Abstract
I. Introduction
II. The Role of the Curriculum Committee
III. Structure and Membership of the Curriculum
Committee
Relationship Between the Academic Senate &
the Curriculum Committee
Membership
The Curriculum Committee Chair
Support for Committee Activities
Governance Issues
IV. Duties and Responsibilities of the Curriculum
Committee
Approval of New and Revised Courses
Approval of Credit Hours: The Carnegie Unit
Approval of Prerequisites, Corequisites, and Advisories
on Recommended Preparation
Approval of Distance Education Courses and Sections
Approval of Associate Degree Requirements
Course Repetition
Approval of CSU-GE and IGETC Courses Approval
of New Degree and Certificate Programs
Discontinuation of Existing Programs
V. Other Duties Typically Assigned to Curriculum
Committees
Catalog and Schedule of Classes
Program Review
Record Keeping and Dissemination
Prerequisite Review
Articulation
Placing Courses in Disciplines
VI. Curriculum Approval Good Practices
Origination of Proposals Preliminaries: Review
by Other Disciplines and District Colleges
Preliminaries: Library Sign-Off
Preliminaries: Technical Review
The Review Cycle: Reading, Discussion, Approval
Final Sign-Off by Faculty Chair/Co-Chair
VII. Subcommittee Structure and Good Practice
VIII. Maintaining Delegated Approval Authority:
Good Practices
Approval Authority
The Knowledge Standard
The Procedure Standard
The Approvable Curricula Standard
Documentation
IX. Summary
Curriculum
Committee, 1995-96 Curriculum Committee, 1996-97
Luz Argyriou, chair, Napa Valley College
Bill Scroggins, chair, Chabot College
Kathleen Baker, Fullerton College
Luz Argyriou, Napa Valley College
Donna Ferracone, Crafton Hills College
Donna Ferracone, Crafton Hills CollegeS. Craig
Justice, Chaffey College Jannett Jackson, Fresno
City College
Ric Matthews, Miramar College
Linda Lee, San Diego Miramar College
Bill Scroggins, Chabot College
Jean Smith, San Diego Continuing Education
Ron Vess, Southwestern College
Bob Stafford, San Bernardino Valley College
Nancy Glock-Grueneich, Chancellor's
Ron Vess, Southwestern College Office liaison
Nancy Glock-Grueneich, Chancellor's
Joyce Black, CIO liaison, Pasadena City College,
Office liaison
Joyce Black, CIO liaison, Pasadena City College
Abstract
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.
Acknowledgment
The inspiration for this paper originated under
the leadership of Jean Rincon-Germond who was
the founding chair of the Academic Senate's Curriculum
Committee and served with distinction as the Vice
President of the Academic Senate, 1994-95. Her
enthusiasm and creativity is gratefully acknowledged.
Special
Thanks
The Curriculum Committee wishes to extend a special
thanks to Craig Justice for hosting its meetings
for three years at Chaffey College and for his
service as a primary author of this paper. The
goals of the state Academic Senate could not even
be approached if not for the selfless service
of individuals such as Craig.
The
Curriculum Committee:
Role,
Structure, Duties, and Standards of Good Practices
The Academic Senate
for California Community Colleges
I.
Introduction Given the diversity of disciplines
and faculty and the varying degrees of shared
governance currently operating in the system,
practices utilized by curriculum committees throughout
California's community college system vary widely.
Nevertheless, a clear consensus about the main
function of the curriculum committee has emerged.
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.
There is no single
or monolithic list of "good practices"
in the process of curriculum renewal and development.
Instead, many effective practices exist that are
appropriate within unique settings of shared governance
of each local college. On the other hand, discussion
about comparative practices often yields a consensus
of what is likely to lead to effective, quality
curriculum and therefore be considered a "good
practice," and what practices that are likely
to be problematic and thus should generally be
avoided.
