The committee reviewed and gave final approval to the two proposals to be presented next week to Faculty Council, that for (1) Curricular Content Review; and (2) Developmental Stage 1, Structural Framework. While the committee was optimistic about overall faculty and student support for these proposals, a potential area of concern was identified that will likely need to be addressed as the process of content review is begun. Specifically, given the time and level of commitment required of faculty involved in the content reviews, there was a question of how supportive departmental chairs would be even if resources to compensate departments were provided. This was brought up as an issue with respect to clinical faculty, but it was recognized that the same concern relates to faculty in a number of basic science departments. It was noted that a College-wide move toward mission-based budgeting could help toward the process. One example was given of a department that has recently begun to allocate general funding based on teaching responsibilities. Overall, it was recommended that once the potential members of content review committees are identified, the chairs be explicitly informed of what these faculty will be expected to do. In the long term, it was also suggested that we make sure that chairs keep hearing the message that there will be some altered expectations as to the role of their faculty in the future.

With respect to the order and timing of reviews in each content area, it was suggested that in addition to initiating Cancer/Genetics, Cardiovascular, and GI reviews in the first year, it might be worthwhile to consider what will probably be shorter (and easier) reviews, e.g., Neuroscience and Musculoskeletal. This would, in essence, provide a "warm-up" for the process.

There was strong consensus that a key element to the continued success of our renewal process will be continued regular communication, not only with course directors and chairs, but also with the entire faculty and student body. It was suggested that periodic reports before Faculty Forum would be one way to achieve this. In addition, it was thought worthwhile to pursue the possibility of allowing for individual feedback electronically through the website.

Finally, the two new student members of the Task Force, Brian Rothman and Kathryn Witzeman, UC IIIs, were introduced. Since Brian is also currently a representative on the Education Coordinating Committee, there was a brief discussion of possible conflict of interest, if the ECC, or a subgroup of it, were to become the body that eventually arbitrates disputes in the content review process.

Submitted by
Michael N. Lehman, Ph.D.