The California Articulation Number System: Toward Increased Faculty Participation

Educational Policy Committee 1997 - 98
Janis Perry, Chair - Santa Ana College - Counseling
John Nixon - Santa Ana College - CIO Representative
Linda Collins - Los Medanos College - Sociology/Humanities
Lin Marelick - Mission College - Graphic Design
Richard Rose - Santa Rosa College - Counseling
Chris Storer - DeAnza College - Philosophy
Kathy Sproles - Hartnell College - English/Basic Skills
David Wilkerson - Santa Barbara College - Student Senate Rep.
Ian Walton - Mission College - Mathematics

Educational Policy Committee 1996 - 97
Regina Stanback-Stroud, Chair(Fall) - Santa Ana College - Health Science
Janis Perry, Chair (Spring) - Santa Ana College - Counseling
Dona Boatwright - College of Marin - CIO Representative
Linda Collins - Los Medanos College - Sociology/Humanities
Richard Rose - Santa Rosa College - Counseling
Marina Valenzuela-Smith - Antelope Valley College - Foreign Language
Ian Walton - Mission College - Mathematics

Abstract
This paper responds to plenary session resolutions directing the Academic Senate Executive Committee to prepare a background paper regarding faculty participation, evaluation and funding of the California Articulation Number (CAN) system.
The paper explores the background and purpose of CAN, examines the CAN-ing process, describes the criteria to qualify courses, discusses faculty participation and identifies systemwide issues in the evaluation and funding of the project.

Local senates should view the Caning process as part of the local curriculum review / approval process and assure that there is faculty participation and oversight. This paper will assist local senates to understand the CAN process and make specific recommendations to ensure faculty and local senate involvement.

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to respond to Fall 1994 Plenary Session resolutions (4.4 and 4.5) directing the Educational Policies Committee to prepare a background paper and recommendations regarding faculty participation, evaluation and funding of CAN and assist local senates to better understand the CAN process. The resolutions are as follows:

Be it further resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges participate in an evaluation of CAN, and
Be it finally resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges urge the CAN Coordinating Council and the Chancellor to seek funding sources other than the Intersegmental Joint Faculty Projects fund.

4.5 F94 Therefore be it resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recommend to the Chancellor that any further fiscal contribution by the CCC to the CAN project be predicated on the conduct of a formal evaluation which relies primarily on the input from counseling faculty and students, and
Be it further resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recommend to the Board of Governors that the CAN System Coordinating Council be expanded to include broader community college faculty representation appointed solely by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.

The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has consistently supported eliminating barriers to transfer and recommended the use of an alternate course number system as an option, as long as it includes the elements of academic integrity, academic freedom, appropriate processes and resources for articulation.
In its paper Toward A Common Course Numbering System (Fall 1995), the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recognized that the California Articulation Number System (CAN) is a key element in the discussion of intersegmental and intrasegmental articulation. This paper concurred with the 1985 CPEC study that a uniform course numbering system is not feasible in light of the number of colleges, local governance responsibilities, wide range of curriculum development processes and astronomical cost. Therefore an alternate course numbering system should serve as an expanded numbering system, not replace the institution's number and titles, and be a cross reference on a statewide matrix.

Background of CAN
There are many factors which affect the successful transfer of a student and influence the role and responsibility of colleges and their collective faculty. One major consideration in the student's ability to transfer, either intra-segmentally or inter-segmentally, is the college having the necessary course-to-course articulation.

California Community College students need to have quality course-to-course articulation and a course numbering system which provides accurate academic preparation information. Community college students must know which courses to complete at their home campus to meet specific degree requirements at the receiving institutions. A lack of an articulated, comprehensive, statewide, alternate or expanded numbering system results in transfer students losing time and credit in fulfilling degree requirements. One solution to this problem is the use of an expanded CAN system.

Currently, the CAN system reports that 100 California Community Colleges (CCC), 19 California State Universities (CSU), 1 University of California (UC), and 4 private universities and colleges are participating in qualifying courses for CAN. There are 7,186 community college courses that have been CAN approved. This number continues to increase each year.

Origin of CAN
Historically, there has been much concern over the complexities facing transfer students, barriers to transfer from community colleges to CSU and UC, - particularly for disadvantaged and underrepresented students-, as well as the stagnant rate of overall transfer. As an approach to assist in overcoming these barriers, CAN began as a voluntary pilot project in 1982. The project involved 12 community colleges and 5 four-year institutions that were updating their articulation agreements and identifying the most commonly transferred courses in twenty-seven disciplines.⁽¹⁾

The CAN pilot goal was to provide a statewide articulation system and simplify the confusing multiplicity of course numbering systems facing transfer students without requiring these institutions to abandon their own course numbers and titles. As a result, in 1983, the CAN project started statewide on a voluntary basis under a flexible, mutually acceptable set of procedures for institutional participation. During this phase the project was operated without state funding.