Attaining effective
standards of good practice requires that a number
of factors come together at the right time and
place to arrive at a curriculum consistent with
the mission of the community college. Effective
leadership must be forthcoming from faculty, and
administration must provide adequate resources
and support so that effective, quality curriculum
can be attained in a cost-effective manner. Regulations
that have been promulgated must be understood
widely, and clear models of good practice must
be identified and disseminated. From all of these
cooperative efforts should emerge a dynamic curriculum
development and renewal process that produces
the desired quality, effective curriculum. In
addition, the process should be highly adaptive
to needed changes and, at the same time, insulates
quality, effective curriculum already in place
from transitory, faddish, or disruptive pressures.
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
For decades the
curriculum committee has been the major mechanism
by which the primacy of faculty has been exercised
in their central domain of expertise: developing
and renewing the college curriculum and assessing
its quality and effectiveness to the highest of
professional standards. The primacy of faculty
in the area of curriculum has been repeatedly
confirmed by the Legislature in the form of statutes
and by the Board of Governors in the promulgation
of regulations to implement those statutes.
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
The Education Code
and Title 5 specify the following:
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.
III.
Structure and Membership of the Curriculum Committee
The curriculum
committee plays a central role in the shared governance
structure of the college and district. In designing
the curriculum committee structure, the administration
and academic senate are required to work together.
Whether the curriculum committee is a committee
of the senate or a college committee depends largely
on the tradition and governance climate on the
campus. Whatever the decision, the policies and
procedures by which the committee will operate
are determined by the academic senate, either
solely or in partnership with the board. Because
of this required senate oversight, there must
be a direct link between the curriculum committee
and the senate.
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
Title 5 §55002(a)(1)
requires that the curriculum committee contain
faculty. Good practice dictates that the faculty
be representative of the departments or divisions
of the college. Several good models are in use.
Division faculty may nominate curriculum committee
members to be appointed by the senate. The senate
may delegate its appointing authority [Title 5
§53203(f)] to a divisional election process.
Some colleges have divisional curriculum committees
which review its proposals for transmission to
the college curriculum committee. Whatever the
mechanism, terms of office should be of sufficient
length (two or three years) and should be staggered
to develop and retain experienced curriculum committee
members.
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
A key role on the
committee is that played by the chair. Most colleges
recognize the primacy of faculty in the area of
curriculum by stipulating that the chair be a
faculty member. Less commonly, a faculty member
and the chief instructional officer co-chair the
committee.
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.)
prepare agendas
conduct the committee meetings
edit minutes (typically
taken by a committee member or a classified
person from the CIO's office)
set the calendar of committee
meetings
keep informed of curriculum
standards including Title 5, the Curriculum
Standards Handbook, intersegmental, and accreditation
supervise the orientation
of new members and on-going training of continuing
members
assist discipline faculty
in the curriculum development process (usually
with faculty curriculum committee member from
that division)
assure that committee functions
take place smoothly: technical review, prerequisite
review, distance education review, general
education review, library sign-off, articulation,
and program review reports to the committee
(see the appropriate sections of this paper)
report regularly to the
academic senate
sign off on final version
of curriculum recommendations to the Board
sign off on IGETC and CSU-GE
Breadth submittal forms
review catalog drafts for
concurrence with approved changes
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
Accountability
for qualify, effective curricula which meet applicable
standards is a shared responsibility. A rigorous
curriculum review process is demanding and adherence
to time lines is crucial to assure that deadlines
are met for catalog publication, CSU General Education
Breadth (CSU-GE) and Intersegmental General Education
Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) submissions, etc.
Moreover, the strictures of Title 5 regulations,
accreditation standards, CSU Executive Orders,
Chancellor's Office standards and so on are detailed
and voluminous. This is clearly an area in which
faculty and administrative cooperation will greatly
facilitate the decision making process. Administrators
can aid the process by providing training opportunities,
facilitating communication with and within the
committee, assuring adequate clerical support,
keeping an accurate historical file of committee
actions and approved curricula, and supporting
sufficient reassigned time to the faculty chair
or co-chair. Following the principle of shared
governance, all members of the committee share
the responsibility of assuring courses and programs
meet the highest academic standards and that the
review and approval process runs smoothly so that
deadlines can be met. Faculty take the responsibility
for their primacy on curriculum matters seriously.
