Texas HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD Summary Notes/Minutes History Field of Study Advisory Committee Meeting 1200 East Anderson Lane, Board Room Austin, Texas January 7, 2019, 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM The webcast of this meetings is available at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3bQTwOiwog 1. Call to order Allen Michie called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM. The following committee members were present: Kimberlee Ball, Lone Star College-North Harris (recording secretary) Jacob Blosser, Texas Woman's University (committee co-chair) Melissa Esmacher, El Paso Community College Michael Faubion, The University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley Kenneth Grubb, Wharton County Community College Barbara Hahn, Texas Tech University Andrew Milson, The University of Texas at Arlington Patricia Ovesny, College of the Mainland Ryan Pettengill, Dallas County Community College District-Mountain View College Lisa Ramos, Alamo Community College-San Antonio College (committee co-chair) Ben Wright, The University of Texas at Dallas The following committee members were absent: Jason Fabianke, Alamo CC--St. Philip's College Thomas Greene, TAMU-San Antonio Peter Moore, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Beverly Rowe, Texarkana College Matthew Stith, The University of Texas at Tyler Leland Turner, Midwestern State University Christina A. Wilbur, Lamar State College-Port Arthur Coordinating Board Staff present: Allen Michie, Program Director Rex Peebles, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Quality and Workforce Page 1 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019 2. Consideration of meeting notes for the March 29, 2018 meeting The minutes of the History Field of Study (FOS) Advisory Committee meeting on March 29, 2018, and the minutes of the Teaching Track Subcommittee meeting on November 2, 2018, were both approved. 3. Discussion of recommendations from the Teaching Track Subcommittee for the proposed History Field of Study Discussion started on the Social Studies Composite FOS. Ramos stated that the subcommittee decided it did not have the expertise to determine a Social Studies composite FOS, and they focused instead on History grades 7-12. Blosser made a motion that the following statement be passed along to the Multidisciplinary Studies FOS Advisory Committee at their upcoming meeting: “This body recommends that the Multidisciplinary FOS committee consider the Social Studies composite in their deliberations and that they use the courses available in the Lower- Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM).” The motion passed. Blosser introduced a document he prepared comparing the previous FOS curriculum and the curriculum proposed by the Teaching Track subcommittee, highlighting the key differences. Discussion began on Texas History (HIST 2301). Ramos said that subcommittee discussed how Texas History is not mandatory in the Teaching Track even though Texas History is 20 percent of the certification exam. Hahn and Faubion said that Texas History is being covered, just at the upper-division level. Grubb pointed out that by state law, students can substitute Texas history for US History. Ramos said that she has taught the exact same course at both levels, and institutions will accept the lower-division course as an equivalent. Faubion said that when the course is taught at the upper-division level, scores go up on the certification exams in Texas History. Esmacher said that the University of Texas at El Paso will not take the lower-division course as the equivalent of the upper-division course. Michie said that the FOS is the complete set of lower- division requirements, so if a receiving institution does not offer Texas History at the upper division, then a transfer student could be going into the certification exam without having taken Texas History if it is not in the FOS. Milson pointed out that it is not the committee’s purpose to determine what students need for the certification exam, but instead to discuss the courses that will be guaranteed to transfer from community colleges. Osveny said that students will take as much as they can at the colleges to save money, so Texas History needs to be in the FOS. University of Houston campuses will not take the lower- division course as the equivalent of the upper-division course. Wright expressed concerns about FOS in general and said that they cause institutions to risk accreditation. There are substantial differences between lower- and upper-division courses, so the committee needs to be careful if it decides to require institutions to accept the substitution. In addition, Wright said that his institution wishes the FOS to be as small as possible. Michie said there are pros and cons to having too few or too many semester credit hours (SCH) in a Page 2 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019 FOS. It must be the complete set of lower-division requirements, but on the other hand, a large FOS asks institutions to carve deep into upper-division requirements to keep the degree within 120 SCH. Blosser agreed that the FOS needs to stay limited for the academic side, but he is comfortable with a slightly larger FOS for the Teaching Track. Ramos asked Hahn to clarify the accreditation issue. Hahn read from a letter from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) on the issue of faculty governance and control of the curriculum. He said that the committee is neither broadly representative nor responsive. Rex Peebles commented on the SACSCOC letter and response. He said that the Commissioner of Higher Education sent a response letter to SACSCOC. Wright said that the Coordinating Board’s response was incomplete. Peebles responded that work similar to FOS has been done in other states, but those states typically have only one university System. There are 61 Systems in Texas, including community college districts. Texas has a 100+ year history of everyone doing what they want to do, with curriculum decisions being made by individual professors or departments. FOS represent a cultural change in how to do business that has not been done in Texas before. The Coordinating Board is careful to ensure that FOS committees are made up of representative faculty. History is something that all community colleges and universities teach, so a committee of 87 people isn’t feasible. FOS always go out for public comment, so everyone has an opportunity to give input. This kind of work guaranteeing transfer has been going on for dozens of years in transfer compacts and articulation agreements, but now it is just being done at the state-wide level. Peebles said that the response letter from SASCOC indicated no concerns about FOS committees not being representative or not having the authority to determine lower-division curricula for transfer. On the issue of lower-division vs. upper-division Texas History courses, Peebles said that lower- division Texas History was originally put in the ACGM so it could substitute for American History in the core curriculum. African American and Mexican American History could be used to substitute for American History in the core as well. There are instances where a similar course is offered at both the upper and lower division. The crucial issue for FOS is where does a course really belong, and this is a decision the experts in the disciplines need to talk about. Students may end up taking the same subject matter more than once at different levels. Blosser made a motion that Texas History be added to the Teaching Track. Blosser added that this was the single biggest issue in the public comments. In discussion, Esmacher said that we need to be clear that if the committee adds this, institutions are not forced to bump their upper-division courses down to the lower division. Hahn said that the motion should be passed because of the public interest in the topic, and because removing Texas History is damaging to the public perception of our institutions. Milson opposed the motion, saying that it is bad for students attending a community college because they would lose an elective and have to duplicate course content if they go to an institution that offers Texas History only at the upper division or as part of a two-course sequence. Ramos and Esmacher replied that upper-division Texas History courses could be adjusted to be more specialized in individual time periods, theme, or group. Blosser called the question, and the motion carried 8 to 4. Page 3 History FOS Advisory Committee – Jan. 7, 2019 Blosser said that he felt a need to reaffirm a commitment to including World Civilization I and II and the Teaching Track. He made a motion to retain the two courses, and the motion passed 11-0. Blosser read from the minutes of the Teaching Track subcommittee meeting about the issue of allowing a choice between either US History or Mexican American History. Some argued that aspects of colonial US History are left out in Mexican American history and these are needed for the certification exam, and some argued that students are not precluded from taking other Mexican American, African American, or ethnic studies courses. Ramos argued for the inclusion of Mexican American History in the Teaching Track, stating that she went through all of the domains and subset competencies of the certification exams, and most of them are covered in Mexican American History. The Mexican American History cannot be expected to cover everything on the exam because it doesn’t have to—if students take Mexican American History, they will also take additional US History courses at the upper division. Ramos distributed a letter from faculty at South Texas College, The University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley, and other institutions giving reasons for including Mexican American History (see Appendix A). Blosser said that he agrees with the value of Mexican American History, but the FOS is to provide a baseline of knowledge to prepare students for taking the certification exam, and Mexican American History would leave gaps, particularly in colonial American history.