Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report
Year Three of
Program Review Cycle
Final Summary Report
Life Sciences
Submitted on 2/28/2013
By Jennifer Lange
Final Forms, 1/18/13
Table of Contents
Section A: What Have We Accomplished? ................................. 1
Section B: What’s Next? ........................................................... 2
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History .........................................................................................3
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule .................................4
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections ...........................................5
C: Program Learning Outcomes....................................................................9
D: A Few Questions ....................................................................................11
E: New Initiatives .......................................................................................12
F1: New Faculty Requests ..........................................................................13
F2: Classified Staffing Requests ...................................................................14
F3: FTEF Requests ......................................................................................15
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests ..................................................16
F5: Supplies and Services Requests ............................................................17
F6: Conference/Travel Requests ................................................................18
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests ........................................19
F8: Facilities Requests ................................................................................20
A. What Have We Accomplished?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1 and B2 (CLO's), C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to
writing your narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence, and
enrollment data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks
you to reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used by
the PRBC and Budget Committee to assess progress toward achievement of our Strategic Plan
and to inform future budget decisions. It will also be used by the SLOAC and Basic Skills
committees as input to their priority-setting process. In your narrative of two or less pages,
address the following questions:







What program improvement goals did you establish?
Did you achieve the goals you established for the three years? Specifically describe your
progress on goals you set for student learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan
achievement.
What best practices have you developed? Those could include pedagogical methods,
strategies to address Basic Skills needs of our students, methods of working within your
discipline, and more.
Are these best practices replicable in other disciplines or areas?
What were your greatest challenges?
Were there institutional barriers to success?
Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty
ratios, CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
Overall program information and improvement, and needs:
The biology subdivision completed its first cycle of Program Review in 2009 with many action plan items
still unresolved. Our work throughout this Program Review cycle represented a continuation of those
effortsto improve student learning through (1) improving facilities, (2) providing adequate staffing and
materials for courses, (3) offering the types and numbers of courses students need in our present and
future economy, and (4) increasing the number of students who complete our programs and the quality
of their knowledge and skills.
We have still not been able to accomplish many of these ongoing goals including
 increasing the biology supply budget to adequate levels
 improving the physical environment of building 2100
 providing adequate numbers of sections to meet the demand for our programs
 providing adequate laboratory technician support for evening and weekend courses
 beginning the development of new CTE programs for our allied health students
Updates on progress for our broad goals, as stated in year 1 of this program review cycle:
1. Align Environmental Science program with community needs – Urban Agriculture Program
The bond provided funds to purchase materials for two raised garden beds. The beds will be
installed next to building 2100 by the biology club, staff and faculty on March 1, 2013.
Maintenance and Operations will provide soil and will install an irrigation system. These beds
will be used by biology and environmental science classes. As we gain experience with the small
garden, we hope to expand beyond the biology subdivision. Other faculty have also expressed
an interest in helping with the garden and possibly using it for their classes as well.As an
outreach activity, the Biology subdivision participated in the 4th Annual Castro Valley Unified
School District Science Festival at the Castro Valley high school.
2. Provide safe, secure, and up-to-date facilities
We have not secured any commitment of funding for a new building or for any renovations to
the current building that will alleviate health and safety hazards. We have made extensive
efforts to educate campus members about our needs, including tours by Dr. Barbarena, Dr.
Sperling, and by the Faculties Committee. We believe that the need is recognized, which will
hopefully result in at least some funding from the current bond being allocated to our building.
If renovations are done to address the most egregious health and safety needs, a new building is
still needed in order to have a sufficient number of rooms to serve our students and to hold the
equipment needed to conduct modern biology experiments.
3. Identify and provide a variety of allied-health career options
We have identified potential programs that we could offer that would train students for indemand career fields (see attached). Since all would require either additional FTEF to offer new
courses (or restore those courses cut when the Biotechnology program was put on hold), we
have not further pursued these options in times of austerity. As growth becomes available, we
would like to further develop some of these options; some of which can be done entirely within
the Life Sciences Program while others would require collaboration with other programs (ESL,
ECD, Communication Studies, Health/Medical Assisting).
