The Faculty Council did not take action on the
report, tabled it, and requested additional information for the June 11
Faculty Council meeting, which is immediately followed by a meeting of
the General Faculty. Clarification
of the new CME role will need to be approved in Faculty Council and then
by the faculty-at-large.
Martin Resnick, chairman of the Committee for Planning, Evaluating, and
Administering the Curriculum, presented a new draft governance at the
February 11, 2000 Landerhaven Medical Education Retreat. Recommendations included that the CME 1) be removed from the
day-to-day running of the curriculum but retain its hand in strategic
planning, 2) take on an advisory role in overseeing and evaluating the
curriculum, 3) review student performance on the NBME exams, and 4) be
viewed as an independent group to evaluate all aspects of the curriculum
and not as a legislative group.
The resulting document, Responsibility
for the CWRU School of Medicine Curriculum, modifying the CME’s
role for responsibility for the curriculum, passed at the March 13, 2000
Faculty of Medicine meeting. The
Faculty Council will ultimately issue what constitutes the new charge to
the CME based on the feedback from the Committee to Review the Standing
The CME has been criticized for “soft” agendas
and unregulated discussion by the Committee to Review the Standing
Committees. (The CME has
been in limbo for over a year since the Resnick report.)
However, the conclusion of the Committee to Review the Standing
Committees was that there
needs to be a CME to ensure that the faculty is still running the
The CME is perceived as a policy board as opposed to
an operations or administration branch.
The Committee to Review the Standing Committees
the chairs of the Curriculum Leadership Council (CLC), the Clinical
Rotation Development Council (CRDC), and the electives program to the
CME as voting
members. These three
“councils” are not faculty committees.
Although they consist of faculty, they are created by the
to preserve the proper balance of elected CME members, it is suggested
that the CME expand the portion of its elected members.
The Committee to Review the Standing Committees favors expansion
of the number of elected CME members.
Dr. LaManna next presented his own DRAFT organizational chart.
All entities would be under the authority of the Dean of the
Medical School, who has overall responsibility, the final say-so.
On Dr. LaManna’s chart, the base of the model is the curriculum,
which encompasses 1) policy and evaluation, 2) content, 3) operations
linked with 4) administration. Dr.
LaManna acknowledged that these four areas can overlap, but he is using
them as “markers” to indicate where specific constituencies exert
their influence on a particular area.
Subsequent to CME discussion, it was decided to make operations
and administration one area.
The CME is the educational arm of the faculty.
has responsibility for policy.
CME reports to the Faculty Council, which reports to the general faculty
of the School of Medicine.
Later in the meeting, it was suggested that we add the Student CME in a block immediately to the left of the CME.
Next mentioned was the Vice
Dean for Education. There
will be a new Vice Dean for Education.
The Vice Dean appoints the chairs
of the three councils: The
Curriculum Leadership Council (CLC), the Clinical Rotation Development
Council (CRDC), and the electives program (which has not yet
been renovated). The CLC is
involved with the Core Academic Program and the Introduction to Clinical
Medicine in the first two years of undergraduate medical school.
The CRDC deals with the third year and includes the clerkship
directors. The electives
program, currently called the Flexible Program, deals with enrichment
and consists of Type A and Type B electives.
According to Dr. LaManna’s draft, the Vice Dean is in charge of the CLC, the CRDC, and the electives
program, and all these determine content, or,
“product,” as coined by Dr. Joe Miller.
The Vice Dean is also over the Medical Education Office and
block has a link to the Dean’s Office and is in charge of operations and administration.
The Medical Education Office includes the Patient-Based
Program Coordinator and the Director of Curricular Administration.
Dean for the Office of Biomedical Information Technologies
reports directly to the Dean and, like the Medical Education Office and
Coordinators, is responsible for operations
of the curriculum is defined by the faculty groups whose heads are
appointed by the Dean/Vice Dean’s office and by the faculty involved
in the day-to-day teaching in the subject committees and clerkships.
The CLC appoints the subject committee chairs.
The new suggestion that the
appointed chairs of the three content committees (CLC, CRDC, and
electives program) sit as voting members on the CME gives them a means
of communicating their influence on content to the Faculty Council.
The CME adjudicates conflicts of the three groups (CLC, CRDC,
and electives). Dr. LaManna emphasized that his
diagram is a cooperation diagram, one based on collegial relations.
The Dean has the final say-so when there is an irresolvable
conflict. Dr. LaManna’s
diagram gives the spheres of responsibility and sets up a balance.
Every group has a place to register their input.
The CME is the only committee with student
representation on the education diagram.
(Also, the CME is the only education committee with defined
department chair membership.)
Dr. LaManna turned to the second page of his April
27 Draft of the Proposed Plan
for 2001-2002 for the CME. The
CME plans to have regular monthly meetings (instead of bi-monthly)
supplemented by ad hoc meetings as deemed necessary.
Regular agendas would consist of announcements, approval of
minutes, Student CME, regular reports, CME subcommittee reports, and
issues raised from the floor (time permitting).
All reports would provide a
written report prior to presentation.
Dr. LaManna’s draft of reports listed the following:
Beginning and end-of-year reports from the CLC,
CRDC, and Flexible Program directors
A yearly report on the electronic curriculum
from the Associate Dean for Biomedical Information Technologies
A medical education report from the Vice Dean
describing the CWRU School of Medicine’s relationship with
affiliated teaching hospitals, the university, the 13 school
consortium, and the national scene
An end-of-year report from the Associate Dean
for Residency and Career Planning on residency match
A report twice a year on the dual degree
Regular reports on CWRU student performance on
the USMLE Step exams
Entering class statistical profile from the
Associate Dean of Admissions, and
A periodic review of the data from course
evaluations of the subject committees, clerkships, and electives (as
they become available electronically).
Dr. LaManna presented his list of suggested CME
subcommittees. He would
like to establish the following topics as focused narrowly within CME interests as
official subcommittees of the CME:
policies and standards of evaluation
vertical themes that span four years
faculty development that affects delivery of the curriculum
ad hoc subcommittees as needed
is the goal of the CME to be the body representing the value of
teaching to the faculty.
By May 10, 2001, Dr. LaManna would like agreement on his two-page draft
handout so that it can be submitted at the Faculty Council meeting on
June 11. Please call Dr.
LaManna with your ideas at 368-1112 or e-mail him at JCL4@po.cwru.edu.