 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Curriculum Committee: Role, Structure, Duties, and Standards of Good Practice Adopted Fall 1996 Contents Curriculum Committee, 1995-96
Curriculum Committee, 1996-97 Abstract Acknowledgment The main function of the curriculum committee is that of primary responsibility for the development, review, renewal, and recommendation of curriculum to be approved by the Board of Trustees. Curriculum renewal and development necessarily reflect the collegial
decision to meet student needs for course work that is encompassed
within basic skills, general education, transfer, and major programs
of study, which include a wide array of occupational and liberal
arts disciplines and areas. Effective curriculum renewal and development
require that the curriculum committee of each college utilize standards
of practice that ensure the highest possible quality for the curriculum
offerings that can be made available within allocated resources.
As faculty, we have dedicated our professional lives
to ensuring that students are able to fulfill their educational
potential. The provision of instruction, with all the support services
necessary to make that instruction possible, is the faculty's responsibility.
The design of the curricula needed to carry out that instruction
is a primary role of faculty and the major area of our professional
expertise. While each of us in our own disciplines provides the
specific expertise to develop courses and programs in the areas
of our training and preparation, the oversight of that process is
our collective responsibility as members of the college faculty.
That collective oversight is accomplished at the local level both
by 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 academic senate assures that those policies
and procedures are implemented and that quality, effective courses
and programs are recommended for approval. This paper outlines the statutory and regulatory roles
of the curriculum committee. Moreover, this paper describes the
policies and procedures faculty have found to be most effective
in putting those statutes and regulations into practice. Readers
of this document should pay particular attention to the differentiation
between curriculum committee functions which are "required" and
those which are "good practice." The experiences of college curriculum committees throughout
the system in developing curriculum are continually being discussed
in a variety of forums, including semi-annual meetings of the Academic
Senate, meetings of chief instructional officers, and in regional
colloquia. The need for this paper was formally recognized at the
Spring 1994 Plenary Session in passing Resolution 8.1 (Rincon-Germond):
Be it resolved that the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges direct the Executive Committee to prepare guidelines
for local senates regarding model practices for curriculum committees
which include, but are not limited to: standards for committee composition,
role of department/division chairs, role of administrators, role
of librarians, involvement in program review, and resource allocation,
and to present such guidelines at a future session. This paper will become the centerpiece of volume II
of The Curriculum Standards Handbook for the California Community
Colleges: Good Practices which will be prepared jointly by the Academic
Senate and the Chief Instructional Officers. This volume will list
and summarize the variety of good practices that are currently being
employed as well as provide model documents, flow charts, and other
materials that reflect the steps taken by colleges successful in
their efforts to renew and develop their curriculum. Readers should
refer to volume I, The Curriculum Standards Handbook for the California
Community Colleges: Legal and Procedural Requirements, for required
practices.
II. The Role of the Curriculum Committee In AB 1725, the Legislature specifically required
the Board of Governors to establish regulations ensuring the effective
participation of local academic senates in governance, especially
in the area of curriculum and academic standards (bold and italics
are added for emphasis): Ed. Code, §70901. (a) The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges shall provide leadership and direction in the continuing development of the California Community Colleges as an integral and effective element in the structure of public higher education in the state. The work of the Board of Governors shall at all times be directed to maintaining and continuing, to the maximum degree permissible, local authority and control in the administration of the California Community Colleges. (b) Subject to, and in furtherance of subdivision (a), and in consultation with community college districts and other interested parties as specified in subdivision (e), the Board of Governors shall provide general supervision over community college districts and shall, in furtherance thereof, perform the following functions: (1) Establish minimum standards as required by law, including, but not limited to, the following: (E) Minimum standards governing procedures established
by governing boards of community college districts to ensure faculty,
staff, and students the right to participate effectively in district
and college governance, and the opportunity to express their opinions
at the campus level and to ensure that these opinions are given
every reasonable consideration, and the right of academic senates
to assume primary responsibility for making recommendations in the
areas of curriculum and academic standards. While authority for final approval of educational
programs remains with the Board of Governors, approval of the courses
which constitute those programs lies with the local governing board.
Furthermore, the Legislature differentiated between the role of
the local governing board in approvingcourses and programs from
that of the academic senate in having primary responsibility for
recommending that curriculum. Ed. Code, §70902. (a) ...The governing board of each community college district shall establish rules and regulations not inconsistent with the regulations of the Board of Governors and the laws of this state for the government and operation of one or more community colleges in the district. (b) In furtherance of the provisions of subdivision (a), the governing board of each community college district shall do all of the following: (2) Establish policies for and approve courses of instruction and educational programs. The educational programs shall be submitted to the Board of Governors for approval. Courses of instruction that are not offered in approved educational programs shall be submitted to the Board of Governors for approval. [Note: Authority to approve courses not part of programs has been conditionally delegated to the local board. See the section of this paper on Maintaining Delegated Curriculum Approval.] The governing board shall establish policies for, and approve, individual courses that are offered in approved educational programs without referral to the Board of Governors. (7) Establish procedures not inconsistent with minimum
standards established by the Board of Governors to ensure faculty,
staff, and students the right to participate effectively in district
and college governance and the right of academic senates to assume
primary responsibility for making recommendations in the areas of
curriculum and academic standards. The Board of Governors is specifically called upon
to establish policies to ensure the primary role of the academic
senate in determining curriculum: AB 1725. Section 61. The Board of Governors of the California Community colleges shall, by January 1, 1990, do all of the following: (a) Develop policies and guidelines for strengthening
the role of the academic senate with regard to the determination
and administration of academic and professional standards, course
approval and curricula, and other academic matters. The Board enacted regulations in this area as Title
5 Sections 53200-206. Title 5, §53203. Powers. (a) The governing board of a community college district shall adopt policies for the appropriate delegation of authority and responsibility to its college and/or district academic senate. Among other matters, said policies, at a minimum, shall provide that the governing board or its designees will consult collegially with the academic senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters. This requirement to consult collegially shall not limit other rights and responsibilities of the academic senate which are specifically provided in statute or other regulations contained in this part. §53200. Definitions (c) "Academic and professional matters" means the following policy development and implementation matters: (1) Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines (2) Degree and certificate requirements (3) Grading policies (4) Educational program development (5) Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success (6) District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles (7) Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self study and annual reports (8) Policies for faculty professional development activities (9) Processes for program review (10) Processes for institutional planning and budget development, and (11) Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the governing board and the academic senate. (d) "Consult collegially" means that the district governing board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters through either or both of the following methods, according to its own discretion: (1) Relying primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senate; or (2) That the district governing board, or such representatives
as it may designate, and the representatives of the academic senate
shall have the obligation to reach mutual agreement by written resolution,
regulation, or policy of the governing board effectuating such recommendations.
