Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Oak Scale Up topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Faculty at Charter Oak criticize system 'scale‑up' plan as slanderous and underinformed
Summary
Faculty representing Charter Oak University and other FAC members clashed over a system document responding to Charter Oak’s proposed expansion of fully online degree offerings, with Charter Oak faculty calling the written response disrespectful and inaccurate and FAC members calling for a focused faculty‑led rebuttal and further discussion.
Multiple faculty members from Charter Oak and members of the Faculty Advisory Committee disagreed sharply over the system’s written commentary on Charter Oak’s proposed ‘‘scale‑up’’ plan, which would expand the college’s online degree offerings.
Charter Oak faculty said the written response circulated within the system characterized the college inaccurately, calling it a ‘‘rebranding and diploma mill’’ and describing a mission inconsistent with what current Charter Oak faculty said is a vetted, accredited college with long‑standing degree programs. Faculty at the meeting said the response misrepresented Charter Oak’s mission and history and that key facts in the response were inaccurate.
Charter Oak faculty said their institution has been evolving for more than a decade away from the older credit‑aggregation model and that the proposed scale‑up plan — which describes launching fully online start‑to‑finish degree programs — differs from the college’s existing mission and practices. Several speakers asked for more engagement between system authors and Charter Oak faculty to correct inaccuracies, and urged the FAC to reserve time at the next meeting for a presentation by Charter Oak faculty.
Other FAC members said the system‑level report under review was authored by a work group (identified in discussion as affiliated with AAUP and other parties) and that the critique in question targeted aspects of the scale‑up proposal rather than Charter Oak as it currently operates. Some FAC members acknowledged the report raised substantive questions about the scale‑up plan’s funding assumptions, use of technology, and proposed student supports, and agreed a clear, evidence‑based response from Charter Oak faculty would help inform wider system discussion.
FAC members proposed practical next steps: Charter Oak faculty agreed to draft a concise written response that addresses factual inaccuracies and clarifies the college’s existing mission and programs; FAC agreed to reserve time on the next agenda for a faculty presentation; and members emphasized the importance of distributing an accurate rebuttal to other system stakeholders to ensure broad understanding.
The meeting record shows strong emotion among faculty, with repeated calls for respect and accurate representation in system documents. FAC members agreed that the committee itself did not author the scathing response and that authorship traced to other parties. Several participants proposed that an authored Charter Oak response be circulated widely and used in subsequent FAC and board conversations.
