False scholarship letters dash student hopes

Longtime discussion on faculty Christian school requirement reignited

CAS department proposes CVN, WCAL takeover

Honors convocation makes changes, benefits students

Long distance rates drop 10 percent on international calls

WCAL survey results

In the year 2001, entering students will find themselves faced with a brand new core curriculum.

After over six hours of deliberation spanning two separate evenings, the new core curriculum proposal was passed at a full faculty meeting on April 5.

According to Calvin President Gaylen Byker, the core “plays a very key role in defining what an education at Calvin consists of” and sets Calvin apart from other liberal arts and professional colleges. “To reach this milestone is very important,” Byker said.

“We’re very pleased with the outcome of the process,” added Richard De Jong, chair of the engineering department.

The original meeting on core was held on March 15. The faculty was presented with five recommendations to be voted upon: that a standing core curriculum governance committee be established; that the new core curriculum proposal, with its categories, descriptions and objectives, be approved; that requirements for professional programs be approved; that guidelines for core course development and an implementation timetable be approved; and that faculty express appreciation to the members of the ad hoc core revision committee.

The first two proposals were passed in relatively short order with several minor amendments. The third recommendation, dealing with core requirements for professional programs, then came under significant fire from several sides.

One proposed amendment to the second recommendation was brought forth by Men’s Athletic Director Marvin Zuidema. Zuidema suggested that the proposed one P.E. credit hour exemption for students participating in team sports be removed. The motion was voted down; in part, said Core Revision Committee Chair Lee Hardy, because the exemption was a Student Senate proposal.

Concerns about the third recommendation were raised by De Jong, who argued that the professional programs had need of more flexibility in the core document. These concerns, he said later, stemmed in part from a lack of representation in the formative stages of the core document. “Approximately half of the students are in professional programs,” he said, but only one representative from these programs was on the revision committee.

The ensuing debate became quite heated. By the time a vote was reached, it was realized that quorum, the number of voters needed for the vote to be valid, no longer existed. At this point, the meeting was adjourned after the Educational Policy Committee was asked by the President to re-examine the professional program requirements before the next meeting, which was set for April 5.

According to Academic Dean David Diephouse, “I don’t think many of us were surprised that it took two meetings.”

The second full faculty meeting, held this Monday, began appropriately with an announcement that enough faculty were present to constitute a quorum. After some laughter on the subject, discussion began on the amendment that was presented on the professional programs requirement.

Diephouse introduced the issue by stating that “the core for professional programs will resemble in its overarching purpose that of others.” He then added, “It is clear to us that this set of elements assumes significant amounts of trust on all sides.”

After some debate about a so-called “friendly amendment” that was quickly retracted, attention turned to two statements imposing credit hour limitations upon professional programs. A movement was passed to erase the statement from the proposal. Finally, after an hour of debate on the subject, the third recommendation was passed.

Attention then turned to the fourth recommendation, that guidelines for core course development and an implementation timetable be approved. Speaking against the timetable, which called for the new core curriculum to be implemented in the fall of 2000, Classics Professor Ken Bratt proposed that the timeline be moved back a year to the fall of 2001. “It is unreasonable to put ourselves under such pressure to finish everything on time,” he said.

After less than half an hour of discussion on the topic, the fourth recommendation was passed. The fifth recommendation, that faculty express appreciation to the members of the ad hoc core revision committee, was passed soon after with a round of applause.

Looking back over the time spent in bringing the new core curriculum into reality, Byker recalled the several failed core proposals made in the past decade and attributed the success of this effort to the process through which it came. He noted that the entire effort up to this point has been centred around three main steps: the creation of a purpose statement; the creation of a core framework and guidelines for implementation; and the actual implementation. The first two steps have already been completed; the third step will be accomplished over the next two years.

Hardy mentioned an instance at the University of Arizona where the core curriculum was created over the span of two weeks in the summer by administrators and then imposed on faculty when they returned in the fall. This in mind, he said, “I think we have a right to feel proud of our own efforts compared to other revision efforts.”

“There’s a lot of excitement,” he added.

Economics Professor and Faculty Senate Parliamentarian George Monsma also stated that “the process has been a good one,” adding that “it hasn’t been rushed.” Monsma said that he was particularly pleased that when it passed, it did so with an overwhelming majority.

Monsma, who proposed several minor amendments to the core, stated that he while he still has some concerns with the core, “you can never please everybody.”

Hardy added that with those who still have problems with the core, “as long as it’s evenly spread out, then it’s fair.”

Although the core has finally been passed, the practical aspect – which courses will fit into the core – has yet to be worked on. According to Byker, “there’s a lot of work to be done.”