality of what we can offer is dependent upon these resources. We would like to see an honest honors program, not just one in name. As we are continually asked to do more, create more ISP courses at both the 100 and 300 levels, as well as ITW and IQL courses- and the biology dept has contributed to all of this- we are already taxing our energy to the max. It is of great concern to us that the only science course in the honors program is Metereology and so we will make every efffort possible to offer a biology honors course. We talked extensively about such a course. If the college is not willing to back a biology honors course with additional budget and faculty resources than the future of that course will be jeopardized and we may not be able to continue to offer it in the future. The honors program cannot exist just to draw new students to keene state- it has to in reality provide those students with genuine honors experiences. The majority of us have voted yes in the hope that the honors program can meet these goals. -Karen Cangialosi, on behalf of the Biology Department -----Original Message----- From: Darby, Joseph 13 Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:19 PM To: Orelup, Margaret Cc: Sylvern, Craig; Baldini, Don; Lezcano, Jose; Chesebrough, James; Lehman, Carroll; Cushing, Diane; Darby, Joseph; Glennon, Maura; Loring, George Subject: Honors advisory - Music Hi Margaret - With this email, please accept Music's advisory opinion on the new Honors proposal. Our department is against the proposal as presented We have substantial concerns in content and procedure. We could not give the time needed to fully consider the proposal, which is one of our main objections. Departments were given two weeks to review the substantially amended proposal. With searches and assessment work - not to mention our regular contributions of teaching, service, and scholarship - we were not able to fit this discussion into an agenda item, but we have circulated comments via email dialogue. It is unclear to us, too, whether a vote is to be cast in our school's curriculum committee. Without rehearsing the history here, the Honors Program has put the campus in a quandary. The proposal and the process by which is has been presented seems to violate provisions of the Senate, ISP, and our Association¹s collective bargaining agreement with the College. Despite the hard work put into this proposal by many honorable, well-intentioned, and high-minded members of the campus community, it is our position that the revised program needs to be brought back through the entire curriculum process anything less will bring strong objections from faculty at KSC, jeopardize the effectiveness of any honors program at our institution, and exacerbate deteriorating relationships between faculty and administration. I suspect it will hasten a move expressed by many faculty to abolish or substantially alter the College Senate. If the proposal moves forward and approved by the Senate, without full consideration by the faculty as stipulated under Senate Bylaws and Senate Curriculum Committee guidelines, one can image that a grievance could be filed by the Keene State College Education Association against the College, as outlined by Article VI of the collective bargaining agreement. The proposal, as given, may also be viewed as violating Article VIII (Evaluation Procedures), Article IX (Rank Qualifications and Criteria), Article XI (Faculty Workload), Article XX (Association Rights), and perhaps other articles, pending a meeting of the KSCEA Executive Committee. Regards, Joe Darby Music Dept Dear Helen, Geology faculty votes are 2 in favor and one abstain. Opinions are articulated below. After reviewing the proposal, and noting the changes requested by the ad hoc Honors Program Review Committee, I support the proposal. I have no specific opposition to a college-wide honors program on general principle, although my preference would be for honors programs based in the majors, and I would rather to see resources directed that 14 way. Although I have not studied the current proposal in great detail, I did already vote in favor through my "other" department... I’m abstaining because although I feel that an honors program that attracts talented students is a good thing, I remain concerned that both the financial and faculty resources to make a sustainable and rigorous program are stretched too thinly. Since all of the funding has come from 1-2 sources, I am not that confident in today’s economy that continued support will be available. We also appear to be having problems staffing and supplying ISP courses and the honors program will further impact this problem. Thanks for the chance to opine! Steve
Senate Curriculum Committee
Keene State College
"Honors Advisory Opinions - Departments" (2009). Approved Curriculum Proposals. 228.