1997 - 98 Curriculum Committee
Beverly Shue, Chair, Los Angeles Harbor
Luz Gomez Argyriou, Napa College
Donna Ferracone, Chafton Hills College
Jean Smith, San Diego Continuing Education
Jannett Jackson, Fresno College
Linda Lee, San Diego Miramar College
Bob Stafford, San Bernarndino College
Ron Vess, Southwestern College
Lynn Miller, Chancellor's Office Liaison
1996 - 97 Curriculum Committee
Bill Scroggins, Chair, Chabot College
Luz Gomez Argyriou, Napa Valley College
Donna Ferracone, Crafton Hills College
Jean Smith, San Diego, Continuing Education
Jannett Jackson, Fresno City College
Linda Lee, San Diego Miramar College
Bob Stafford, San Bernardino Valley College
Ron Vess, Southwestern College
Marissa Alvarez, Student Senate
Abstract
A well-designed college curriculum is not only
comprehensive and effective but also flexible.
As new topics emerge and demands of the field
evolve, the curriculum must be responsive without
losing its commitment to quality. This paper makes
recommendations to create specific categories
and approval processes for:
special
topics courses,
experimental
courses,
an
expedited process for courses with imminent
need for approval, and
independent
study courses.
Further
recommendations are made for policies and practices
related to Carnegie units:
separate
standards and procedures for determining student
units and faculty load,
establish
standards for granting Carnegie units to courses
based on performance criteria (open entry/open
exit, independent study, and distance education),
and
assure
that the Board policy establishes expectations
for the unit/hour relationship but maintains
flexibility.
Guidelines
are also suggested to streamline the workload
of curriculum committee meetings:
full
review for substantive changes,
approval
on the consent agenda for minor changes, and
information
only status for technical changes.
Colleges
are reminded that recommendations on the changes
in policies and procedures as recommended here
fall within the purview of the academic senate.
Good Practices For Course Approval Processes
Prepared by the Curriculum Committee of the Academic
Senate for California Community Colleges
Introduction
Curriculum committees continually face challenges
to balance deliberate review-and its emphasis
on quality—with responsiveness to quickly
emerging curriculum needs. Likewise, curriculum
committees must weigh the need for a well structured
college curriculum with the advantages of flexibility
in covering disciplines-specific topics. All of
this has to be maintained within a reasonable
workload for the faculty and the committee. This
paper addresses several strategies that are recommended
to discipline faculty and curriculum committees
to allow flexibility while maintaining high standards.
Many
departments offer special topics courses whose
content changes from semester to semester.
While such courses add valuable depth and
breadth to the curriculum, the review of the
content and appropriateness of these courses
must remain rigorous.
Particularly
in fields experiencing rapid change, faculty
need to experiment to develop appropriate
and effective ways to convey new material.
Similarly, the diversity of backgrounds and
learning styles of today's students calls
for the development of new pedagogies that
may take some time to work out. While the
ability to offer experimental courses is critical
to this process, such courses must still be
completely described and must meet required
standards.
The
Academic Senate's previous paper, "The
Curriculum Committee: Role, Structure and
Function," stressed the importance of
an annual cycle of curriculum development,
review, and approval. Circumstances arise
that require quick response or a review at
times not prescribed by this cycle. The curriculum
processes should accommodate such imminent
needs but set criteria to assure that such
requests are appropriate.
Independent
study provides a valuable avenue for individual
instruction beyond the scope of the regular
curriculum. Many colleges list such courses
as part of the departmental curriculum. While
regulations provide some guidance for the
use of independent study, the experience of
faculty has led to some good practices that
are important to share with others.
The
relationship that three hours of student work
per week over the term of a full semester
equates to one Carnegie Unit of student credit
is established in regulation. Translation
of these weekly hours to in-class lecture/lab/studio/activity/discussion
and out-of-class homework/study/activities
is left to local governing board policy. The
expansion of modes of delivery, short-term
courses, and open-entry/open-exit designs
has generated some new issues worthy of discussion.
Special Topic Courses
Special topic courses, as specified in this document,
are those with a consistent pedagogy— as
described by a complete course outline of record
— but with a focus area which changes from
term to term. One example is a course on Latin
American History for which the objectives, assignments,
and methods of instruction and evaluation are
specified and consistently used, but the focus
shifts each semester, perhaps from Argentina to
Bolivia to Columbia and so on. The reading list
would change as well but be sufficient to support
the content: political history, social history,
economic history, etc. Another example is an English
Literature course in which the author of the works
studied is different with each offering. The goals
and structure of the course remain consistent:
critical analysis, a certain amount of reading
and writing, a research paper with specified parameters,
and so on.