In addition in 1983, Senate Bill 851 directed the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to develop a plan for a course numbering system to be used by public postsecondary educational institutions. The bill reflected a concern about barriers to transfer, primarily for students who were historically underrepresented in higher education. Later codified, Education Code, Chapter 565, directed that the course numbering system be designed to do the following:

Promote the transfer of community college students to four - year postsecondary institutions by simplifying the identification of transferable courses and specific disciplines and programs to which those courses are transferable.
Promote the development of a common method of course identification within each segment of public postsecondary education where there is a clear need for such a common method.
Help identify courses with comparable content, so that certain competencies can be expected upon completion of such courses.
There were several issues implied in the statute mandating the development of a plan:⁽²⁾

1. The extent to which a common course-numbering system in California would reduce problems of community college transfer students in meeting baccalaureate degree requirements in an efficient and timely fashion;

2. The feasibility of implementing or adapting a statewide common course numbering system like that in place in Florida;

3. The cost of implementing such a system, including developmental and maintenance costs and its likely cost effectiveness;

4. The alternative to a uniform, statewide course numbering system, its feasibility, and cost ; and

5. The ability of the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State Universities to implement alternative systems and their potential support of these options.

In response to SB815, CPEC conducted a study that addressed the usefulness, feasibility, and cost of implementing a common course numbering system. CPEC conducted a nationwide study of course numbering systems. The research indicated that only Florida and Puerto Rico had common course numbering systems. The two-year colleges in Puerto Rico are part of the university system, thus leaving Florida as the only state with two or more segments of public higher education to have developed a common course numbering system.

" A systematic approach to numbering baccalaureate level courses offered by California's various segments and institutions of higher education would help students make choices related to transfer, plan their lower division programs, and evaluate alternative transfer opportunities. "
" A uniform course numbering system like that in Florida is unnecessary in California, excessively costly and bureaucratic, and probably unworkable because of the size and complexity of California higher education. Furthermore, such a uniform system appears to make unduly simplistic assumptions about the comparability or equivalency of courses offered by different institutions and gives community college students and counselors a false sense of security about equivalency if they are not familiar with the special conditions and limitations imposed by some institutions on transfer courses with with common numbers"⁽³⁾

The conclusions of CPEC included a more systematic approach to numbering baccalaureate level courses and the expansion of CAN. The conclusions also argued that course equivalency guides and matrices of equivalent courses would be of limited value in California because of the large number of programs and institutions involved in the transfer function in California.

In January 1985,CPEC made a recommendation to the legislature and Governor to fund the implementation of the CAN system. In partnership with the faculty in the UC and CSU, the Academic Senate concurred with that recommendation and urged the systems to work to adopt CAN numbers for all undergraduate courses offered generally across campuses in each segment. Thus, the CAN system officially started July 1985, with the three systems of public higher education sharing the funding. In November 1990, the University of California withdrew its funding support due to budget constraints, subsequently leaving CAN funding to be shared by the California Community Colleges and California State University. A CAN Coordinating Committee, comprised of representatives from the California Community Colleges (CCC), California State University (CSU), University of California (UC),and Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AAICU), provides oversight and direction.

The CAN System
The California Articulation Number System (CAN) is a cross reference course identification system for lower division, transferable major preparation courses. The CAN system is based on course articulation—courses considered to be comparable, but not necessarily identical, and acceptable "in lieu of" each other. The system allows each campus to retain its own course number, prefix, and title. CAN course numbers are listed next to the campus course number and prefix in local college catalogs and other publications.

Criteria to Qualify a Course for CAN
The criterion for courses to qualify to use a CAN prefix is the same for both community colleges and four-year institutions. Course descriptions were developed by intersegmental faculty committees. The descriptions are guidelines for discipline faculty to determine that a comparable course is offered on their campus in order to identify it for the CAN system.

The CAN Process
The basic premise of the California Articulation Numbering System is that identically numbered CAN courses are acceptable "in lieu of" each other. Campuses with one or more courses that have met the criterion, and whose officials have signed the "Statement of Commitment," agree to accept the identically numbered courses and use them in the same way their own CAN qualified courses are used. The CAN system eliminates the necessity for each campus to negotiate articulation agreements with every other campus.⁽⁵⁾

Each campus retains its own course number, prefix, and title. The California Articulation Number designation ( e.g., CAN CHEM 2) is simply added to the course listing in the class schedule, catalogs, and transcripts to assure it is readily identifiable to anyone seeking the information. Students at the participating campus have the certainty that a CAN designated course on their campus will be accepted in lieu of an identically designated CAN course at any other participating campus in the state.

