Attached are the first two reports from Dr. Raj Ambrose.  You will receive
two reports per day - today, Thursday and Friday - to get you caught up on
what has been happening in the Curricular Review Task Force meetings, then
approximately one report per week thereafter.  If you do not wish to receive
these reports, just send a return email and I'll take you off the mailing
list.

Thanks,
Deborah

Report from Curriculum Review Task Force
First Report to the Faculty (November 2000)

The Curriculum Review Task Force has been meeting on a regular basis from
August 22, 2000. After receiving a written charge from President Giese and
Dean Arnold, the Task Force was provided with a detailed conceptual frame
work by Dean Arnold and a position paper written by Raj Ambrose on the
Process and Some Possibilities.  The task force has also been reading a
bunch of relevant literature including several articles and book excerpts
published by national organizations like the Association of American
Colleges  and Universities, Council of Independent Colleges, and American
Council of Education.

Several issues were discussed during our early meetings. I will not attempt
to summarize them here. The minutes of these meetings have been posted in
one of the Public Folders. (To access this folder, please go to Public
Folders, All Public Folders, Documents, College, Curricular Review Task
Force.) As a first step, it was decided to look into the strengths and
weaknesses of our academic program.  Professor Lee McGaan was invited to
attend our meetings on October 3 and 10, and he reviewed with us what has
been learned about our academic curriculum through the assessment program.
The group, also, discussed with Professor McGaan and Dean Condon the results
of ACT Student Opinion Survey, the ACT Alumni Survey and a detailed analysis
of the Transcript Reflection Survey.

It is good to have the current chairs of the Curriculum Committee, the FIDC,
and the Faculty Senate as members of the task force. The Curriculum
Committee has conveyed to the task force some of its concerns and ideas
regarding our current curriculum.

We are now discussing the structure, delivery and effectiveness of our
general education program. The task force invites input from all the faculty
members at any point of our discussions. If you have any thoughts or
concerns about our academic program, please share them with me or any member
of our task force. We will keep you informed as we proceed with this
important task.

Raj Ambrose
Chair, Curriculum Review Task Force


Curriculum Review Task Force
Second Report to the Faculty (December 2000)

Since my first report last month, the Curriculum Review Task Force could
meet only twice because of the Thanksgiving break. During our November 14th
meeting, we had extensive discussions with Dr. Jeanne Narum, Director of
Independent Colleges Office in Washington and the highly successful Project
Kaleidoscope. Because of her extensive background as a grants officer, a
Vice President for College Relations and ICO Director, we could talk to Dr.
Narum as a general consultant for our curricular review. She indicated that
we are moving in the right direction and gave some valuable suggestions. The
November 28th meeting focused primarily on the implications of the Teagle
grant for our curricular initiative. We are  working on the type of regional
consultants (see below) we want to bring and their time schedule. The Task
Force is also planning to meet with our new faculty members (those who have
joined us in the past few years) soon.   We are currently discussing the
strengths and weaknesses of our academic program. We value your input in
this matter; so far we have received only one response to our request in
this regard.

The Curricular Review Task Force has stressed from its inception the need
for working closely with the faculty and the rest of the campus community.
We see the Teagle grant as a great opportunity for faculty development and
as an important  avenue for continued interaction  with the whole faculty as
we move forward with our curricular initiative.

The Teagle proposal has three major phases: 1. Organizational Phase
(2000-01), 2. Planning Phase (2001-02), and 3. Implementation Phase
(2002-04). We are currently in the organizational phase, when the Task Force
meets on a regular basis through the academic year. In February and March
2001, we will bring three regional consultants for one-day visits. In late
May and early June 01, the Task Force will work intensively for 15 days when
we will have a nationally recognized  consultant  with us for 5 of those
days. After this session, the Task Force  chair will prepare a report to the
faculty with recommendations  on how to proceed. This report will include a
summary of the work done till then, general areas of curriculum/programming
to be explored, the methodology to examine promising approaches, feasibility
of adopting Abest practices@ currently implemented in peer institutions  and
a mechanism for assessing curricular effectiveness in terms of institutional
goals.

The Planning Phase and Implementation Phase  will provide  ample
opportunities for faculty input and interaction. Funds are available during
each phase to send 5-member teams of faculty members and administrators to 5
national conferences and 4 peer institutions. The peer institutions will be
chosen on the basis of their being similar to Monmouth College and of their
having implemented significant curricular initiatives in recent years. In
this connection, it should be noted that the Association of American
Colleges & Universities will be naming 20 Leadership Institutions this Fall
from a pool of 73 applicants, which are representative of a wide range of
institutional types and of a rich variety of successful curricular
innovations. These institutions would form a Consortium of Quality Education
and host a series of Abest practice@ seminars, comprising a Forum of 21st
Century Liberal Arts Education. We will send our 5-member teams to some of
these seminars, if they are relevant to us. We are also planning to get a
list of these 73 applicants who want to become Leadership Institutions.

Over the course of the Planning and Implementation phases, 5 Round Tables
will be arranged during each phase. In these Round Tables, those who
attended conferences and peer institutions will share with their colleagues
their experiences and findings. Further, during Summer 2002 and Summer 2003
two carefully planned 3-day workshops will be arranged to which nationally
recognized consultants will be invited to work with the participants.
Stipends will be available to all the participants.

The Final Proposal is expected to be submitted for faculty approval in early
Fall 2002. If we make good progress according to the proposed plan, then $
3,000 stipends each will be available to 12 faculty members during Summer
2003 to work intensively on course enhancement and design. The Faculty
Senate has been briefed on the implications of the Teagle grant and each
Senator has been given a copy of the full proposal submitted to the Teagle
Foundation. The Curricular Review Task Force looks forward to working with
you on this exciting and challenging project. Thanks

Raj Ambrose
Chair