This
degree of specificity for the special topics course
outline of record
gives the curriculum committee the essential information
to review the appropriateness, need, quality,
feasibility, and compliance with state and local
standards, including articulation. Special topics
courses are not a carte blanche to offer "current
topics" or whatever subject the discipline
faculty may desire: history of the French Revolution
one term and of the Boers in South Africa the
next. Special topics courses should be differentiated
from experimental courses. They have a stable,
well-defined form and purpose within the program,
rather than requiring experimentation to resolve
design or other features of the course. As can
be seen, allowing for a separate category of experimental
courses will meet that need. Blanket approval
of a special topics course is not a way to avoid
cumbersome course approval processes. If there
truly is a justifiable imminent need for a new
course, the curriculum process can be responsive
to that need in a an expedited manner to be described
shortly.
It
is recommended that colleges adopt a policy specifying
that special topics courses require full course
design and pedagogy, changing only the focus area
each term. The change in focus area and reading
list need not require curriculum committee action
but rather should be reported as an information
item. It is recommend that the committee specify
a uniform course number for special topics courses.
In this way, students, faculty and others will
know that Biology 96 or Sociology 96 at your college
will be on special topics. It is recommended that
each iteration of the course be given a unique
letter: History 96A on Argentina, 96B on Bolivia,
etc. The focus area and reading list for each
letter used can be appended to the overall course
outline. Only the generic outline of record needs
to be approved by the Board of Trustees.
The use of multiple letters for the course is
preferable to a single course number specified
as repeatable. Because each lettered iteration
is a separate course, the number of offerings
is not subject to the limit of four repetitions
(in regulation for a single course designation),
multiple letters also provide unique transcript
entries to keep track of the focus area taught
in a given term. This will facilitate articulation.
The catalog listing can be limited to just the
number designation, History 96 for example, with
a notation that the focus area will be different
each term as listed in the schedule of classes.
In
reviewing courses proposed as special topics,
curriculum committees should apply all relevant
standards. Special attention should be paid to
the range of focus areas planned. They should
be closely related and effectively taught using
the standard course design in the outline of record.
Experimental Courses
Circumstances arise in which all aspects of a
course cannot be anticipated without offering
the course on a trial basis. Such experimental
courses are still required to have a complete
course outline and go through the regular college
curriculum review process. They must meet all
Title 5 requirements, and they must be recommended
by the curriculum committee and approved by the
local governing board.
Curriculum
committees can grant some latitude, however, in
the extent to which the course meets the five
criteria for course approval published in the
Curriculum Standards Handbook. Some examples will
illustrate the point.
Appropriateness
to mission may be in doubt for a course intended
to be transferable that has not yet been articulated.
It may be that the curriculum committee would
recommend approval contingent on that articulation
and a review of any changes that might be
needed to secure that status.
Need
may be questionable if student demand seems
marginal. The only way to ascertain that response
may be to offer the course on a trial basis.
Assessment
of quality for an experimental approach, such
as collaborative instruction or service learning,
may await actual evaluation during the course
itself.
Feasibility
may be uncertain if cost and enrollment factors
are unknown.
Compliance
with laws and regulations always should be
ascertained and not be a basis for experimentation
unless waivers of those laws or regulations
have been obtained (for example, as allowed
for CalWORKs if faculty senate concurrence
is obtained).
It
is recommended that colleges adopt policies and
procedures for experimental courses that clearly
state that statutory and regulatory standards
are to be upheld but granting latitude to proposed
courses for which the Handbook criteria are in
doubt. Such proposals should be accompanied by
a written rationale stating the area in need of
experimentation, the plan to resolve the uncertainties,
and an appropriate time line. The rationale must
show that needed information is dependent on trial
offering of the course, not just that the originator
has not done the work to address the criteria.
Approval should be recommended by the curriculum
committee for a limited period of time, typically
not more than a year. Approval should be contingent
upon resubmission of the course, with unresolved
areas addressed, at the end of this period.
As
with special topics courses, it is recommend that
the college use a consistent number for experimental
courses. In this way everyone will know that Anthropology
55 or Photography 55 is an experimental course.