Each course included in the system has been assigned a number and discipline prefix, (e.g., CAN ENGL 2). Semester courses carry EVEN numbers, and quarter unit courses are assigned ODD numbers, (e.g., CAN ENGL 1). When a sequence of courses within a discipline is the sum of the content of two or more courses, it is assigned a letter designation, (e.g., CAN ENGL SEQ A).

CAN Coordinating Council
The CAN system is overseen by the CAN Coordinating Council which meets two or three times a year to monitor the implementation of the Number System statewide, formulate policy, and establish goals. The council serves as a forum for the exchange of information, debate and discussion of major issues related to the CAN system. Representatives from the system offices of the three segments, the statewide academic senates, and articulation officers from the community colleges, the California State University, and the independent colleges and universities serve on the coordinating council.

Upon review, the current CAN Coordinating Council structure does not reflect the primary role of faculty over the curriculum. It is the faculty who are responsible for validating the meeting of educational requirements and who possess the academic expertise to determine the educational standards of courses, programs, and educational models. Therefore, the faculty should be the primary contributor to the monitoring, implementation, policy formulation, and establishing of goals for the CAN system.

Faculty Participation in CAN
The Academic Senate paper, The Curriculum Committee: Role, Structure, Duties, and Standards of Good Practice, explicitly states "the design of curricula needed to carry out instruction is the primary role of the faculty and the major area of professional expertise. The faculty maintain a "collective oversight" of the curriculum processes through the Academic Senate in its role of recommending policies and procedures in the area of curriculum, and by the Curriculum Committee, as the vehicle by which the Senate assures that those policies and procedures are implemented and that quality, effective course and programs are recommended for approval".⁽⁶⁾

Most colleges have placed the Caning process as part of the articulation function and distinguished separately from the curriculum process. However, the Caning of a course is predicated on faculty-to-faculty dialogue and articulation agreements.

The actual process of developing and reviewing curriculum and coursework to determine course comparability between institutions rests with the faculty. Faculty in each discipline are responsible for the actual review of course content, the identification of comparable courses, and the authorization of acceptance of specific courses for transferring students. Once this review, identification, and formal written acceptance process has occurred, a course (or courses) is said to have been "articulated". Implicit in the articulation process is involvement, communication, and cooperation between the respective faculties who mutually develop curriculum and establish requirements and standards for articulated courses.⁽⁷⁾

Those agreements become part of the curriculum processes of the local college and therefore are subjected to local Academic Senate oversight as an academic and professional matter.

Role of the Articulation Officer
The process of faculty review leading to the articulation of courses between institutions is coordinated and facilitated by the Articulation Officer on each campus. Specifically, the Articulation Officer:

Initiates faculty approved articulation agreements between institutions of higher education.

Serves as a consultant to faculty and academic units, providing needed materials and information about course articulation proposals and acceptance.

Serves as an advocate for the faculty and campus academic programs.

Serves as an advocate for the other articulating institution.

Serves as a moderator and mediator of problems or disagreements between the faculties of the home campus and the articulating institutions.

Serves on appropriate campus committees.

Monitors each stage of the articulation process and follows up with departments / faculty for timely responses and decisions.⁽⁸⁾

The articulation function in the Caning processes is labor intensive, time consuming, and less understood as it relates to the curriculum approval functions on local campuses. At the Fall 1992 Plenary Session, the faculty passed a Resolution (4.1) that local academic senates support the articulation officer function. The resolution reads:

4.1 F92 Articulation Officers in Curriculum Committees
Be it resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges encourage local senates to ensure that their articulation officer serve as a resource to the campus curriculum committee, and
Be it further resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges urge local senates to ensure that support of an articulation officer be a campus priority, including the support of the articulation function and clerical assistance.

The Academic Senate Educational Policy Committee in its recent survey found (see Appendix C):

forty-seven percent of the colleges reporting indicated that less than .5 FTE of staff time is spent on articulation.
ninety-two percent of the colleges reporting indicated that there is not enough release time to adequately perform the articulation function.
eighty-two percent of the colleges reported that the articulation officer is a faculty member (usually doing articulation as part of their assignment. 10% reported that their officer was an administrator (as part of his or her assignment) 8% reported having classified staff serve as articulation officers
ninety-five percent of the colleges reported that the articulation officer served either as a voting member (faculty) or non voting member (classified/administrator) of their curriculum committee.

