Two competing sets of recommendations on Ashland University’s core curriculum have come out of the Core Prioritization Working Group (CPWG) to be considered within the university’s prioritization process.

The CPWG came to a majority agreement on a set of recommendations, and delivered those recommendations up the chain of command within the Academic Prioritization Subcommittee. These recommendations were approved by a 5-3 vote, according to James Rycik, a professor of Educational Foundations and Instruction. These recommendations would cut the core curriculum to 42 hours, down from the 44-56 hour core in the current catalog.

“The working group is not advocating cuts to the core,” said William Vaughan, professor of philosophy. Vaughan is the chair of the CPWG and the university’s core director. “Rather it has been said if the prioritization process absolutely demands cuts in the core, this plan is the best way to proceed because the reductions are fair.”

In this plan, Lifetime Wellness is stripped of its place in the core. Composition I is also removed from the core, but is replaced by a set of competencies established by the English department to ensure students are prepared to take Composition II, which retains its place in the core curriculum. The GPS requirement was also fixed at three credit hours, but border crossing courses were eliminated. Students would be required to take a three credit hour foreign language course or study abroad to satisfy their GPS requirement. 

This plan was approved by the CPWG after deliberation within the group. However, the three dissenting voters proposed an alternative plan outside of the prioritization structure. Rycik cited the lack of unanimity as reason to pass along the alternative plan. 

“I’m not sure that’s the best we can do,” he said. He believed proposing an alternative plan allows for additional discussion to continue. 

Doug Fiore, AU’s interim provost, received both plans, but intended to pass along only the plan approved by the CPWG.

“When those came to me, I said ‘As provost, I feel it is my responsibility to do what the board has asked, and what the board has asked is for this committee to make a recommendation on the core. So that committee’s recommendation is the recommendation, as provost, that I need to bring to the board,” Fiore said.

The alternative plan found its way past Fiore and into the hands of members of the AU Board of Trustees, where it was informally decided by the board that both of these proposals would be considered. Both Fiore and Rycik said the proposals are not radically different.

On Friday, Faculty Senate will vote on a resolution to empower the Faculty Senate Core Review Committee to develop its own set of recommendations, as a way to ensure faculty retain a strong voice on curriculum matters. Jeff Sikkenga, a professor of political science, chairs that committee. He said the committee was tasked with outlining the principles and outcomes of the core curriculum last spring, and Friday’s resolution will empower the committee to begin using those principles to recommend a core curriculum. 

After the Faculty Senate committee makes its recommendations, a period of public comment will follow, likely sometime around the end of January.