As a consequence, each local governing board may adopt
policies and procedures related to curriculum only if recommendations
on those curriculum policies and procedures are made through collegial
consultation with the local academic senate. The curriculum committee is the vehicle upon which
the local academic senate relies in carrying out its responsibility
to develop curriculum recommendations for presentation to the local
governing board. As stated in the Title 5 sections below, courses
and programs must be recommended by the curriculum committee and
approved by the governing board of a college district. The curriculum
committee may either be a committee of the senate or a college committee
whose composition is mutually agreed upon by the senate and the
administration. Title 5, §55002. Standards and Criteria for Courses and Classes (a) Associate Degree Credit Course. An associate degree credit course is a course which has been designated as appropriate to the associate degree in accordance with the requirements of Section 55805.5, and which has been recommended by the college and/or district curriculum committee and approved by the district governing board as a collegiate course meeting the needs of the students eligible for admission. (1) Curriculum Committee. The college and/or district curriculum committee recommending the course shall be established by the mutual agreement of the college and/or district administration and the academic senate. The committee shall be either a committee of the academic senate or a committee that includes faculty and is otherwise comprised in a way that is mutually agreeable to the college and/or district administration and the academic senate. (2) Standards for Approval. The college and/or district
curriculum committee shall recommend approval of the course for
associate degree credit if it meets the following standards....
[Similar language appears in paragraph (b) for nondegree credit
courses and in paragraph (c) for noncredit courses.] Summary
1. The academic senate has primary responsibility
for making recommendations in the area of curriculum and academic
standards [Ed. Code §70902(b)(7)]. This right is protected
as a minimum standard set by the Board of Governors [Ed. Code §70901(b)(1)(E)].
2. The local governing board has the responsibility
to establish policies for and approve courses of instruction and
educational programs [Ed. Code §70902(b)(2)]. 3. The Board of Governors has the responsibility to
develop policies and guidelines for strengthening the role of the
academic senate with regard to determination and administration
of course approval and curricula [AB 1725 Section 61] and has done
so in Title 5 §53203 and §55002. 4. The academic senate has the authority and responsibility
delegated to it by the local board to develop recommendations on
policies and procedures in academic and professional matters, which
include curriculum [Title 5 §53203]. The board must consult
collegially either by primarily relying on or reaching mutual agreement
with the senate. 5. The curriculum committee has the responsibility
to recommend to the local board those courses and programs which
meet stated standards. It may be a committee of the senate or a
college committee, but in either case its composition must be mutually
agreed upon by the administration and the senate [Title 5 §55002].
6. The role of the administration is defined in the
local shared governance policies and procedures of the district
in the areas of curriculum development and renewal. The curriculum committee reviews and recommends courses
and programs functioning under policies and procedures set by the
academic senate (either through primary advice to or mutual agreement
with the board). The composition of the curriculum committee is
agreed upon mutually even if for other curriculum policies and procedures
the board relies primarily upon the senate. The board approves courses
and programs recommended directly by the curriculum committee and
with the assurance of the academic senate that established policies
and procedures have been reviewed and followed. The Board of Governors
has final approval for educational programs passed by the local
board and assures that local governance procedures affirm the primary
responsibility of the academic senate in academic and curricular
matters. The role of the curriculum committee is specified
in Title 5 in the area of recommending courses and programs in the
curriculum. However, other duties may be assigned to the committee
as part of the shared governance structure of the college. This
paper will cover standards of good practice for such additional
areas as development of the catalog and the schedule of classes,
program review, articulation, and placing courses in disciplines.
Relationship Between the Academic
Senate and the Curriculum Committee The link between the academic senate and the curriculum
committee can be accomplished in several ways. A common practice
is to specify that the chair be a member of the senate. Often this
is done by assigning the chairship to the past president or vice
president of the senate. Alternately, the chair may be selected
by the curriculum committee and then become an ex officio senate
member. In any case, reports by the curriculum committee should
be a regular senate agenda item. The nature of the senate report requires comment.
Typically, the committee reports both on the courses and programs
to be recommended to the Board for approval (usually just a list)
and on the procedures used (usually as committee minutes). Because
Title 5 specifies that curriculum is recommended to the Board by
the curriculum committee [Title 5 §55002(a)], it is not the
role of the senate to change the recommendations. However, it is
appropriate for the senate to review the policies and procedures
used [Title 5 §53203(a)] and call attention to any irregularities
which might require a recommendation to be returned to the committee
for reconsideration.
Membership Communication between discipline faculty and the curriculum
committee is essential for smooth operation. Department and division
meetings should have a regular spot on the agenda for a report from
the representative to the curriculum committee. Discipline and divisional
faculty should thoroughly review and approve new and revised curricula
before forwarding them to the curriculum committee. Division deans
and department chairs should facilitate the process but do not have
approval or sign-off authority. Counseling and library faculty should
be part of this representative model and each should select representatives
to the curriculum committee. Because curriculum is the primary responsibility of
the faculty, the voting membership of the committee should be predominantly
faculty. Students must be provided an opportunity to participate
in formulation and development of district and college policies
and procedures on curriculum (Title 5 §51023.7); their right
to vote on the committee is determined locally by mutual agreement
between the academic senate and the board of trustees. The exclusive
bargaining agent for the faculty also has the right to negotiate
representation on the committee (Title 5 §53204). Key administrative
functions which can assist the committee in its work include an
instructional administrator, typically the chief instructional officer
(CIO), and a student services administrator, typically the dean
of counseling, as well as those responsible for articulation and
matriculation—be they faculty or administrators. The voting status
of administrators who may serve on the curriculum committee is a
matter for local decision as the academic senate and the Board of
Trustees work cooperatively to establish the shared governance structure
of the college. Classified participation is not specified as an
area of significant effect on classified staff as detailed in Title
5 §51023.5 and so classified staff do not generally participate
as members of the curriculum committee. Good practice has shown
the value in clearly defining term lengths for each committee member,
with members being able to succeed themselves if so selected by
their constituency. Term limits have not shown themselves to be
good practice since valuable expertise tends to be lost.
The Curriculum Committee Chair
The role of the faculty chair varies significantly from college to college, particularly with the size of the institution. The following are typical duties. (See the appendix for some typical job descriptions.)
The faculty chair or CO-chair typically receives significant
reassigned time for the year. A survey conducted by the Academic
Senate in 1992 showed a median of 25% reassigned time for the chair.
Reassigned time is appropriate in principle, is cost-effective (especially
when replacement is at hourly adjunct rates of pay), and is good
practice. In addition, more reassigned time is appropriate when
the curriculum committee has an expanded and active role in program
review, policy and budget development, and in college governance.
Also, when considering curriculum workload, the local college should
consider reassigned time for those other than the chair who are
doing work such as technical review and program review. Several models of reassigned time allocation are in
use. Some districts specify the curriculum chair time in the bargaining
agreement. Some colleges give a block of reassigned time to the
senate for its various duties, including curriculum committee chair.
Other colleges give the time to the chair directly. Whatever the
mechanism, adequate reassigned time for the chair is essential.
Support
for Committee Activities Adequate
resources for curriculum committee operations is essential. Reassigned
time for the chair has already been mentioned. Classified staff
to maintain the systematic records needed for accurate curriculum
is an imperative. The position is usually recognized for its unique
skills with a title such as curriculum technician. Training of curriculum
committee members and discipline faculty who develop curriculum
must have specific funds set aside for that purpose. Travel and
conference funds are needed for curriculum committee faculty to
attend state academic senate plenary sessions, which regularly focus
on curriculum issues, and other professional curriculum conferences.
Involvement of the college in regional curriculum colloquia require
a periodic commitment of resources. It is good practice for the
academic senate to be involved in the determination of adequate
resources devoted to curriculum and to have the appropriate line
items within the academic senate budget. The implication for good
standards that result from an expanded role for the faculty in curriculum
development and renewal is clear: the curriculum committee and its
chair require adequate reassigned time, secretarial support, and
budget for supplies and equipment.