A notation should be placed in the catalog that
these courses are experimental. Such courses must
be approved by the local governing board but are
listed generally, not separately, in the catalog.
Experimental courses are not accepted to meet
general education or program major requirements
for associate degrees or certificates nor are
they to be submitted for IGETC approval. They
may be accepted for elective credit for the Associate
degree or for elective credit at CSU.
Expedited Course Approval: Imminent
Need
Curriculum committees hear time and again that
curriculum review processes are slow, cumbersome,
and a hindrance to the ability of the college
to be responsive to the rapidly changing needs
of business and the community. At the same time
curriculum committees continually fend off challenges
to the quality of community college curriculum,
with recent occurrences being questions from four-year
receiving institutions about the appropriateness
of some of our telecourses and the CalWORKs requirement
that community college educational programs be
approved as eligible for placement of students
by county welfare departments.
Curriculum
processes can balance responsiveness with quality
assurance by establishing an expedited process
when imminent need for a course is established.
One example of an imminent need might arise from
an accreditation visit to a nursing program from
which an immediate curriculum change is required
by the Board of Registered Nursing. Another example
arose when CalWORKs required integration of basic
skills and program major instruction as a condition
of approval for programs to receive client referrals
by a stated deadline. Imminent need should not
be invoked just because the course originator
did not prepare adequately to meet the established
curriculum review timeline.
It
is recommended that colleges adopt imminent need
criteria which, if met, would qualify a course
for expedited approval. Upon presentation of a
complete course proposal, the curriculum committee
would accept, review, and approve or disapprove
the course at its next regularly scheduled meeting,
regardless of the adopted annual timeline. Faculty
originators would be expected to submit a written
rationale addressing the imminent need criteria
and the committee would, as a first order of business,
accept or reject the rationale.
Courses
accepted for expedited approval must still meet
all state and local standards, including submission
of all required forms. It is expected that the
faculty originator(s) would be present to address
any issues raised by the committee. It is essential
that expedited approval not lower standards or
submit to pressure from special interest groups
to establish curriculum which has not been well
thought out.
The
expedited process still requires that the course
be recommended by the curriculum committee and
approved by the Board of Trustees before it is
offered. Some colleges have local policies that
require courses to be included in the catalog
before they can be offered. However, Title 5 §58104
permits courses which are approved after the publication
of the catalog or schedule of classes to be offered
if they are "reasonably well publicized."
The Chancellor's Office has traditionally interpreted
this to mean that every course must be publicized
via a printed announcement with general distribution.
Thus courses approved through the expedited process
can be offered, even after the deadline for catalog
publication has passed, by listing the course
in the schedule of classes. Even in the rare case
that a course would be approved after the schedule
is prepared, the course may still be given if
the college has a well-designed process for publicizing
these courses to the general population. Faculty
should realize, however, that the catalog is extensively
used by other institutions to evaluate transcripts.
Many four-year college and universities require
transferable courses to be listed in the catalog
as a condition of articulation. It is recommended
that, as good practice, newly approved courses
be listed in the schedule of classes and as a
catalog addendum. If expedited courses meet the
relevant standards, they may be approved for Associate
degree and certificate requirements and be submitted
for UC transferability, CSU GE-Breadth, and IGETC
approval.
Independent Study
Independent study courses are intended for one-on-one
or small group instruction, research, or activities
beyond the scope of currently offered courses.
Independent study course structure is based on
a contract among the college, faculty member,
and student. The same standards apply as for other
courses: a qualified instructor, course quality,
adequate instructor-student contact, and evaluation
and grading of student performance.
It
is recommended that colleges adopt policies and
practices assuring the appropriateness and quality
of independent study. Independent study should
require minimum qualifications within that discipline
for faculty delivery of the course. Curriculum
committee review of the independent study contract
is not required or expected. It is recommended
that the proposed contract undergo administrative
review to assure that Title 5 regulations and
local board policies are followed, not to assess
the pedagogy or relevance of the course content
itself. Local policies and practices should set
standards for adequate instructor-student contact,
for reporting of grades, and to meet regulatory
reporting requirements for the college to obtain
apportionment funding. Units awarded should continue
to follow the Carnegie relationship. Compensation
for faculty is a matter for negotiation for districts
with the bargaining agent. Independent study courses
are not assigned to individual faculty but rather
are elected voluntarily by faculty on the basis
of their own interests or needs.
