Sunday, April 1, 2012

I think that the current (3rd iteration?) core proposal reflects an attempt on the part of the CPC to accomplish two things: 1. retreat from commitments of any real sort, and settle merely for the recommendation of  further discussion, while 2. salvaging the work done over the last year and meeting the deadlines outlined last Fall in the Core Action Plan. The Core Action plan stipulates that the first year of the core revision (the "imagining the core") would culminate in a core proposal. None of the three models first introduced generated enough support, so the CPC came up with the second iteration which committed us to a set of principles the simultaneous satisfaction of which seemed ungainly at best, and pernicious at worst. So this new proposal is a compromise of sorts: here are some principles that have garnered support from various (anonymous, I guess from brain-storming sessions and surveys) people or groups. The "proposal" amounts to a recommendation that these be discussed next year. That sounds innocuous enough to me. The question is whether endorsing this new thing actually would as a matter of fact end up stacking the deck in favor of all these things like the integration of LLCs and Core Clusters, advanced components, etc. That, I assume, would depend on faculty involvement and the constitution of the new committees next year?

1 comment:

  1. Here's an interesting article on how the craze for "assessment" and "accountability" plays out in K-12 eduction.

    We're next. In fact we're there already. Read the comments too.