Faculty Council Statement on Curriculum Review, Design, and Restructure

Faculty Council strongly condemns any administrative action to remove, supplant, circumvent or bypass the faculty role in reviewing and designing curriculum, an example of which is the college administration’s treatment of the Medical Office Assistant program. Any process involving program restructure at Lane must be led by the program faculty, as well as follow the Program Review process and long-established academic and empirical data standards.

2 thoughts on “Faculty Council Statement on Curriculum Review, Design, and Restructure

  1. Mark Harris

    “Faculty Council strongly condemns any administrative action to remove, supplant, circumvent or bypass the faculty role in reviewing and designing curriculum, an example of which is the college administration’s treatment of the Medical Office Assistant program. Any process involving program restructure at Lane must be led by the program faculty, as well as follow the Program Review process and long-established academic and empirical data standards.”
    History repeats itself, as similar things happened to other programs, like the Chemical Dependency Counselor Training program, which had the same fate early in the ‘oughts. It was full, it was making money, it was cut. Even while doing things the MOA, and Tech programs were not: i.e. attracting and retaining faculty of color, maintaining a supportive rather than hostile environment for faculty and students of color, and preparing mainstream students for an increasingly diverse work environment.
    Perhaps, that could make for a stronger position, or at least be used as a data point aligning with stated Core Values. Being able to answer: Here’s how our curriculum, our hiring practices, our recruitment, and retention of diverse faculty and students, serves to reduce health disparities in the community, region, and the industry. Here’s our faculty and student demographic, and here’s how our curriculum aligns with acknowledging and reducing health disparities and institutional barriers.

    Reply
  2. Steve Candee

    At the risk of sounding redundant, but for the sake of clarity (particularly if the R/G decides to run with this), I would include a condemnation of any “LCC Board action” as distinct from “administrative” action, which could be interpreted differently.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *