Based on my many faxes, emails, and phone messages, I am convinced that faculty view the curriculum process as very important yet often overly bureaucratic and cumbersome. Many faculty have expressed similar concerns to me directly during several of my recent visits to campuses around the state. Among the questions I've heard at the local, district, and state levels are: How do we avoid unnecessary rewrites of course proposals? How often should course outlines be updated? How do we deal with prerequisites and levels of scrutiny validation? How do we prepare on-line course proposals?
Many think of AB 1725 primarily for its enactment of "shared governance" and the strengthening of the role of the academic senate, which was discussed extensively in this column in the last issue of the Rostrum. It is all too easy to forget the sweeping nature of the reforms of this landmark legislation. A brief article such as this cannot hope to touch all those points, but I have chosen a few for which I feel additional steps must be taken to realize the vision of AB 1725.
The Governor, picking up on a budget request by the Chancellor and the Board of Governors (BOG) for the California Community Colleges, has proposed funding part of the system's budget on an incentive, or performance basis. Taking their proposal one step further, the Governor established the outcomes: degrees, certificates, course completion, transfer and transfer ready students, persistence and retention rates, specialized training, earnings after education, movement from remedial to college level work.