Whereas technological advances have brought into question the efficacy of traditional community college calendars based on outmoded concepts like the Carnegie unit, seat time, and "shared air,"
Resolved that the Academic Senate direct the Executive Committee to study and report on models of instructional calendars that, like those of other institutions of higher education, are reflective of technologically influenced modes of instructional delivery and that consider community colleges part of higher education as envisioned in AB 1725.
Proposed change to this goal: Write a FAQ paper on the Santa Monica Model, with reference to the problems encountered by Riverside. The rationale for this is that Santa Monica (and now Riverside) are the only colleges to have initiated significantly altered calendars, and there is much to be learned from their experience regarding the implications of such a change. Santa Monica has been hosting envoys from other colleges interested in modified calendars, and would probably welcome this project. It might be possible to combine this paper with the mandate of S99 9.05 on Compressed Courses.
The Executive Committee approved of this recommendation, and a list of recommendations to local senates was adopted at the Spring 2000 Plenary Session accompanied by a paper, "The FAQs about Alternative Calendars: Questions and Answers For Faculty to Consider," which the plenary body accepted as a progress report on the adoption of alternative calendars by colleges within the system.