Governance
Issues IV.
Duties and Responsibilities of the Curriculum Committee Approval
of New and Revised Courses Title 5, §55002(a) Associate Degree Credit Courses (2) Standards for Approval The college and/or district curriculum committee shall recommend approval of the course for associate degree credit if it meets the following standards: (A) Grading Policy. The course provides for measurement of student performance in terms of the stated course objectives and culminates in a formal, permanently recorded grade based upon uniform standards in accordance with Section 55758 of this Division. The grade is based on demonstrated proficiency in the subject matter and the ability to demonstrate that proficiency, at least in part, by means of essays, or, in courses where the curriculum committee deems them to be appropriate, by problem solving exercises or skills demonstrations by students. (B) Units. The course grants units of credit based upon a relationship specified by the governing board, between the number of units assigned to the course and the number of lecture and/or laboratory hours of performance criteria specified in the course outline. The course also requires a minimum of three hours of work per week, including class time, for each unit of credit, prorated for short term, laboratory and activity courses. (C) Intensity. The course treats subject matter with a scope and intensity that requires students to study independently outside of class time. (D) Prerequisites and Corequisites. When the college and/or district curriculum committee determines, based on a review of the course outline of record, that a student would be highly unlikely to receive a satisfactory grade unless the student has knowledge or skills not taught in the course, then the course shall require prerequisites or corequisites that are established, reviewed, and applied in accordance with the requirements of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 55200) of this Subchapter. (E) Basic Skills Requirements. If success in the course is dependent upon communication or computation skills, then the course may require, consistent with the provisions of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 55200) of this Subchapter, as prerequisites or corequisites eligibility for enrollment in associate degree credit courses in English and/or mathematics, respectively. (F) Difficulty. The course work calls for critical thinking and the understanding of concepts determined by the curriculum committee to be at college level. (G)
Level. The course requires learning
skills and a vocabulary that the curriculum committee deems appropriate
for a college course. Non-degree
credit courses are precollegiate basic skills courses, as described
in Title 5 §55002(d), and courses designed to enable students
to succeed in college-level work such as college orientation, guidance,
and preparatory courses in individual disciplines that integrate
basic skills instruction with discipline specific material. Non-degree
credit courses also include foundation and core courses in occupational
programs which do not require the rigor of the standards for degree-applicable
courses. In non-degree credit courses the grade is based, at least
partially, on mastery of basic skills. The standards for non-degree
credit courses appear in Title 5 §55002(b)(2). Title 5, §55002(b) Non-Degree Credit Courses (2) Standards for Approval. The college and/or district curriculum committee shall recommend approval of the course on the basis of the standards which follow. In order to be eligible for state apportionment, such courses must be approved (as courses not part of programs) by the Chancellor's Office as provided in section 55100 of this Division. (A) Grading Policy. The course provides for measurement of student performance in terms of the stated course objectives and culminates in a formal, permanently recorded grade based upon uniform standards in accordance with section 55758 of this Division. The grade is based on demonstrated proficiency in the subject matter and the ability to demonstrate that proficiency, at least in part, by means of written expression that may include essays, or, in courses where the curriculum committee deems them to be appropriate, by problem solving exercises or skills demonstrated by students. (B) Units. The course grants units of credit based upon a relationship specified by the governing board between the number of units assigned to the course and the number of lecture and/or laboratory hours or performance criteria specified in the course outline. The course requires a minimum of three hours of student work per week, per unit, including class time and/or demonstrated competency, for each unit of credit, prorated for short-term laboratory, and activity courses. (C) Intensity. The course provides instruction in critical thinking and generally treats subject matter with a scope and intensity that prepare students to study independently outside of class time and includes reading and writing assignments and homework. In particular, the assignments will be sufficiently rigorous that students completing each such course successfully will have acquired the skills necessary to successfully complete college-level work upon completion of the required sequence of such courses. (D)
Prerequisites and corequisites. When
the college and/or district curriculum committee deems appropriate,
the course may require prerequisites or corequisites for the course
that are established, reviewed, and applied in accordance with Article
2.5 (commencing with section 55200) of this Subchapter. Noncredit
courses are also the responsibility of the curriculum committee.
Standards appear in Title 5 §55002(c). Title 5, §55002(c) Noncredit Courses A noncredit course is a course which, at a minimum, is recommended by the college and/or district curriculum committee (the committee described and established under subdivision (a)(1) of this section) and approved by the district governing board as a course meeting the needs of enrolled students. Standards
for Approval. The college and/or district curriculum committee
shall recommend approval of the course if the course treats subject
matter and uses resource materials, teaching methods, and standards
of attendance and achievement that the committee deems appropriate
for the enrolled students. In order to be eligible for state apportionment,
such courses are limited to the categories of instruction listed
in Education Code section 84711, and must be approved by the Chancellor's
Office as noted in Title V, section 55150. In addition,
The Curriculum Standards Handbook, Volume I, sets forth the following
criteria for course approval: 3.1
Appropriateness to Mission For courses to be mission appropriate, they must also not be designed primarily to provide group activities or services, (e.g. physical activity, counseling, or assessment) but rather to provide systematic instruction in a body of content or skills whose mastery forms the basis of the student grade. Avocational, community service, and contract courses do not qualify for state funding, but do fall within the mission if they are self-supporting. 3.2
Need 3.3
Quality 3.4
Feasibility In the case of programs, the college's affirmation of its ability to offer the program is based at least partly upon an analysis of cost estimates and includes a commitment to offer the required courses at least once every two years, unless the goals and rationale for the particular program justify a longer time frame as being in the best interests of students. 3.5
Compliance Approval
of Credit Hours: The Carnegie Unit The
basis for the Carnegie unit, in addition to the above citation,
is referenced in Title 5 §55002.5 for situations in which course
duration is other than the standard 16 weeks. Title 5, 55002.5. Credit Hour; Allowance for Shorter Term. One
credit hour of community college work is approximately three hours
of recitation, study, or laboratory work per week throughout a term
of 16 weeks. Where a term is more or less than 16 weeks, more or
less than one credit hour shall be allowed in the same ratio that
the length of the term is to 16 weeks. Credit
for Cooperative Work Experience Education is based on a formula
of 75 hours of paid work or 60 hours of non-paid work for each semester
credit hour for a maximum of 16 semester credit hours (Title 5 §55253
and §55256.5). The
Carnegie unit relationship determines student units or "load;" however,
faculty load is not exclusively determined by the Carnegie unit
or the system's MIS classification categories, which are based on
the Carnegie unit. Faculty load issues (e.g. regarding faculty unit
credit for lecture, laboratory, studio, composition, et al.) are
governed separately by agreement between the faculty's collective
bargaining representative and the college district. Good practice
suggests that when disputes regarding faculty load arise, the issue
should be redirected to the faculty bargaining agent to be resolved
apart from the curriculum committee. The curriculum committee's
main role is to assign accurately and appropriately student
units.