CAN Funding and Evaluation
The funding level for the CAN system has not increased since its inception in 1985. The project suffered a loss of $70,000 in funding when the University of California withdrew its support in 1990-91. Subsequently, the California State University and California Community Colleges were forced to look to other funding sources to cover the costs of operating the system. The Community Colleges Chancellor's Office used $50,000 of the Intersegmental Joint Faculty Projects Fund which was originally intended to be used for intersegmental faculty-to-faculty projects.

Conversations with the CAN system office and the Chancellor's Office staff revealed that the project has not undergone any formal evaluation of the efficacy and efficiency of its services. The CAN project has only recently received authorization and funding to conduct a program evaluation.

In response to Academic Senate resolutions (F94, 4.4 and F94, 4.5) calling for more faculty participation and evaluation of CAN, the Academic Senate Executive Committee has approved recommending to the Chancellor's Office that the following items be included in any formal evaluation (see Appendix C) of the CAN project. The CAN grant proposal included the following criteria:

1. Evaluate structural and functional characteristics of CAN that create and maintain barriers to the Caning of courses.

2. Evaluate the structures and functions of CAN that effect the dissemination and acquisition of information regarding the CAN processes. To what extent does CAN actually solicit or encourage participation by the four- year institutions?

3. Evaluate CAN's ability to make successful CAN processes available to interested institutions in order to facilitate the "Caning" of courses.

4. Evaluate the level of active faculty -to- faculty dialogue supported by the CAN processes.

8. Evaluate how the CAN process recognizes or ensures the final CAN agreement is a result of articulation agreements that include appropriate faculty signatures.

These items were presented to the Chancellor's office in Spring 1997 with the recommendation that they become part of the established criteria in the grant proposal to fund any CAN evaluation.

In researching the background information on the California Articulation Numbering System and evaluating the results of the accompanying survey of local college articulation practices (see Appendix C), the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges would make the following recommendations to local senates:

1. Local Senates recognize the California Articulation Numbering process as part of the local curriculum review/approval process.

2. Local Senates, through their curriculum processes, must ensure that the signatures of discipline faculty are on the articulation agreements when submitting courses for CAN approval (e.g., Statement of Commitment). This documentation should be provided by the colleges.

3. As a standard of practice, the articulation function on the campus should be assumed by a faculty member with the knowledge and expertise of the curriculum.

4. Local Senates should evaluate the amount of time needed for articulation within the college, particularly that needed to develop articulation agreements and CAN -ing of courses, to ensure that students can identify transferable courses required for access.

Summary
In summary, this paper furthers the recognition that CAN is critical to any dialogue about intersegmental or intrasegmental articulation. The process of Caning a course is part of the articulation function, however on local campuses this process is often mistakenly distinguished as separate from the curriculum process, and should not be so.

Further, faculty participation in the Caning process is essential. The actual process of developing and reviewing curriculum and coursework to determine course comparability between institutions resides with the discipline faculty. The process is predicated on faculty-to-faculty dialogue resulting in articulation. This articulation is facilitated by the college articulation officer who may or may not be a faculty member. This articulation function is labor intensive, time consuming, and less understood within the curriculum approval function on local campuses than it should be.

Finally, this paper demonstrates that local senates have a responsibility to remain informed on the Caning process, as it relates to articulation and curriculum approval/review. Local senates need to ensure that when the college submits courses for CAN approval that there is evidence of faculty signatures on the course to course articulation agreements.

Bibliography
1. California Postsecondary Education Commission, "A Guide for California Articulation Numbering System," 1992.

2. California Postsecondary Education Commission, "Common Course - Numbering System, A Report to the Legislature in Response to Senate Bill 851," 1998.

3. California Postsecondary Education Commission, "A Guide for the California Articulation Numbering System," 1995.

4. Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, "The Curriculum Committee: Role, Structure, Duties and Standards of Good Practice," 1996.

Appendix A
(A Guide for the California Articulation Number System. Revised 1995)

What are the Criteria to Qualify A Course for the California Articulation Number System?

1. A Guide for California Articulation Numbering System, California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1992.

2. Common Course -Numbering System, A Report to the Legislature in Response to Senate Bill 851, pg. 2, CPEC 1983.

3. A Guide for the California Articulation Numbering System. California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1995

4. A Guide for California Articulation Number System. CPEC Commission, 1995, pg. 7

5. A Guide for California Articulation Number System. CPEC Commission, 1995, pg. 9

6. The Curriculum Committee: Role, Structure, Duties, and Standards of Good Practice, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 1996

7. Handbook of California Articulation Policies and Procedures, 1995

8. Handbook of California Articulation Policies and Procedures, 1995, pg.2.