It is they who would have to live with the results
of poor quality programs and missed deadlines.
It is they who have developed the curricula upon
which has been built the outstanding national
and international reputation for excellence of
the California Community Colleges.
IV.
Duties and Responsibilities of the Curriculum
Committee
Approval
of New and Revised Courses
Curriculum committees
review and approve degree-applicable credit courses,
non-degree credit courses, and noncredit courses.
No such review requirement exists for community
service classes, Title 5 §55002(d) and §55160,
or for contract classes for which the district
claims no apportionment, §55170. Note that
stand-alone courses which are not part of an approved
program require Chancellor's Office approval as
well unless the college has been delegated curriculum
approval authority (see Title 5 §55100 and
the section of this paper on "Maintaining
Delegated Approval Authority"). The standards
for degree-applicable credit courses appear in
Title 5 §55002(a)(2).
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
The stated goals
and objectives of the proposed program, or the
objectives defined in the course Outline of Record,
are consistent with the mission of the community
colleges as formulated in Title 5 §55130(b)(5),
and 55180 and with the mission and comprehensive
or master plan of the college. Curriculae fall
within the mission when designed to be taught
to lower division students for credit towards
the degree, and/or for purposes of transfer, occupational
preparation, or career supplementation or upgrade,
rather than for avocational use. Courses that
develop the ability of students to succeed in
college level courses and adult noncredit instruction
also fall within the 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
There is a demonstrable
need for a course or program that meets the stated
goals and objectives, at this time, and in the
region the college proposes to serve with the
program.
3.3
Quality
Courses and programs
are integrated, with courses designed to effectively
meet their objectives and the goals and objectives
of the programs for which they are required. Outlines
of Record for each course meet the standards outlined
in Section 4.
3.4
Feasibility
The college has
the resources to maintain the course or program
in which the course is required at the level of
quality described in course Outlines of Record
and the new program application. Local approval
procedures for new curriculum incorporate a detailing
of costs sufficient to determine that this criterion
can be fulfilled by the college.
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
The course or program
complies with all other laws applicable to it,
including federal regulations, licensing requirements,
and the particular legal requirements for courses
explained in 4.8 of this Handbook.
Approval
of Credit Hours: The Carnegie Unit
In reviewing and
approving courses, curriculum committees must
assure that the units offered are commensurate
with the hours necessary for the course, both
in and out of the classroom (Title 5 §55002
cited above). This is known as the Carnegie unit
relationship, the essence of which requires a
normative committment of the student's time of
3 hours per week per unit of credit. Clearly some
students will put in more or less time, depending
on their ability and level of personal committment;
however, the structure of the course in terms
of semester or quarter units presumes this normative
standard and is the basis of scheduling within
the academic calendar. The course outline of record
will state student units and the number of in-class
contact hours, which are 50-minutes in length.
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
Curriculum committees
must approve prerequisites, corequisites and advisories
and must do so by separate action from that used
in approving the course. Title 5 §55200-202
covers the requirements of prerequisites, the
Model District Policy,
endorsed by the Academic Senate Spring 1993 Plenary
Session and adopted by the Board of Governors
in September of 1993, gives state guidelines for
the process, and The Curriculum
Standards Handbook discusses prerequisites
in section 4.7. In the fall of 1994 the Academic
Senate issued a compilation of the prerequisite
requirements and sample college implementation
documents in the paper Curriculum
Orientation Package III, Prerequisites, Corequisites,
and Advisories. In addition the Academic
Senate is in the process of developing a paper
on good practices in the development, approval,
and implementation of prerequisites, corequisites,
advisories on recommended preparation, and other
limitations on enrollment.
Approval
of Distance Education Courses and Sections
Courses and sections
delivered by distance education must be separately
reviewed and approved by the curriculum committee.
Title 5 regulations for distance education appear
in sections 55352 to 55380. Requirements and good
practices are discussed in the Academic Senate
paper Curriculum Committee
Review of Distance Learning Courses and Sections
adopted by the Fall 1995 Plenary Session.