Approval
of Prerequisites, Corequisites, and Advisories for Recommended Preparation
Approval
of Distance Education Courses and Sections Approval
of Associate Degree Requirements Title
5, §55805. Philosophy and Criteria for
Associate Degree and General Education The awarding of an Associate Degree is intended to represent more than an accumulation of units. It is to symbolize a successful attempt on the part of the college to lead students through patterns of learning experiences designed to develop certain capabilities and insights. Among these are the ability to think and to communicate clearly and effectively both orally and in writing; to use mathematics; to understand the modes of inquiry of the major disciplines; be aware of other cultures and times; to achieve insights gained through experience in thinking about ethical problems; and to develop the capacity for self-understanding. In addition to these accomplishments, the student shall possess sufficient depth in some field of knowledge to contribute to lifetime interest. Central to an Associate Degree, General Education is designed to introduce students to the variety of means through which people comprehend the modern world. It reflects the conviction of colleges that those who receive their degrees must possess in common certain basic principles, concepts and methodologies both unique to and shared by the various disciplines. College educated persons must be able to use this knowledge when evaluating and appreciating the physical environment, the culture and the society in which they live. Most importantly, General Education should lead to better self-understanding. In establishing or modifying a general education program, ways shall be sought to create coherence and integration among the separate requirements. It is also desirable that general education programs involve students actively in examining values inherent in proposed solutions to major social problems. (b) The governing board of a community college district shall also establish criteria to determine which courses may be used in implementing its philosophy on the associate degree and general education. (c)
The governing board of a community college district shall, on a
regular basis, review the policy and criteria established pursuant
to subsections (a) and (b) of this section. Title
5, §55805.5 Types of Courses Appropriate
to the Associate Degree (a) All lower division courses accepted toward the baccalaureate degree by the California State University or University of California or designed to be offered for transfer. (b) Courses that apply to the major in non-baccalaureate occupational fields. (c) English courses not more than one level below the first transfer level composition course, typically known as English 1A. Each student may count only one such course as credit toward the associate degree. (d) All mathematical courses above and including Elementary Algebra. (e)
Credit courses in English and mathematics taught in or on behalf
of other departments and which, as determined by the local governing
board, require entrance skills at a level equivalent to those necessary
for the courses specified in sections (c) and (d) above. Title
5, §55806 Minimum Requirements for the
Associate Degree (a) Major Requirements. At least 18 semester or 27 quarter units of study taken in a single discipline or related disciplines, as listed in the Community Colleges "Taxonomy of Programs" shall be required. (b) General Education Requirements. (1) Students receiving an Associate Degree shall complete a minimum of 18 semester or 27 quarter units of general education, including a minimum of three semester or four quarter units in each of the areas (A), (B) and (C) and the same minimum in each pair of (D). The remainder of the units requirement is also to be selected from among these four divisions or learning or as determined by local option: (A) Natural Sciences. Courses in the natural science are those which examine the physical universe, its life forms, and its natural phenomena. To satisfy the General Education Requirement in natural sciences, a course shall be designed to help the student develop an appreciation and understanding of the scientific method, and encourage an understanding of the relationships between science and other human activities. This category would include introductory or integrative courses in astronomy, biology, chemistry, general physical science, geology, meteorology, oceanography, physical geography, physical anthropology, physics and other scientific disciplines. (B) Social and Behavioral Sciences. Courses in the social and behavioral sciences are those which focus on people as members of society. To satisfy the general education requirement in social and behavioral sciences, a course shall be designed to develop an awareness of the methods of inquiry used by the social and behavioral sciences. It shall be designed to stimulate critical thinking about the ways people act and have acted in response to their societies and should promote appreciation of how societies and social subgroups operate. This category would include introductory or integrative survey courses in cultural anthropology, cultural geography, economics, history, political science, psychology, sociology and related disciplines. (C) Humanities. Courses in the humanities are those which study the cultural activities and artistic expressions of human beings. To satisfy the general education requirement in the humanities, a course shall be designed to help the student develop an awareness of the ways in which people through the ages and in different cultures have responded to themselves and the world around them in artistic and cultural creation and help the student develop aesthetic understanding and an ability to make value judgments. Such courses could include introductory or integrative courses in the arts, foreign language, literature, philosophy, and religion. (D) Language and Rationality. Courses in language that cover the principles and applications of language toward logical thought, clear and precise expression and critical evaluation of communication in whatever symbol system the student uses. 1. English Composition. Courses fulfilling the written composition requirement shall be designed to include both expository and argumentative writing. 2. Communication and Analytical Thinking. Courses fulfilling the communication and analytical thinking requirement include oral communication, mathematics, logic, statistics, computer languages and programming, and related disciplines. (2) While courses might satisfy more than one general education requirement, it may not be counted more than once for these purposes. A course may be used to satisfy both a general education requirement and a major requirement. Whether it may be counted again for a different degree requirement is a matter for each college to determine. Students may use the same course to meet a general education requirement for the Associate Degree and to partially satisfy a general education requirement at the California State University, if such a course is eligible under the provisions of section 40405 of this title. (3) Ethnic Studies will be offered in at least one
of the required areas.
Course Repetition Title 5, §58161(c) Course Repetition State apportionment for repetition of courses not expressly authorized by this section may be claimed upon approval of the Chancellor in accordance with the following procedure: (1) The district must identify the courses which are to be repeatable, and designate such courses in it its catalog; (2) The district must determine and certify that each identified course is one in which the course content differs each time it is offered, and that the student who repeats it is gaining an expanded educational experience for one of the two following reasons: (A) Skills or proficiencies are enhanced by supervised repetition and practice within class periods; or (B) Active participatory experience in individual study or group assignments is the basic means by which learning objectives are obtained. (3) The district must develop and implement a mechanism
for the proper monitoring of such repetition. The attendance of
students repeating a course pursuant to this subsection when approved
by the Chancellor, may be claimed for state apportionment for more
than three semesters or five quarters. The Curriculum Standards Handbook includes the following
guidelines as well: 4.8.2 Repeatable Courses Courses that develop similar skills but (a) at increasingly sophisticated levels of practice, and/or (b) that are applied to different content (such as a drama course in which students master increasingly demanding roles in different plays) may be offered as repeatable courses, if approved for that purpose by the Chancellor's Office, or if the college has delegated course approval authority. Each such repetition of a course must be designed to create a discernibly higher level of achievement such that the academic progress is clearly defined and the grading standards increase substantially with each repetition. A given student may take the repeatable course for credit, and for state apportionment, for up to the number of times the college has specified, but for no more than a total of four times altogether. A college may indicate the sequence of repeatable
courses with differing letters or numbers or course titles, such
as 101A-D, or 101-4, or "Beginning", "Intermediate", and "Advanced".
Or the college may simply permit a student to enroll up to three
additional times after completion the course in question for the
first time. But the college may not do both: it cannot both
designate a series of courses of increasingly advanced work in the
same subject area, and then permit repeated enrollment at each of
those levels. Approval of New Degree and Certificate
Programs All programs must be 1) published in the college catalog
with a specific title, 2) result in a degree or certificate, 3)
consist of a specific set of required courses, and 4) have stated
goals and objectives. Courses are a required part of a program if
they are 1) required for a degree or certificate in the program
major, 2) part of the general education requirements for that degree,
or 3) part of a set of restricted electives, that is, a set of courses
of which the student must complete at least one to meet the degree
or certificate requirements. (The Curriculum Standards Handbook,
Section 5.1) Occupational programs must be approved by the Chancellor
before being offered [Title 5 §55230(a)]. No such state approval
is required for "new transfer programs that are the subject of an
articulation agreement that specifies that all courses required
in the new community college program will be counted by a four year
college towards the fulfillment of either its own general education
or the major requirements in a specified discipline" (The Curriculum
Standards Handbook, Section 5.2). The approval process for new occupational programs
is described in Title 5 §55130 and in Chapter 5 of the The
Curriculum Standards Handbook. Submission of a New Program Application
requires the signature of both the curriculum committee chair and
the academic senate president. The Academic Senate is also preparing
a separate paper on good practices in developing, reviewing, and
approving new occupational programs and a separate paper on good
practices in articulation.