For
disciplines whose faculty regularly make use of
independent study, it is recommended that a generic
description be published in the catalog. It is
recommended that colleges adopt a standard number
so that all who see such a listing know that Electronics
96 or Anthropology 96 is an independent study
course. Independent study courses should be accepted
as elective units for the associate degree and
designated as transferrable to CSU for elective
credit.
Carnegie Unit
The relationship between hours of student work
and units earned is known as the Carnegie formula.
As specified in Title 5 § 55002 (b)(1)(B),
it is:
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.
Notice
that the regulation requires the Board of Trustees
to adopt a policy specifying the relationship
between units and lecture and/or lab hours or
performance criteria. The total is to be three
hours of student work per week over a full semester
to earn one unit, but those "hours of work"
can be in the classroom or outside. It is that
division which the local board policy should address.
This section will discuss some good practices
for that task.
The
relationship between hours and units is further
delineated in Title 5 §55002.5:
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.
For
work experience courses, the relationship is that
one unit of credit is earned for each 75 hours
(paid) or 60 hours (unpaid) of work experience
activity within a semester, as stated in Title
5 §55256.5:
(a) One student contact hour is counted for each
unit of work experience credit in which a student
is enrolled during any census period. In no case
shall duplicate student contact hours be counted
for any classroom instruction and Cooperative
Work Experience Education. The maximum contact
hours counted for a student shall not exceed the
maximum number of Cooperative Work Experience
Education units for which the student may be granted
credit as described in section 55256.5.
(b) The learning experience and the identified
on-the-job learning objectives shall be sufficient
to support the units to be awarded.
(c) The following formula will be used to determine
the number of units to be awarded:
(1) Each 75 hours of paid work equals one semester
credit or 50 hours equals one quarter credit.
(2) Each 60 hours of non-paid work equals one
semester credit or 40 hours equals one quarter
credit.
It
is important to immediately recognize the relationship
between categories of student time spent in lecture/lab/discussion
etc., and the faculty load earned for compensation
purposes. These two issues, student hours and
faculty load, are distinct, and colleges are cautioned
against applying a single standard to meet both
needs. An example will help to illustrate the
point. A semester- based course is offered with
a three-hour lecture and three-hour lab each week.
The faculty determine that two hours of outside
study are needed for each lecture hour but not
a substantial amount of outside work is needed
each week for students to keep up with the lab.
The Carnegie relationship thus determines that
students will earn one unit for each lecture hour
and one unit for the three lab hours for a total
of four units. Suppose that the bargaining agreement
has specified how faculty load is determined.
This means that the number of class hours, as
lecture or laboratory, will affect such load.
However, there might be variations in load considerations
that not only include lecture and lab hours, but
also preparation time and/or evaluation of student
work (e.g., composition classes). The decision
for student units is an instructional consideration,
i.e. an academic and professional matter, and
should not be connected to the decision on faculty
load, which is a bargaining issue. The point is
that the decision for student units is not and
should not be connected to the decision on faculty
load. The curriculum approval process and the
determination of faculty compensation should follow
distinctly separate processes. Curriculum committees
must not become involved in faculty load issues!
In
evaluating a course for purposes of awarding student
units, curriculum committees should consider both
the specified in-class hours and the expected
out-of-class hours. Note that Title 5, §
55002, requires substantial student assignments
to be performed outside of class. It must be clear
upon review of the course outline of record that
the total of in-class and out-of-class work totals
three hours per week for each semester unit. If
that level of work is not apparent, originating
faculty should be asked to provide further information.
Recall
that Title 5 allows for the granting of units
based on performance criteria specified in the
course outline rather than hours of student work.
This method is most appropriate for open entry/open
exit, independent study, and distance education
courses due to the fact that these types of courses
do not have regular weekly meeting hours. It is
recommended that curriculum committees require
a written rationale for such courses specifically
detailing the expected hours of student work.
Note also that funding of such courses follows
different standards. For the most part, open entry/open
exit courses require positive attendance accounting
while independent study and most distance education
courses follow an apportionment formula based
on equating units to hours (see Title 5 §
58051 in Appendix A).
It
is recommended that the local board policy required
by Title 5, § 55002, not be overly prescriptive.
The policy should require that each course outline
of record contain sufficient information to ascertain
that students must perform three hours of work
each week for each semester unit of credit. It
is recommended that the policy specify that the
normal expectation of the Board is that, for a
semester-length course for each week:
one
hour of lecture = one unit of credit,
three
hours of lab/studio/shop/activity = one unit
of credit,
one,
two, or three hours of quiz/discussion = one
unit of credit as specifically justified in
the course outline,
study
and homework do not generate credit units,
and
open-entry/open-exit,
independent study, distance education and
other courses based on performance criteria
require a written rationale specifying the
expected hours of student work to earn the
proposed units of credit.