4. Increase student success
We undertook a careful schedule analysis to create a better balance of courses in the Allied
Health pathway, which has resulted in a decrease in the number of BIOL 31 sections offered to
balance the number of seats available in ANAT/MICR/PHSI, and to ensure that students can
progress through the Biology majors series in a timely fashion. Changes:
Allied Health: To start in Fall 2013, we have worked with Counseling to develop three SEP
templates that align with our course offerings and their recommended enrollment order. We
hypothesize that having students begin their science courses in their second or third semester,
while taking a customized study skills course, will improve their ability to succeed in the entry
level courses. We have also arranged the course schedule to allow students to take BIOL 31 and
CHEM 30A during the same term and in either a morning, afternoon, or evening time block. We
have also arranged our schedule so that instructors have more time to meet and students have
a meal break between long blocks of class.
Biology: The new three course series has finally been implemented, giving students more
flexibility in their class blocks. We have worked with Math, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, and
Computer Science to offer needed courses in non-overlapping time blocks while simultaneously
creating as compact a schedule as possible for students. Also, for the first time in recent
memory, a biology majors course will be offered during the summer.
B. What’s Next?
This section may serve as the foundation for your next Program Review cycle, and will inform the
development of future strategic initiatives for the college. In your narrative of one page or less, address
the following questions. Please complete Appendices E (New Initiatives) and F1-8 (Resources Requested)
to further detail your narrative and to request resources.




What goals do you have for future program improvement?
What ideas do you have to achieve those goals?
What must change about the institution to enable you to make greater progress in
improving student learning and overall student success?
What recommendations do you have to improve the Program Review process?
In the next cycle we will continue to work on our ongoing goals as outlined above.
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC,and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Category
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
Other
2011-12
Budget
Requested
1 additional
Bond $7,368
General
Fund $45,695
Bond $116,386
$8,000 equip
maint
2011-12
Budget
Received
No change
GF $39,849
$4496
2012-13
Budget
Requested
1 additional
Bond $55,945
GenFund $46,896
Bond $89,525
$8,000
equip maint
2012-13
Budget
Received
No change
GF $39,849
$4500
TOTAL
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
Allocations from bond funding have allowed us to replace some old, deteriorated equipment, supplies,
and models. For example, in anatomy the students can now view models of the reproductive tracts
while the organs are in their correct anatomical position, whereas previously the broken pins required
students to continuously reconstruct and hold the tracts in the (hopefully!) correct position. Also,
students can identify the foramina (holes) in the skull models without having to determine if the hole
was supposed to be there or if it was one that had been created by overuse.
The Biology subdivision is in the process of replacing a 30-year old autoclave. A new autoclave was
purchased and is currently being installed. This critical piece of equipment is extensively used to prepare
sterile reagents and culture media utilized in the laboratory component of courses like MICR 1, BIOL 2,
BIOL 6, and BIOL 2A.
We can see the immediate impact on student learning in the significant decrease in both student and
instructor time spent addressing equipment usage and malfunction issues. We hope to see an impact
on learning when we enter or second cycle of SLO assessment next year.
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
The cost of supplies and maintenance increases every year, but our budget allocations for these items
has not kept pace. We have not been able to incorporate new laboratory techniques that are in
common use in science laboratories, so our students are at a disadvantage in both 4-year transfer
programs and in industry. We are constantly battling just to maintain our current levels of success and
enrollment. The fact they these measures did not decrease is a testament to the resourcefulness and
dedication of our faculty and lab techs.
Our biggest funding gap is glaringly present in the space issues our laboratory rooms face and in the
safety violations we having been trying to work around for years:









Laboratory classrooms have only 24 work stations. Even with this small number of students, you
cannot easily walk between the benches without tripping over a chair or bumping into another
student. When carrying hazardous chemicals, this is extremely dangerous.
Counter space and electrical capacity is inadequate to accommodate the computers, monitors,
and other laboratory equipment needed to conduct experiments.
Basic safety equipment is lacking or not maintained – fume hoods, safety showers, eye wash
stations, ventilation and temperature control systems.
Corroded pipes are causing equipment malfunctions and plumbing leaks.
We do not have the two exits for each classroom that are required by fire safety codes. Also,
windows are obstructed by shelves and some do not open, making an evacuation in case of fire
difficult.
The in-window blinds in most windows do not work, meaning that some cannot be closed in the
case of an active threat on campus (or just to use the projectors!).
Air and gas valves are exposed on the ends of lab benches, right at the knee height of students,
so they are frequently opened accidentally.
The cadaver rooms do not have proper temperature control and ventilation, exposing students
and staff to unnecessary formaldehyde fumes.
Safety code requires that laboratory technicians not work alone in a room, but the current
arrangement has each in their own room at different locations in the building.