Approval
of Associate Degree Requirements
Criteria established
by the local board to implement Associate Degree
requirements must follow the standards in Title
5 §55002(a) including recommendation by the
curriculum committee. In establishing the Associate
Degree requirements, districts must adopt a board
policy on its philosophy on general education
(§55805), include only courses of appropriate
level (§55805.5), and adhere to the minimum
requirements set by the Board of Governors (§55806).
Title 5, §55805.
Philosophy
and Criteria for Associate Degree and General
Education
(a) The governing
board of a community college district shall adopt
a policy which states its specific philosophy
on General Education. In developing this policy
governing boards shall consider the following
policy of the Board of Governors:
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
The criteria established
by the governing board of a community college
district to implement its philosophy on the associate
degree shall permit only courses that conform
to the standards specified in Section 55002 (a)
and that fall into the following categories to
be offered for associate degree credit:
(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
The governing board
of a community college district shall confer the
degree of Associate in Arts or Associate in Science
upon a student who has demonstrated competence
in reading, in written expression, and in mathematics,
and who has satisfactorily completed at least
60 semester units or 90 quarter units of college
work. This course work requirement must be fulfilled
in a curriculum accepted toward the degree by
a college within the district (as shown in its
catalog.) It must include at least 18 semester
or 27 quarter units in General Education and at
least 18 semester or 27 quarter units in major
as prescribed in this section. Of the required
units, at least 12 semester or 18 quarter units
must be completed in residence at the college
granting the degree. Exceptions to residence requirements
for the Associate Degree may be made by the governing
board when it determines that an injustice or
undue hardship would be placed on the student.
(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
Courses may be
repeated up to three times (that is, taken up
to four total times) if the course content differs
each time a student repeats it. Course repetition
requires that the student gains an added educational
experience in which particular skills are enhanced
or for which individual study or group assignments
are the primary modes of instruction each time
the course is taken. The curriculum committee
must assure that the course outline of record
clearly states the enhanced educational experience
gained with each repetition or that the method
of instruction is individual study or group assignments.
The catalog description of the course must include
the repeatability limitation, e.g., "this
course may be repeated three times," "this
course may be repeated for a total of 6 units
earned," or "may be taken four times."
Colleges with delegation of curriculum approval
authority may assign repeatability without Chancellor's
Office approval (see the section of this paper
on "Maintaining Delegated Approval Authority");
from Title 5:
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 CSU-GE and IGETC Courses
Approval of the
curriculum committee and sign-off by the curriculum
committee chair are required for the annual submission
of courses for the California State University
General Education-Breadth (CSU GE-Breadth) and
the Intersegmental General Education Transfer
Curriculum (IGETC) requirements. In the fall of
1994 the Academic Senate issued a compilation
of the CSU GE-Breadth and IGETC requirements and
sample college implementation documents in the
paper Curriculum Orientation
Package II, Transfer General Education.
Approval
of New Degree and Certificate Programs
An educational
program is "an organized sequence of courses
leading to a defined objective, a degree, a certificate,
a diploma, a license, or transfer to another institution
of higher education" (Title 5 §55000).
Programs may thus be considered to have one of
two general goals: degree, certificate and licensing
programs which prepare students to directly enter
an occupation and programs which prepare students
for transfer. Occupational and transfer program
follow different approval procedures.
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
Districts should
have an agreed-upon process for discontinuing
programs on the basis of criteria established
in the Education Code, §78016. In addition,
the Chancellor's Office, as authorized in Title
5 §55130(d), may evaluate programs and determine
that an educational program should no longer be
offered. The Curriculum
Standards Handbook does not yet address
such criteria or processes, but guidelines are
planned for the near future and will specify a
key role for the curriculum committee.
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 are required
to publish complete information about each course
(Title 5 §55005):
status as credit, noncredit,
or community service
transferability
fulfillment of major and
general education requirements
availability of credit/non-credit
option (§55752)
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,
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
As part of maintaining
accreditation, colleges are required to regularly
review their curriculum. 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,
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
It is good practice
to establish filing systems that are discipline-based.
Discipline files include Course Outlines of Record,
program review documents, correspondence, advisory
committee minutes (for occupational programs),
copies of transfer agreements, and so on. These
files should be easily accessible in a central
location such as the library or CIO's office.