Discontinuation of Existing
Programs Title 5, §55130(d) An approval is effective until the program or implementation
of the program is discontinued or modified in any substantial way.
From time to time the Chancellor may evaluate an educational program,
after its approval, on the basis of factors listed in this section.
If on the basis of such an evaluation the Chancellor determines
that an educational program should no longer be offered, the Chancellor
may terminate the approval and determine the effective date of termination.
Ed. Code, §78016 Review of program; termination (a) Every vocational or occupational training program offered by a community college district shall be reviewed every two years by the governing board of the district to assure that each program, as demonstrated by the California Occupational Labor Market Information Program established in Section 10533 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, or if this program is not available in the labor market area, other available sources of labor market information, does all of the following: (1) Meets a documented labor market demand (2) Does not represent unnecessary duplication of other manpower training programs in the area. (3) Is of demonstrated effectiveness as measured by the employment and completion success of its students. (b) Any program that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (a) and the standards promulgated by the governing board shall be terminated within one year. (c)The review process required by this section shall include the review and comments by the County Private Industry Council established pursuant to Division 8 (commencing with Section 15000) of the Unemployment Insurance Code, which review and comments shall occur prior to any decision by the appropriate governing body. (d) The provisions of this section shall apply to
each program commenced subsequent to July 28, 1983.
V. Other Duties Typically Assigned
to Curriculum Committees
Catalog and Schedule of Classes
Colleges must also publish in the catalog the course
work requirements for the Associate Degree, both in general education
and in the major (§55806). The catalog description of each
course must include any prerequisites, corequisites, advisories,
or other limitations on enrollment. Elsewhere in the catalog must
appear all other related prerequisite policies and procedures (§55202).
The catalog description of a course must also include the repeatability,
if any (§55161(c)(1)). Accreditation standards also require
accurate and complete curriculum information in the catalog. As
stated in the Handbook of Accreditation And Policy Manual (1996)
produced by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 2.1 The institution represents itself clearly, accurately,
and consistently to its constituencies, the public, and prospective
students through its catalogues, publications, and statements, including
those presented in electronic formats. Precise, accurate, and current
information is provided in the catalog concerning (a) educational
purposes; (b) degrees, curricular offerings, educational resources,
and course offerings; © student fees and other financial obligations,
student financial aid, and fee refund policies; (d) requirements
for admission and for achievement of degrees, including the academic
calendar and information regarding program length; and (e) the names
of administrators, faculty, and governing board. Curriculum committee involvement in the preparation
of the catalog and schedule of classes sections dealing with the
curriculum is good practice. Review of the accuracy of course catalog
descriptions, particularly those recently added or revised, benefits
tremendously from perusal by those who approved that material. Such
benefits apply equally to the catalog listings of program major
course requirements, general education requirements, transferability
to UC and CSU, prerequisite policies, and CSU GE-Breadth and IGETC
course listings. It is also good practice for the course description
used in the schedule of classes—usually more terse than the catalog
description—to be included as part of the course outline of record.
This gives the curriculum committee the opportunity to comment on
the appropriateness of the wording in reflecting the overall course
outline. It is also good practice for the curriculum committee
to receive copies of transfer articulation agreements and "major
sheets." These agreements serve as the basis for the transfer programs
reviewed and approved by the curriculum committee. Additionally,
another "set of eyes" reviewing campus publications on curriculum
can increase communication among campus segments and provide useful
feedback to those preparing the publications.
Program Review 4D.1 The institution has clearly defined processes
for establishing and evaluating all of its educational programs.
These processes recognize the central role of faculty in developing,
implementing, and evaluating the educational programs. Program evaluations
are integrated into overall institutional evaluation and planning
and are conducted on a regular basis. The most direct implication of the accreditation standards
is the need to review each course outline of record on a regular
basis, at least within the six-year accreditation cycle. Good practice
for occupational programs is to review the program to the standards
required by Ed. Code §78016 (see above) every two years and
then do a course-by-course review for curriculum standards every
six years. This specific review of the course outlines is much more
effective if conducted within the scope of a review of the entire
program of which the course is a part. It is good practice for such
program-by-program reviews to be communicated to the curriculum
committee. In this way, curriculum committees become more aware
of the overall development plan into which future course outline
proposals will fit. Good practices for conducting program reviews can
be found in the Academic Senate's paper Program Review: Developing
a Faculty Driven Process, adopted in spring 1996. It is good practice
to incorporate curriculum review as an integral part of the program
review process. For example, a self-study questionnaire could be
utilized each year to estimate the curriculum committee's workload
that would, at the same time, elicit consideration of alterations
in the course outline of record, prerequisites, and development
of new courses. (See Appendix B for an example of such a questionnaire.)
Record Keeping and Dissemination
Prerequisite Review Title 5, §55201(b)(3) ...These processes [reviewing prerequisites and corequisites]
shall provide that at least once each six years all prerequisites
and corequisites established by the district shall be reviewed.
These processes shall also provide for the periodic review of advisories
on recommended preparation.
Articulation Course articulation . . . is the process of developing
a formal, written agreement that identifies courses (or sequences
of courses) on a "sending" campus that are comparable to, or acceptable
in lieu of, specific course requirements at a "receiving" campus.
Successful completion of an articulated course assures the student
and the faculty that the student has taken the appropriate course,
received the necessary instruction and preparation, and that similar
outcomes can be assured, enabling progression to the next level
of instruction at the receiving institution. The Handbook goes on to comment on the role of faculty
in articulation: The actual process of developing and reviewing curriculum
and coursework to determine course comparability between institutions
rests with the faculty at the respective institutions. 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. It is important to note that articulated courses are
not to be construed as "equivalent" but rather as comparable, or
acceptable in lieu of each other. The content of the courses on
the respective campuses is such that successful completion of the
course on one campus assures the necessary background, instruction,
and preparation to enable the student to progress to the next level
of instruction at another campus. The role of the articulation officer is to be the
contact person and mediator between campuses, to be the liaison
to the system level offices, to serve on the curriculum committee
and other committees as appropriate, to maintain and communicate
accurate articulation information, and to stay well informed and
inform others on articulation issues. In reviewing and approving courses, the curriculum committee should evaluate the appropriateness of the course to meet articulation standards. Articulation agreements fall into four distinct categories, each of which has its own standards:
Baccalaureate credit courses transfer for elective
credit only. For UC, the community college requests an update to
the Transfer Course Agreement (TCA). The request is reviewed by
UC and, if accepted, the course is added to the TCA. The UC standards for TCAs are based on two principles,
as stated in the Handbook: 1. The course should be comparable to one offered at the lower-division level on any of the UC campuses in the scope, level, and prerequisite. 2. If the course is not comparable to any offered
at UC, it must be appropriate for a university degree in terms of
its purpose, scope, and depth. The review of TCA update requests is done annually
and is also covered by the "Guidelines for Transfer Credit" (appendix
B in the Handbook). For CSU, Executive Order 167 allows a community college
to place courses it deems appropriate on the "Baccalaureate List."