Units
for courses with term lengths other than a full
semester will be prorated based on the above relationships.
Proposals for units not following the above relationships
must be accompanied by a written rationale. A
possible format for the rationale might be for
the instructor to estimate the typical number
of hours that a student would spend to work on
each content area. Recommendations for student
units for each credit course will be made by the
curriculum committee.
Changes Which Trigger Course Outline Review
To streamline the course approval process, it
should be recognized that not all changes in the
course outline of record are of equal impact.
Full curriculum committee review should apply
only to those changes which require re-evaluation
of criteria to assure that standards in Title
5 and the Curriculum Standards Handbook continue
to be met. To that end, the Academic Senate proposes
the following guidelines for curriculum committee
action on proposed course changes.
Full Review by the Curriculum Committee: Substantive
Changes
"Full
review" means a complete analysis of the
entire course outline of record by the complete
curriculum committee and a motion for approval
by the full committee. The following substantive
changes should trigger a full review:
major change in Catalog Description, Objectives
or Content which 1) alters the need or justification
for the course or 2) calls into question the
ability of the course to meet standards in
Title 5 or the Curriculum Standards Handbook.
change
in units and hours
number
of repetitions
credit/no
credit status
prerequisites
(separate review required by Title 5 §55200)
distance
education mode (separate review required by
Title 5 §55376)
offering
a course in experimental status
determination
of imminent need to initiate expedited approval
All
proposals should be submitted with the written
rationale for the change.
Approved on the Consent Agenda:
Minor Changes
Changes which do not affect statutory or regulatory
curriculum standards, but require judgment of
the extent to which this is true, can be placed
on the consent agenda for full committee vote.
It is recommended that a prior review take place
to recommend that the course changes are such
that standards are not affected. At most colleges
this review can be done by division faculty or
a technical review subcommittee of the curriculum
committee, but should not be just an administrative
review. Members of the full curriculum committee
are expected to read the revised and previous
course outlines and the accompanying rationale.
They may pull the item from the consent agenda
for discussion if necessary. Otherwise, no comment
is needed prior to a full committee vote.
It
is recommended that the following minor changes
to the course outline of record be approved on
the consent agenda as recommended either by vote
of the division faculty or the technical review
subcommittee:
minor,
non-substantive changes in Catalog Description,
Objectives, or Content (see above "full
review"),
change
in course number (within college policy),
change
in course title,
add/drop
from an Associate degree or certificate program
(must continue to be of two year or less duration),
and
add/drop from the Associate
degree general education list.(1)
Again,
a written rationale should accompany all proposed
changes. Information Item
Only/No Action: Technical Changes Some changes are technical in nature and
require no review. Others are within the areas
of the course outline for which a variety of methods
are permissible, provided that the course objectives
are met and the course content covered.
It
is recommended that the following changes be accepted
as information items only, with no action required,
upon the advice of the division/departmental faculty
or technical review committee. Revised course
outlines should be transmitted so that the course
file can be kept up to date. Technical changes
include:
changes in term length (as
long as the Carnegie relationship is maintained),(2)
changes
in the Text and/or Instructional Materials,
changes
in the sections on Methods of Instruction,
Assignments, or Methods of Evaluation (as
long as these changes are minor and continue
to enable students to meet objectives and
fully cover the stated content), and
addition
of a focus area to a special topics course
list for the next letter in the sequence.
Academic Senate Recommendations
On Changes In Curriculum Policy And Procedures
The changes that are suggested in this paper fall
within the scope of the academic and professional
matters on curriculum. As such, recommendations
to the local governing board or its designee should
be made by written resolution of the academic
senate. The academic senate may charge the curriculum
committee or some other academic policy committee
with the task of developing a proposal for these
changes, but final recommending authority rests
with the academic senate. The extent of the changes
suggested here would have a substantial effect
on staff and students. Therefore, the academic
senate must take steps to assure the effective
participation of staff and students, as determined
by their recognized representative bodies.
Appendix A
Title 5 §58051. Method for Computing Full-Time
Equivalent Student (FTES).
