Residential Program Proposal: Next Steps
Following close study of the final reports of both t= he Committee on College Reorganization (CCR) and the New Residential College Program Planning Committee (NRCPPC), the leadership= of the College of Arts & Letters, including the department chairs, directo= rs, and dean’s office, wishes to express its continuing strong support of= the residential initiative.
To underscore our commitment to helping shape the fu= ture of a distinctive and distinguished undergraduate living-learning program “rooted in the liberal arts, particularly the creative arts and humanities, and in the sciences as they are informed and challenged by humanistic thinking” (NRCPPC 10/15/04 Report), allow me to propose th= at the Arts & Letters dean’s office take a leadership and coordinati= on role as plans for the new residential initiative move forward into the acad= emic governance system. We propose the following next steps.
1. Multi-disciplinary team: A multi-disciplinary team be named and be composed of two subcommittees, one dealing with curric= ular issues, one with operational issues. It would operate with assistance and coordination from the Arts &= ; Letters dean’s office.
2. Timeline:&n= bsp; Ideally, the multi-disciplinary team complete its work by mid-March 2005 to permit fast-track curricular approvals and the development of student and faculty recruitment strategies before summer 200= 5. If successful in meeting this dead= line and if academic governance approves the curricular requests and recommendations, an entering first-year class could be recruited for FS06.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> However, this timeline is dependen= t on our ability to identify appropriate team members with SS05 research and teaching schedules flexible enough to permit partial reassignment to this project at this late date. If= the team cannot begin intensive work until Summer 20= 05, the initial entering residential class could not arrive until FS07.
3. Compensation: The team r= eceive released time or special compensation for this work, as appropriate. I would provide this for team memb= ers from the College of Arts & Letters; Deans Baba, Leroi and Salmon have agreed to address the issue for members from their respective colleges.
The first subcommittee, the Residential College
Curriculum Group, would be named after consultation with the curriculum
committees and dean’s offices in the
· to establish the curricular framework and overall educational vision/mission of the residential program, and
· to recommend a first-year curriculum to be approved through governance.
An operating assumption is that the subcommittee wou= ld submit its proposals directly to the UCC accompanied by commentary supplied= by all relevant college curriculum committees. N.B. Should the ultimate administr= ative location of the residential program be within one of the two organizational structures (Option II or IV) proposed by the CCR (as is recommended by that committee), the residential program could maintain an independent curriculum committee that reported directly to the dean of that college, at least in t= he initial stages of program development.
The second subcommittee, the Residential College Operations Group, would be composed of chairs and directors with broad experience and knowledge in student affairs, cross-college and cross-departmental initiatives, the nature of the tenure system, and budgeting. It would make recommendations regarding a specific set of logistical issues, such as
· relationship between the residential initiat= ive and other colleges and relevant units throughout the university
· student recruitment and student life
· faculty recruitment and hiring (including the issues of core, affiliated, and adjunct faculty)
· staff recruitment and hiring
· administrative location of the program
· bylaws
· initial funding and funding stability
Chairs of both subcommittees and the A&L dean= 217;s office would meet regularly to ensure a unified, internally consistent plan= ning process.
Both subcommittees would be small working groups of faculty from the arts, humanities, communication studies, social sciences, = and natural sciences. For the Residential College Curriculum Group, I would sug= gest a total of nine: two faculty members from the arts, three from the humaniti= es and the area of communication studies, two from the social sciences, and two from the natural sciences. For the Residential College Operations Group, I would suggest a total of six: three from the areas of the arts, humanities = and communication studies, one from the social sciences, and one from the natur= al sciences.
We agree with the New Residential College Program Pl= anning Committee on the characteristics required of individuals involved in the transition: they should be “highly regarded faculty in the arts and humanities and the sciences who are internationally oriented, interested in liberal arts and education, and willing to engage in hard work under strict time constraints.” In addition, they should be skilled in collaborati= ve thinking and problem-solving, knowledgeable in the characteristics outlined= in the NRCPPC charge and report, and understanding of the evolutionary nature = of curriculum development, including the central role that will be played in t= he future by faculty in the residential program. Both subcommittees will draw = broadly on student and faculty experiences and expertise, as appropriate.
In your recent memorandum to the ECAC, you indicated= that the question of where the new residential college will be located administratively is open to discussion. The CCR report strongly urges that = the new college be housed either within Arts & Letters (Option II) or within the proposed Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences (Option IV), while the New Residential College Planning Committee contemplates a stand-alone college. I recommend that the Residential College Operations Group address this issue = and make a recommendation in the context of
a) = &nb= sp; how the residential program can maintain sufficient autonomy to design, implement, and maintain a creative and distinctive program, and
b) = &nb= sp; how it can best be integrated with existing and developing programs and majors in the liberal = arts and sciences so that those programs and majors are reinvigorated and not du= plicated.
I personally find the CCR report compelling when it = states that new initiatives such as a revision of general education and an expansi= on of the university’s residential programs “must be done so that = they strengthen the ‘core colleges.’ They [the new initiatives] have direct and immediate implications for college organizational structure and = the availability of resources for quality of liberal education in the ‘co= re colleges.’ These and any other new initiatives ought to be vigorously pursued within, not outside, the principles and options for reorganization recommended in this report.” In this light, I would expect the team to explore hybrid models that= can satisfy the two goals noted above. For example, internal college financial organization and governance = can be shaped to ensure “autonomy" of a new residential program wher= e it counts (funding and funding protection, curriculum) while connecting residential faculty and staff with disciplinary departments within a college context. The latter integrati= on promises not only to enrich current disciplinary faculty cohorts but also allows residential faculty and the program to benefit more fully from the breadth, depth, and diversity of a large public university.
Beyond the chairs and directors of my own college, I= have consulted with several individuals, including Deans Baba, Klomparens, Leroi, and Salmon, who support the approach proposed here. I believe the approach outlined ab= ove will ensure that the unique mission and great promise of the new residentia= l initiative, as envisioned in “Realizing the Vision,” will be fulfilled in a= way that taps the knowledge and experience of our most distinguished faculty educators and that best exemplifies MSU’s commitment to offering a challenging, comprehensive, and distinctive living and learning opportunity= for students. I hope you will find this proposal compelling and useful as you decide on next steps. I will be happy to discuss this with you further.
Patrick M. McConeghy, Acting Dean
November 30, 2004