It is especially important that Course Outlines
of Record be available to faculty, particularly
part-time faculty, and to students.
Prerequisite
Review
Title 5, §55201(b)(3),
requires that prerequisites be reviewed on a regular
six-year cycle. Although the Model
District Policy does not specify the nature
of such a review, it is good practice for this
review to be part of the regular program review
cycle adopted by the college and for the prerequisite
review to be presented to the curriculum committee
along with any changes identified by the discipline
faculty for revisions or additions to existing
prerequisites.
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
The curriculum
committee plays an important role in articulation.
The nature of that role is determined at the local
campus. An essential communication link is that
between the committee and the articulation officer,
who should be a member of the committee. A central
resource for the process is the
Handbook of California Articulation Policies and
Procedures (1995). The Handbook
was prepared by the California Intersegmental
Articulation Council in collaboration with the
three public higher education systems plus the
Intersegmental Coordinating Council, the Association
of Independent California Colleges and Universities,
and the California Articulation Number System.
The Handbook provides
a useful definition of the process:
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
general education-breadth
course-to-course articulation
major preparation agreements
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
AB 1725 replaced
the credential system with minimum qualifications
for each discipline. (The Disciplines
List is updated every three years with
the latest edition produced in spring 1996.) All
the courses taught at a community college fall
within one or more of the established disciplines.
Only those faculty with minimum qualifications
(or credentials, if hired prior to July 1, 1990),
can teach courses within a given discipline. Essential
to this process is the placing of all new and
existing courses into one or more disciplines.
In meeting the requirements of AB 1725, each local
academic senate has established a process whereby
all existing courses
are placed in disciplines. As new
and substantially revised courses are brought
before the curriculum committee, it is good practice
for the originator(s) to propose the discipline
listing for the curriculum committee to review
and approve.
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
The processes by
which curriculum committees approve courses and
programs for recommendation to the board of trustees
is determined locally. These processes should
be approved by the academic senate and carried
out by the curriculum committee. What follows
are suggested good practices for carrying out
that responsibility.
Origination
of Proposals
Proposals for new
and revised courses and programs should come from
the discipline faculty, not from the curriculum
committee. It is good practice for the proposal
forms to have a sign-off for the faculty originator(s)
in the discipline responsible for the course or
program.
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
An individual course
rarely stands alone. Almost always a course will
serve the needs of students majoring outside the
discipline of the course. A welding class may
be taken by those working on an automotive repair
degree or a physics class may prepare students
for a major in engineering.
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
One of the requirements
specified in The Curriculum
Standards Handbook is the feasibility
of offering the course. Among other factors, the
availability of reference material and other instructional
resources is significant. Prior to submitting
the course outline for approval, it is good practice
for discipline faculty to work cooperatively with
library faculty to ascertain the need for instructional
materials, assess the availability of such materials,
and develop a plan for acquisition of those items
not currently in the collection. A suggested process
for accomplishing this task is presented in the
Academic Senate paper Joint
Review for Library/Learning Resources by Classroom
and Library Faculty for New Courses and Programs.
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 primary task
of the curriculum committee is to assure that
state, college, and intersegmental standards are
met. It is too often the case that committees
use valuable time and resources doing "cross
the t's and dot the i's" reviews. A great
number of colleges have found that a preliminary
technical review eliminates this edit-by-committee
task. The use of a technical review subcommittee
is described in the next section.
The
Review Cycle: Reading, Discussion, Action
The review of curriculum
proposals should be set to a definite annual time
sequence (see Appendix B for examples). A good
practice is to use the fall semester to receive,
review, and approve new proposals. Spring meetings
can be reserved for development, training, and
special projects such as receiving program review
reports and reviewing the results of CSU-GE and
IGETC submissions. This may mean weekly or semiweekly
meetings in the fall and a more relaxed monthly
meeting schedule in the spring.
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
It is often the
case that alterations to course outlines are made
during committee discussions with the originator(s).