It is good practice for curriculum committees to request
of course originators an explanation of whether or not the course
meets baccalaureate standards and to identify comparable courses
at UC and CSU campuses. Evaluation of the course on these standards
should be part of the deliberations of the committee. Once approved,
the articulation officer can proceed to place the course on the
CSU Baccalaureate List and submit the course for the next UC TCA
update. General Education-Breadth courses can be certified
at the system level following the CSU-GE Breadth and IGETC process
discussed in the previous section of this paper. Individual course-to-course
agreements between specific CCC and UC or CSU campuses are the responsibility
of the individual campuses, whether in general education areas or
other courses. Major Preparations Agreements specify comparable courses
at the individual community college which, upon transfer, meet the
lower-division major preparation requirements for a specific UC,
CSU, or private four-year institution. Such courses are accepted
in lieu of the specified major preparation courses at the receiving
school. Those agreements are negotiated on a campus-to-campus basis
through the services provided by the articulation officers at both
institutions. Submission for major preparation agreements often
require additional information beyond the course outline of record,
such as syllabi, texts, and sample course materials. Such agreements
are often of limited duration. Lower division major preparation agreements serve
as the basis for identifying the courses which are part of each
"transfer program" at the college. In reviewing such courses, the
curriculum committee has the responsibility to assure that the standards
expected within the agreements are maintained. It is good practice
for curriculum committees to maintain a file of current transfer
articulation agreements or "major sheets."
Placing Courses in Disciplines
The Academic Senate paper Placement of Courses Within
Disciplines addresses this issue in more detail, and only a brief
synopsis will be presented here. Generally, the department titles
at a given campus correspond to one of the entries on the Disciplines
List. In most cases the department names are the same as the discipline
titles, but this is not always the case. For example, a certain
college may offer courses within the Geology department which would
correspond to the Earth Science discipline on the Disciplines List.
A particular college may have a Criminology program which might
be identified as Administration of Justice on the Disciplines List.
It may be that a given course is best listed in more
than one discipline. This is referred to as multiple
listing. For example, Business Management 101 might be listed
in both the Business and Management disciplines. This would enable
instructors with minimum qualifications in either Business or Management
to teach the course. Another option is to list Business Management
101 as interdisciplinary. This would
require the instructor to meet minimum qualifications in either
Business or Management plus upper division
or graduate work in the other. (The exact nature of the training
in the other discipline would be specified locally.) The decision
as to a multiple or interdisciplinary listing of the course should
be made on the basis of the course content. If either discipline
prepares the instructor to teach the course, multiple listing is
appropriate. If the instructor needs the knowledge base of both
disciplines, the curriculum committee should list the course as
interdisciplinary. A separate issue is the existence of two courses,
Business 101 and Management 101, each of which is taught to an identical
course outline of record. This is called double
listing and is most often done to meet the major preparation
needs of students. For example, a student majoring in business might
sign up for the course as Business 101, and a management major might
be in the same classroom but registered for Management 101. Double
listing does not address the question of placement in a discipline.
The content of the double listed Business 101/Management 101 course
would still need to be examined to see if it could be taught with
preparation in either discipline (multiple listing) or if it needs
preparation in both (interdisciplinary).
VI. Curriculum Approval Good
Practices Origination of Proposals In instances when a curriculum revision is underway
which encompasses more than one program, it may be best for the
academic senate to form a task force of faculty in affected disciplines.
Examples might be the institution of an honors program, an interdisciplinary
program, or the establishment of a new vocational program in which
new foundation courses may be needed in related disciplines. When
the task force completes its work and the plans are approved by
the academic senate, a coherent, unified proposal will be the result.
This process will tremendously enhance the curriculum committee's
ability to review and approve the proposal.
Preliminaries: Review by Other
Disciplines and District Colleges When courses clearly affect curricula in other disciplines,
it is good practice for the faculty in those disciplines to review
those courses. It is good practice for the curriculum committee
to request on the course submittal form whether such a review is
needed and has been performed. On many campuses this cross-discipline review is accomplished
by reviewing curriculum proposals at the division level. This division
review step in the curriculum development process may be accomplished
by the entire division faculty or by a specially created division
curriculum committee. Use of this division approach should be structured
so that the primary goal of inter-discipline coordination is accomplished
without impinging on the role of the college curriculum committee
to review and recommend curriculum. In multi campus districts, articulation of courses
among the colleges is essential to maintain student access to the
entire district curriculum. The extent of that articulation is a
local matter. Some districts require identical course outlines for
all colleges within the district. Others allow variability as long
as clear equivalency is maintained between courses designed to meet
the same requirements at different colleges. It is good practice for the curriculum committee to
require consultation among discipline faculty at colleges within
the district. Where variation is allowed, the submittal form should
indicate the equivalent courses on the other campus(es). Preliminary review by faculty in related disciplines
and at other campuses goes a long way toward producing a coherent
curriculum and preventing future disagreements. This should be required
practice before the curriculum committee accepts proposals for further
review. A common good practice is the use of a district curriculum
committee to coordinate the curriculum among the campuses. The duties
of the district curriculum committee relative to those of the college
curriculum committee are a local matter. However, the use of a district
curriculum committee should be carefully crafted to achieve the
aim of a coherent and unified curriculum without subjecting every
proposal to the delays of another round of review.
Preliminaries: Library Sign-Off
It is good practice for the curriculum committee to
require that the library sign-off form be attached to the proposal
for all new and substantially revised courses and programs.
Preliminaries: Technical Review
The Review Cycle: Reading, Discussion,
Action Care should be taken to observe deadlines. CSU-GE
and IGETC submissions are due each December 15th. Catalog publication
deadlines are often as early as February 1st. It is essential that adequate time be provided for
a full, open review of all proposals. A good strategy is to provide
sufficient time to have all proposals subjected to three phases
of analysis: initial reading by committee members, full discussion
of the proposal with the originator(s), and action by the committee
for approval, disapproval, or referral for further modifications.
The initial reading puts the proposal in the hands
of the full committee for their perusal. Usually, the proposal is
accompanied by a written rationale which addresses the course approval
standards (appropriateness to mission, need, quality, feasibility,
and compliance—see above). Following a thorough reading, the proposals are ready
for in-depth discussion. The originator(s) should be present to
address any issues raised by the committee. It should become apparent
from the discussion whether the course will stand on its merits
or if changes are needed. During the meeting, the nature of those
changes should be communicated orally to the originator(s) as clearly
as possible. It may even be possible to resolve issues immediately
at the meeting—or soon thereafter—before a vote on approval is
taken. Finally, action is taken by voting on each proposal
separately. In the case of an unfavorable outcome, a written rationale
should be included in the minutes and communicated to the originator(s).