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided, in computing
the full-time equivalent student of a community
college district, there shall be included only
the attendance of students while they are engaged
in educational activities required of students
and while they are under the immediate supervision
and control of an academic employee of the district
authorized to render service in the capacity and
during the period in which he or she served.
(2) A community college district may also include
the attendance of students enrolled in approved
courses or programs of independent study, including
courses or programs formerly conducted as coordinated
instruction systems, who are under the supervision,
control, and evaluation, but not necessarily in
the immediate presence, of an academic employee
of the district who is authorized to render such
service. Such attendance may only be included
for college level credit courses and programs
which are accepted for completion of an appropriate
educational sequence leading to an associate degree,
and which generally are recognized upon transfer
by institutions of the University of California
or the California State University.
The community college district shall determine
the nature, manner, and place of conducting any
independent study course or program in accordance
with rules and regulations adopted by the Board
of Governors of the California Community Colleges
to implement the purposes of this Subsection.
The rules and regulations shall require community
college districts to ensure that the components
of each individual study course or program for
each student shall be set out in a written record
or program, including the number of units and
hours of study required, the arrangements for
consultation with the instructor, the work product
to be evaluated, and the college facility required.
The rules and regulations shall also provide for
input from, and participation by, faculty, who
are selected by academic senates or faculty councils,
and students, in the development and evaluation
of approved educational courses and programs.
(3) A community college district may also include
the attendance of students enrolled in approved
distance education independent study sections
in accordance with the provisions of Section 55316.5(a)
and (b).
(b) For the purpose of work-experience education
programs in the community colleges meeting the
standards of the California State Plan for Vocational
Education, "immediate supervision" of
off-campus work training stations means student
participation in on-the-job training as outlined
under a training agreement, coordinated by the
community college district under a state-approved
plan, wherein the employer and academic school
personnel share the responsibility for on-the-job
supervision. The student/instructor ratio in the
work-experience program shall not exceed 125 students
per full-time equivalent academic coordinator.
(c) For purposes of computing the full-time equivalent
student of a community college district, attendance
shall also include student attendance and participation
in in-service training courses in the areas of
police, fire, corrections, and other criminal
justice system occupations that conform to all
apportionment attendance and course of study requirements
otherwise imposed by law, if the courses are fully
open to the enrollment and participation of the
public. However, prerequisites for the courses
shall not be established or construed so as to
prevent academically qualified persons who are
not employed by agencies in the criminal justice
system from enrolling in and attending the courses.
(d) Notwithstanding Subsection (c) and any regulations
related thereto, a community college may give
preference in enrollment to persons who are employed
by, or serving in a voluntary capacity with, a
fire protection or fire prevention agency in any
course of in-service fire training at the community
college in cooperation with any fire protection
or fire prevention agency or association. Preference
shall only be given when such persons could not
otherwise complete the course within a reasonable
time and when no other training program is reasonably
available. At least 15 percent of the enrollment
in in-service fire training courses shall consist
of persons who are neither volunteers of, nor
employed by, a fire protection or fire prevention
agency or association, if the persons are available
to attend a course. Full-time equivalent student
for the courses shall be reported for state aid.
(e) Subsection (d) shall apply only to the following:
(1) Community colleges which, in cooperation with
any fire protection or fire prevention agency
or association, have been, as of January 1, 1980,
the primary source of in-service fire training
for any fire protection or fire prevention agency
or association.
(2) Community colleges which, in cooperation with
any fire protection or fire prevention agency
or association, establish in-service fire training
for any fire protection or fire prevention agency
or association which did not have in-service fire
training, prior to January 1, 1980.
(f) In the event that in-service training courses
are restricted to employees of police, fire, corrections,
and other criminal justice agencies, attendance
for the restricted courses shall not be reported
for purposes of state apportionments. A community
college district which restricts enrollment in
in-service training courses may contract with
any public agency to provide compensation for
the cost of conducting such courses.
(g) Positive records of student admissions and
full-time equivalent student in all in-service
training courses in the areas of police, fire,
corrections, and other criminal justice system
occupations, as described in Subsection (c), shall
be maintained by each district and shall be separately
reported annually to the Chancellor's Office.
1.
The expectation is that the change in general
education status would be based on well established
criteria for each general education area, reviewed
and recommended either by divisional faculty or
a general education subcommittee.
2.
In some cases, term length changes may affect
pedagogy. For example, condensing a semester length
course to two weeks or an exclusive Saturday format
would trigger the need for review of course structure.