These modifications should be noted on a master
copy of the outline for incorporation at a later
date. It is good practice for the faculty chair
or the faculty and administrative co-chairs to
sign-off on the final revised copy of the course
outline. The date of final approval should appear
on the outline. This signed version can then be
distributed to the originator(s) and committee
members. This final approved version would be
the official copy kept by the college, usually
under the supervision of the CIO or in the curriculum
office if provided with sufficient space and support.
It would be this copy that is entered into the
database for inclusion in the college catalog.
VII.
Subcommittee Structure and Good Practice
The major work
of the curriculum committee takes place during
meetings at which the proposals are discussed.
However, the ground work which is laid before
the proposal reaches the committee goes a long
way toward ensuring speedy, affirmative approvals.
The previous section mentioned some preliminary
reviews which can smooth the process. This section
makes a few recommendations on a subcommittee
structure to do this preparatory work and more.
While a formalized subcommittee structure may
not be necessary for every campus, at minimum
the identification of those with the knowledge
in each of these specialties--and the willingness
to perform the tasks--is essential.
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
The Education Code
places several curriculum review responsibilities
in the hands of the Board of Governors. Some of
these curriculum approval authorities have been
delegated directly to the colleges--conditional
upon college commitment to strict standards of
excellence.
Approval
Authority
The approval authorities
conditionally delegated to local colleges, as
specified in The Curriculum
Standards Handbook, Section 2.2, are the
ability of the local college to:
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 Handbookand
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.
College:
Date:
Chief Instructional
Officer
Faculty
Curriculum Chair
Academic
Senate President
Signature
Signature
Signature
First
Standard
Knowledge
on the part of all faculty and staff charged
with curriculum review, of state standards
and requirements for curriculum review and
approval, and of the information in this Handbook,
addenda, and related materials on curriculum
design and instructional methods.
Availability
of Materials This Handbook and/or
locally developed handbooks or other materials
are readily available to all those responsible
for reviewing and recommending or approving
curriculum. Local materials incorporate complete
and correct explanations of the state standards
as covered in the current version of the Curriculum
Standards Handbook and addenda.
Reviewer
Training As indicated in records
maintained by the college, the training afforded
the reviewers at a minimum includes current
state standards, intersegmental expectations,
and standards of good practice covered in
the current version of the Curriculum
Standards Handbook and addenda.
Updates
& New Reviewer Orientation Maintained
records also indicate that reviewers are regularly
updated and new reviewers are provided with
appropriate materials and training.
Second
Standard
PROCEDURES
employed by the curriculum committee and in
other phases of the local curriculum development
and approval process assure that standards
will be applied with consistency and rigor
to different cases, based upon input from
all appropriate parties.
Identification
of Reviewer Roles The roles
and functions of all who review and recommend
curriculum, including both curriculum committee
members and those who are part of the process,
even when not on the curriculum committee,
are identified in the college handbook and
are trained on this material wherever it falls
within their responsibilities.
Course
Review Materials Handbooks,
checklists, sample outlines, and other aids
used in the approval of courses correctly
embody the five criteria for Chancellor's
Office approval defined in Volume I and in:
CCR §51022
Instructional Programs
CCR §55002
Standards and Criteria for Courses and Classes
CCR §55805.5
Types of Courses Appropriate to the Associate
Degree
CCR §55182
On the Reinstatement of Deleted Courses
Locally
Developed Course Standards The
materials provide the definitions mandated
in
CCR §55002
to local curriculum committees. They explicitly
define and/or operationalize 'critical thinking'
and 'college level'. Insofar as possible,
they also explain when a degree credit course
is sufficiently independent of reading or
calculation skills as not to be covered
by the requirement for essays or basic skills
prerequisites (per CCR 55002)
DELEGATION CHECKLIST
(Continued)
Second
Standard
PROCEDURES
employed both by the curriculum committee
and in other phases of the local curriculum
development and approval process assure that
standards will be applied with consistency
and rigor to different cases. (CONTINUED)
Formats
and Instructions Formats used
for presenting course Outlines of Record or
new programs assure that all components required
in law are addressed. Forms require enough
detail that the adequacy of each component
may be fairly assessed and instructors and
students using Outlines of Record may readily
understand what is expected of them. Instructions
for completion of course outlines and new
program applications are complete and accurate.
