Click here or scroll down for these topics:

Present: Task Force Members: Michael Monahan (Macalester College), Patrick Quade (St. Olaf College), Roger Casey* (Rollins College), Anne Ledvina (Birmingham-Southern College), Elizabeth Hayford* (President, ACM), Tanya Lee (Project Coordinator, ACM), Emily Roberts (Program Associate, ACM)

*members of the GPP Coordinating Committee

Not present: Peter Bankart (Wabash College), Patti Brown (Denison University), Shira Malkin (Rhodes College), Sue Mennicke (Southwestern University), R. Blake Michael (Ohio Wesleyan University), Heidi Rauscher Tilghman (Knox College), George Saunders (Lawrence University), Neal Sobania (Hope College)

Introduction

Elizabeth Hayford welcomed the Task Force to the meeting and thanked the members for their continuing support of Best Practices. She noted that the meeting would focus on the Partners Projects and the upcoming Best Practices conference, "Integrating Liberal Learning and Intercultural Education: Theoretical Frameworks and Best Practices," to be held at Lake Forest College on June 14-17.

Tanya Lee announced that Patti Brown and Blake Michael would not be attending the meeting due to flight delays. Heidi Rauscher Tilghman was unable to attend due to a family illness.

Partners Projects

Ms. Hayford reviewed the genesis and purpose of the Partners Projects, stressing the importance of having tangible products emerge from the Best Practices conference. At previous meetings, the Best Practices Task Force had decided to award grants to promising projects following the conference, to provide motivation for conference teams to collaborate after the conference, and to further the ideas and issues addressed at the conference. At its last meeting in November, the Task Force had expressed a strong preference not to provide detailed information to participants before the conference, in order to ensure that concern for grant money would not eclipse critical engagement with the issues at hand. At this meeting, however, the Task Force agreed with Ms. Hayford and Ms. Lee, that this would be logistically problematic because teams need to be thinking about their proposals as soon as possible. Ms. Lee stated that there has been confusion on campuses regarding the team projects, and several participants have contacted her for clarification. A clearer understanding of the goals of the Partners Projects should help teams better formulate their projects (the majority of teams have not yet submitted project descriptions). The Task Force agreed that an announcement should be distributed to the participants before the conference, so that campus teams have more time to think about and prepare a proposal.

Ms. Hayford noted that although Partners Projects are not limited to conference participants, it is more practical for conference participants to serve as leaders of Partners Projects. In order to fully understand the objective and function of the projects, participation in the conference is crucial.

There was extensive discussion on how the $25,000 should be divided for the Partners Projects, to benefit a significant number of campuses while still providing awards large enough to be useful and attractive. The Task Force decided that 10 grants at approximately $2,500 each was a good compromise. Ms. Hayford has subsequently suggested offering grants of approximately $2,000, with an additional $500 awarded to each campus involved in a collaborative project, in order to provide a tangible incentive for collaboration (i.e., a project involving only one campus would receive no more than $2,000, while a project involving collaboration between two campuses could receive a total of $3,000).

Eligibility for Partners Projects was discussed and clarified:

The Task Force then discussed and agreed upon the criteria for evaluating proposals:

After discussing several possible timelines for the Partners Projects, the Task Force decided that proposals should be submitted by July 20, 2001, with selection taking place by August 1. Projects should be completed by August 1, 2002. Selections will be made by a subcommittee of the Task Force, through email and conference calls.

Conference Preparations

In November, the Task Force agreed that the conference will begin on Thursday with a dinner activity which will serve as both an ice breaker and an introduction to the goals and style of the conference. Plans for this activity were further developed at this meeting. Participants will be assigned seats at tables for dinner, so as to maximize diversity; one Task Force member will be placed at each table. Everyone will be asked to share the personal and professional histories that brought them to this conference, generating discussion on hopes and goals for the weekend.

Another group dinner, in the same seating arrangement, will be held Friday evening, for a continuation of the discussion, incorporating the experiences of that day.

At scheduled points throughout the conference, team meetings will be held. Teams with related projects will meet near each other, and may meet together if they choose. Ms. Ledvina proposed that teams be provided with poster paper on which to record the key points of each meeting. These would be posted publicly to allow all participants to see how each other's thinking evolves, and to make connections.

Ms. Lee reviewed the workshop schedule and presenters as they currently stand. There is now at least one presenter for each of the 15 workshops; however, several workshops would benefit from an additional presenter.

Each workshop will be assigned a member of the Task Force as a facilitator. The facilitator will be responsible for introducing the presenter(s) and facilitating discussion.

Ms. Hayford stated that the biggest goal for Sunday morning was to get people thinking about the Partners Projects. From 9:00 to 10:00 a.m., the group will break up into teams to discuss potential Partners Projects, giving participants time to get together to talk about proposals and ways to collaborate. After breakfast at 9:00 a.m., the guidelines and deadlines for the Partners Projects should be reviewed.

The Task Force briefly discussed who should serve on the closing panel. They agreed that members of the Task Force (perhaps those not serving as presenters) and Milton Bennett (if available) would be excellent choices. This panel will review and reflect on the conference, and set the tone for the Partners Projects, clarifying the goals and deadlines for these grants.

Ms. Lee stated that all the information for the conference, including a draft agenda, will be posted on the Global Partners website, as it becomes available. She will also send out more detailed information on all aspects of the conference over email. The Task Force discussed whether a conference booklet that included readings should be also be sent to participants in advance. Several potential readings were offered. The Task Force agreed to think about background readings over the next week, and send suggestions to Ms. Lee. They agreed that two or three article-length readings would be reasonable.

Evaluation

In order to assess the conference, Ms. Hayford suggested that we ask three main questions:

An evaluation form will be distributed at the conference, and will be either collected before participants leave, or returned with reimbursements forms.

The Future

At the end of the meeting, the Task Force briefly discussed the future of the Best Practices initiative. ACM, ACS, and GLCA plan to apply to the Mellon Foundation for an extension of the Global Partners Project, for a similar amount of time and funding. Possible activities for the Best Practices Task Force during the second round of Global Partners include:

The question of the role of program directorship in tenure consideration was raised.

Next Meeting

The next Best Practices Task Force meeting is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, just before the conference begins. The Task Force will receive a tour of the facilities, and talk about the schedule and last-minute details. On Sunday, members of the Task Force will meet for lunch after the closing plenary.

Submitted by Tanya Lee and Emily Roberts, 5/16/01