Many patterns of meeting schedules can be formulated
to implement this three-step cycle. A three meeting schedule would
have the three steps occur at sequential meetings, perhaps with
divisional proposals staggered throughout the fall term. Another
alternative would be to distribute the proposals to the committee
members in advance and then use two subsequent meetings to discuss
and act upon them. It may even be possible to discuss and take action
in a single meeting if no uncertainties exist. Whatever the plan, an adopted review schedule should
not be so rigid that it cannot accommodate the needs of faculty
to have sufficient time and opportunity to bring their proposals
forward.
Final Sign-Off by Faculty Chair/CO-Chair
VII. Subcommittee Structure
and Good Practice Technical Review It is
good practice to form a subcommittee for the purpose of technical
review. Usually only two or three faculty are needed, perhaps the
chair plus one or two committee members, at least one of whom is
well versed in the structure and proper use of the English language.
In addition to grammar and syntax, the review should assure that
all required components of the proposal are present. Subcommittee
members should work directly with the faculty originator(s) to iron
out any problems. Revisions or additions are to be made before advancing
the proposal to full committee review. This will usually necessitate
a due date for the proposal at least a week prior to that set for
distribution to the full committee.
Prerequisites The inclusion
of prerequisites, corequisites, advisories on recommended preparation,
and other limitations on enrollment requires the originator(s) to
do some justification of the requirement before bringing the proposal—and
appropriate documentation—to the curriculum committee to review.
Where the use of prerequisites outside of the discipline is extensive,
it is good practice to identify two or three people on campus, not
all of whom need be on the curriculum committee, to aid those in
the process of adding, revising, or justifying existing prerequisites.
Those best-informed on the subject typically tend to be the faculty
curriculum chair, matriculation coordinator, institutional researcher,
and chief instructional officer. It is these individuals upon whom
the task of constructing a college prerequisite procedure (in accord
with the Model District Policy) most reasonably falls. A preliminary
review of the prerequisite proposal and accompanying documentation
by this group can assure that only courses which meet the regulations
and college policy will go forward to the full committee. This core
group is also of great use in doing "house calls" to those discipline
faculty in the process of prerequisite preparation to assist them
in the process.
Distance Education Courses
and sections taught in distance education mode must be separately
reviewed and approved by the curriculum committee. The preparation
of curricula in distance education mode is a sufficiently specialized
field that a subcommittee will be quite useful. Membership would
reasonably consist of those faculty with experience preparing courses
in this format. The Academic Senate paper Curriculum Committee Review
of Distance Learning Courses and Sections contains a suggested process
and check off sheet which can be attached to the proposed course
outline.
VIII. Maintaining Delegated
Approval Authority: Good Practices Approval Authority Approve new credit courses not part of approved programs.... Determine that a given course meets the conditions of repeatability in accordance with provisions of Title 5 §58161(c). Enter into conjoint programs between specified colleges
within a district that allow one college in the district to offer
introductory and intermediate courses to be counted toward a degree
or certificate approved by the Chancellor's Office for a different
college. To maintain these approval authorities the college
must commit to the following standards, as specified in The Curriculum
Standards Handbook, Section 2.4: 2.4.1 Knowledge The first standard is that faculty and staff charged
with curriculum review will know state standards and requirements
for curriculum review and approval, including in particular the
information in this Handbook and addenda, as well as general standards
of good practice in curriculum and instructional design. 2.4.2 Procedures The second standard is that the procedures employed both by the curriculum committee and in other phases of the local curriculum development and approval process assure that standards can be responsibly applied. Relevant indicators that this standard is met include: a) Reviewers follow a process that is systematic and well-publicized and that includes both those with disciplinary expertise in the subject matter at issue and those outside the discipline who are affected by the course. b) Handbooks, checklists, and model outlines, or other aids, used in the review process, correctly address this Handbook's standards. c) Faculty are accorded the scope of responsibilities mandated in law. d) Reviewers are provided information on the particular
courses or programs that is substantive, complete, specific and
timely enough to enable them to apply these standards independently
and appropriately. 2.4.3 Curriculum The third standard is that continuing delegation requires
that colleges be able to assure that they produce approvable Course
Outlines of Record that are in compliance with the standards specified
in Sections 3 and 5 of Volume I of this Handbook; and would typically
be acceptable as meeting the requirements of transfer receiving
institutions. There are two conditions which colleges must meet
to maintain delegated curriculum approval authority. First, the
local college must submit to the Chancellor's Office, as evidence
of the commitment to the above three standards, the Delegation Checklist,
Appendix D in The Curriculum Standards Handbook (and appearing on
the next two pages) along with appropriate documentation as specified
in the checklist. To offer technical assistance in achieving the
three standards, the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee and the
Chancellor's Office Advisory Committee on Curriculum and Instructional
Resources offer a series of day-long Regional Colloquia. A second
condition of continued delegation is that colleges participate in
the Regional Colloquia once each three years or make other arrangements
for technical assistance from the Chancellor's Office at local expense.
The Regional Colloquia are described in the Handbook: 2.6 Regional Colloquia To assist colleges in maintaining delegation of approval
authority, Regional colloquia will be convened on a three year cycle,
beginning with the first 1995-96 term. At that time, colleges will
have the opportunity to share their supporting documentation, including
such items as local Handbooks and training materials and sample
course Outlines of Record, where appropriate. As currently envisioned,
a college will have opportunity to participate in a colloquia for
one day's duration once in every three years. Each year the colloquia will be planned in consultation with the approximately thirty colleges that will be participating in that year, to cover: Updates on changes to law and state procedures Sharing of procedures and conceptions of good practice Sharing and discussion of Outlines of Record that are exemplary, typical, or problematic Issues of regional or systemwide concern Suggestions for improving systemwide procedures, revisions
to the Handbook, etc. Primary leadership for the colloquium process will
be provided by the Academic Senate, coordinated by a standing Advisory
Committee to the Chancellor's Office on Curriculum and Instruction,
working with the colleges that will be participating in the colloquia
in that year. Colloquia participants may suggest other assistance
that can be provided to help colleges maintain intersegmental acceptance
of their courses, fulfill the three standards of delegation, and
otherwise meet the curriculum standards in this Handbook.
Delegation Checklist This Form should be completed by college personnel
and submitted to the Chancellor's Office annually according to a
schedule to be published during 1995.
Delegation Checklist (Continued)
The Knowledge Standard It is
good practice for each college to develop a Resource
Manual containing all pertinent reference materials. Each
member of the curriculum committee should have a copy of this manual
and additional copies should be in the library, office of instruction,
counseling office, and each division office. Examples of the resource
documents which are of most use are cited below.
CURRICULUM
RESOURCE MATERIALS 1.
The Curriculum Standards Handbook, Volume I, 1995. 2. The Curriculum Committee: Role, Structure, Duties, and Good Practices, 1996 Summary
of requirements and good practices for operation of the college
curriculum committee. Source: The Academic Senate. 3. Joint Review for Library/Learning Resources by Classroom and Library Faculty for New Courses and Programs, 1995. Developed
jointly by the Academic Senate and the Chancellor's Office Curriculum
Advisory Committee this summary of mutual instructor/librarian review
of needed instructional materials includes suggested forms for the
review of both new courses and programs and is recommended as good
practice for curriculum committees. Source: The Academic Senate.