Approval
Process The local handbook or
other materials clearly explain the process
for new course and program approval including
who is to be included, the criteria to be
used, what information is to be supplied,
the reasons for the required information,
and the time frame.
Cross
Discipline Review The process
provides for input from those with discipline-specific
expertise, resource expertise, and those outside
the discipline who are affected by the course,
such as instructors in courses specified as
a prerequisite to the course in question,
or who teach in a degree or certificate program
serviced by that course, or who are at transfer
institutions.
Time
Allowance The time frame is
sufficient to allow those included in the
process to apply the standards responsibly.
Committee
Composition and Charge The curriculum
committee is constituted according to CCR
§55002(a)1,
is charged with determining the approvability
of courses and otherwise affords faculty the
scope of responsibilities mandated in CCR
§53200,
§53203,
and §55002.
Third
Standard
CURRICULUM
Course Outlines of
Record are in compliance with the criteria
and standards specified in Sections 3 and
4 of the Curriculum Standards Handbook.
Availability
of Outlines of RecordOutlines
of Record on file at the college are current,
are routinely distributed to faculty assigned
to teach the courses they govern, and are
made available to students.
Frequency
of Curriculum Review Outlines
of Record are reviewed frequently and thoroughly
enough to assure rigor, effectiveness, and
currency in the curriculum and continuing
conformity with the standards defined in this
Handbook and its updates. Prerequisites are
reviewed at least every six years.
Outlines
of Record in New Program Applications Outlines
of Record included in applications for the
approval of new programs, when submitted to
the Chancellor's Office for approval, are
judged to be an acceptable part of the application,
relative to the general standards for courses
explained in Sections 3 and 4 of this Handbook.
Intersegmental
Review Results General education
courses submitted for intersegmental review
in connection with the Intersegmental General
Education Transfer Core or Executive Order
595 of the California State University system
are usually accepted.
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.
Ed Code, Title
5, and Chancellor's Office legal requirements
in the area of curriculum. Source: Each CIO and
curriculum chair has one hard copy.
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.
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.
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.
The charge to the
committee, membership (names and titles, including
appointing body, terms, and selection process
for chair/co-chairs), operating procedures (meeting
times, dates, places, minutes of past meetings,
plus any by-laws), and reporting responsibilities
(e.g, to academic senate).
A flow chart of
the approval process with the roles and functions
of all participants identified. In particular
the process should include cross discipline review
and a specific time line which demonstrates adequate
allowance for a full review of each proposal.
Summaries and abstracts
of review standards from Title 5, the Curriculum
Standards Handbook, CSU Executive Order 595,
IGETC Guidelines, Distance Education Guidelines,
Prerequisite Model District Policy, and Accreditation
Standards.
Locally developed standards
for critical thinking, college level courses,
prerequisite content review and research validation,
distance education regular contact, and any
other locally developed policies such as unit
guidelines on lab or studio hours, contract
language on class size, etc.
Curriculum proposal and
review forms (with instructions):
Proposal cover sheet for
a new or revised course outline of record
Format for new or revised
course outline of record
Library sign-off for new
course or program
Prerequisite/Corequisite/Advisory
content review
Prerequisite/Corequisite
standard in 3 UC/CSU catalogs
Prerequisite/Corequisite
research validation study
Distance Education checklist
Proposal for a new program
The
Approvable Curricula Standard 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.
For the knowledge
standard, colleges should submit a list
of the documents in their Resource Manual, a copy
of their Training Booklet, and a list of training
activities for the year (dates, topics, facilitators,
and attendees).
For the procedures
standard, colleges should submit their
Curriculum Handbook containing, at a minimum,
the items listed in the above discussion.
For the approvable
curricula standard, colleges should submit
copies of 1) college policy on maintenance and
distribution of current course outlines of record,
2) the college program review procedure, 3) Chancellor's
Office evaluation of new program applications,
and 4) CSU and IGETC evaluation reports of general
education submissions.
IX.
Summary
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.