4. Curriculum Orientation Package I: Degree Credit Standards, 1993. Designed
for information and training of local curriculum committees, this
packet is hands-on information on the curriculum standards for degree
credit courses and was prepared jointly by the Academic Senate and
the Chancellor's Office. Source: Curriculum Services & Instructional
Resources Unit, Chancellor's Office. 5. Components of a Model Course Outline of Record, 1995. Prepared
by the Academic Senate to review all requirements for course outlines
for degree credit courses including a suggested format and content
for the course outline to meet those standards. Source: The Academic
Senate. 6. Handbook of California Articulation Policies and Procedures, 1995. This
handbook, prepared by the California Intersegmental Articulation
Council, contains an overview of the articulation process used by
UC, CSU, and Independent Colleges and Universities and gives contact
persons at each of these institutions. Source: California Intersegmental
Articulation Council (Helena Bennett, CSU Sacramento). 7. California Articulation Number (CAN) System: Catalog (1996) and Guide (1995). CAN
is a cross-reference course numbering system for lower division
transferable major courses. It is based on course-to-course articulation
between CCCs and CSU and assists students and colleges in identifying
comparable (not identical) courses. Participating colleges agree
to accept CAN courses in lieu of each other and use them in the
same way their own CAN-qualified courses are used. Source: CAN System
Office, California State University, 2763 E. Shaw, Suite 103, Fresno,
CA 93710; 209/278-6880. 8. CSU Executive Order 595, 1993. General
education-breadth requirements for students transferring from CCC's
to CSU. Replaces EOs 338 and 342 which allowed self-certification.
Source: CSU Chancellor's Office. 9. Curriculum Orientation Package II: Transfer General Education, 1994. This
package contains intersegmental expectations for credit course outlines
of record; CSU Executive Order 595 on GE-Breadth and related forms;
IGETC standards, notes, and other relevant documents; local college
procedures to comply with CSU GE and IGETC requirements, and sample
Course Outlines of Record for CSU GE areas C & E. Source: The
Academic Senate. 10.
Model District Policy for Prerequisites, Corequisites, Advisories,
and Other Limitations on Enrollment, 1993. This set of guidelines
is recommended by the Board of Governors to implement the prerequisite
regulations. The curriculum committee is intimately involved in
establishing these limitations on enrollment. Source: Student Services
Unit, Chancellor's Office. 11. Establishing Prerequisites, 1992. The
commentary on the Model District Policy was written by the Academic
Senate representatives on the committee which wrote that document.
Source: The Academic Senate. 12. Curriculum Orientation Package III: Prerequisites, Corequisites, and Advisories, 1994. This
package gives examples of local college policies and procedures
to implement Title 5 and the Model District Plan. Source: The Academic
Senate. 13.
Title 5, Sections 55300-55380. Regulations and Guidelines on Distance
Learning. Requirements for courses and sections taught in
distance learning mode are covered, including the role of the curriculum
committee. Source: Curriculum Services & Instructional Resources
Unit, Chancellor's Office. 14. Curriculum Committee Review of Distance Learning Courses & Sections, 1995. A review
of the 1994 changes to Title 5 and their impact on curriculum committees,
including suggested good practices to implement the regulations
and guidelines. Source: The Academic Senate. 15. Distance Learning in California's Community Colleges, 1993. This
paper reviews the social, fiscal, and educational issues surrounding
distance learning. Source: The Academic Senate. 16. California Community Colleges Taxonomy of Programs, 1995. TOPs
codes are the numeric coding system by which districts categorize
degree and certificate programs and courses for both authorization
by and reporting to the Chancellor's Office. As such, curriculum
committees should recognize that each course and program approved
must fall into an assigned TOP code area. (The Chancellor's Office
plans to soon replace the TOP code system with a discipline/subject
matter based system.) Source: Chancellor's Office. 17. Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges, 1996. As
of 1990, minimum qualifications replaced credentials for the hiring
of new community college faculty. This document quotes relevant
Ed Code and Title 5 sections and gives the Disciplines List and
accompanying minimum qualifications. Source: The Academic Senate.
18. Placement of Courses Within Disciplines, 1994. Faculty
hired to teach in a discipline, either under the credential or minimum
qualifications systems, are allowed to teach any course in that
discipline. As such, it becomes important for each college to assign
courses to the subject matter areas identified in the Disciplines
List. This document, prepared by the Academic Senate, gives a suggested
procedure for local academic senates to use in this process, including
multiple listing and interdisciplinary listing. As new courses are
approved by curriculum committees, recommendations to the senate
for discipline assignment are needed. Source: The Academic Senate.
19. Program Review: Developing a Faculty Driven Process, 1996. This
paper discusses the salient features of an effective program review
process. Source: The Academic Senate. Reviewer
training is essential to assimilate the technical information needed
to make sound evaluations of curriculum proposals. It is good practice
to hold an annual all-day training session for curriculum committee
members, or some functional equivalent. New committee members should
have a special orientation session before attending the all-day
training. A good practice is to develop a Training
Booklet designed to give an overview of the curriculum process,
summaries of the standards and resource materials, sample curriculum
proposal and approval forms filled out with sample information,
hands-on examples of typical course outlines and how they are reviewed,
and tips for new members. During
the year, a portion of each meeting should be devoted to updates
on current curriculum issues. Training should go beyond that of
the committee members. Regular workshops should be held for faculty
and administrators on such topics as standards for course outlines,
articulation processes for major preparation agreements, CSU GE-Breadth
and IGETC, prerequisite procedures such as content review and research
methods, and distance education guidelines and regulations. The
curriculum committee chair should document these training efforts
and submit that documentation with the Delegation Checklist. Typically,
this would include a list of the documents in the Resource Manual,
a copy of the Training Booklet, and the dates, topics, facilitators,
and attendees for training sessions and workshops.
The
Procedures Standard It
is good practice for each college curriculum committee to have a
Curriculum Handbook. Typically, this
handbook would contain the following information.
Prerequisite/Corequisite/Advisory content review
The course outlines of record must be reviewed on a regular basis to assure currency and rigor of the curriculum. It is good practice to do this regular review of the entire curriculum as part of the college's program review process. The curriculum committee should review this process to be sure that current curriculum standards are applied by the discipline faculty during their review. Also, it is good practice for the curriculum committee to receive these reports directly from the discipline faculty. A good way to accomplish this is to invite the faculty to a spring meeting of the committee to present their report and discuss it with the committee. External reviews of the college curriculum are important in determining the approvability of its courses and programs. In particular, the college should have a favorable record of approvals of new program applications to the Chancellor's Office and of CSU GE-Breadth and IGETC submissions. Where problems are identified, the college should develop a strategy to address those problems and be able to demonstrate steady improvement. Documentation
Colleges
should follow the Delegation Checklist when preparing documentation
in support of their commitment to the standards for maintenance
of delegated curriculum approval authority. Typically, this documentation
would consist of the following.
The curriculum committee plays a central role in the California Community Colleges. This role has expanded tremendously with the expanding role of faculty in community college governance and with the expanding demand for a curriculum which is flexible and responsive to the needs of our increasingly diverse student body. These demands have necessitated, now more than ever, that faculty understand the role of the curriculum committee, remain committed to high curriculum standards, and implement the college curriculum in an organized, efficient manner. To that end, this document reflects the collective wisdom of the faculty of the California Community Colleges and is recommended as a compilation of requirements and good practices to our colleagues charged with that task closest to our professional calling—the development, review, renewal, and approval of sound curricula. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||