Appendix B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
All courses must be assessed at least once every three years. Please complete this chart that
defines your assessment schedule.
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE:
Spring
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Courses:
All
courses
(BIOL,
ANAT,
PHSI,
MICR,
ENSC)
Full
Assmt
Discuss
results
& report
Fall
2014
Spring
2015
Fall
2015
Spring
2016
Fall
2016
Spring
2017
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
ALL SLO ASSESSMENTS AND REFLECTIONS WERE COMPLETED IN YEARS 1 & 2.
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers :-)
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years? If no, identify the
course outlines you will update in the next curriculum cycle. Ed Code requires all course
outlines to be updated every six years.


ANAT 1, BIOL 10, BIOL 25, BIOL 31, BIOL 50, ENSC 10, ENSC 11, ENSC 12, PHSI 1 – need
to be updated this year.
BIOL 2, BIOL 4, BIOL 6, MICR 1– need to be updated in F’16
2. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
No. BIOL 25 has not been offered due to budget cuts. We intend to offer this course once FETF
becomes available, as it meets the Biological Science IGETC GE and is the only larger lecture
course we have.
3. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester.
Yes.
4. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester.
Yes.
5. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
Yes.
6. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
Yes, but we have concerns about the time gap between enrollment in the subsequent course.
7. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be.
The textual analysis conducted in English courses does not fully prepare students for reading scientific
textbooks, it is yet to be determined that success in ENGL 1A is correlated with success in life science
courses.
Math data not provided.
Appendix E: Proposal for New Initiatives (Complete for each new initiative)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, College Budget Committee
Purpose: A “New Initiative” is a new project or expansion of a current project that supports our Strategic
Plan. The project will require the support of additional and/or outside funding. The information you
provide will facilitate and focus the research and development process for finding both internal and
external funding.
How does your initiative address the college's Strategic Plan goal, or significantly improve student
learning?
Currently, more students enter Chabot than local nursing, dental hygiene, surgical technology, radiology
technician, physician’s assistant, medical assistant, and other health professional programs can
accommodate. We would like to develop new CTE focused programs that will offer students more
opportunities to earn degrees and certificates that will allow them entry into these high demand career
fields.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome?
Develop new degrees and certificates in career oriented allied health fields. Develop the curriculum and
offer the courses needed to achieve these career goals.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Select which programs best fit the needs of our students and
local employers
Develop and submit curriculum and program forms for new
degrees/certificates.
Offer new courses that will allow students to complete these
programs
How will you manage the personnel needs?
Target
Completion
Date
12/2013
6/20146/2015
Starting
F’15
Required Budget (Split out
personnel, supplies, other
categories)
Faculty/staff overload or PT
position
Faculty/staff overload or PT
position
Will depend on programs
chosen, for example:
Biological Lab Technician
would require only the
addition of a work
experience course; Health
Care Interpreter would
require FTEF and
instructors for at least 3
additional courses (none of
which have labs); more
extensive programs would
require additional faculty,
lab technicians and
supplies.
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions: minimum of one, but final number will be
determined by which programs are selected
Classified staff # of positions :minimum of one, but final number will be
determined by which programs are selected
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):general fund
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
Appendix F1: Full-Time Faculty/Adjunct Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category
1000]
Audience: Faculty Prioritization Committeeand Administrators
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time faculty
and adjuncts
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discussanticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plangoal. Cite evidence and data to support your request,
including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three years, student
success and retention data , and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
1. Number of new faculty requested in this discipline: _2___
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Full time faculty member
Specific focus on GE offerings – BIOL 10, 25 – which
do not consistently have any full-time faculty
members teaching them (and therefore do not
have leads for SLO evaluation and
curriculum/pedagogical development)
2. Full time faculty member
Focus on microbiology/biotechnology and new
allied health programs
3. Rationale for your proposal. Please use the enrollment management data. Additional data that will
strengthen your rationale include FTES trends over the last 5 years,persistence,FT/PT faculty
ratios,CLO and PLO assessment results and external accreditation demands.
This is the fifth year the Biology subdivision has made this request for additional Biology faculty.
Courses taught by adjuncts have increased significantly over the past eleven years, while the
number of full-time faculty has increased only slightly from 6 to 7. Currently we are functioning
with 6.5 full-time faculty as Jennifer Lange is working 50% as CTL Coordinator. If the Biology
subdivision starts to pursue other health-related programs to broaden Allied-Health majors’
career choices, other faculty member(s) will be diverted from the subdivision. Before
Biotechnology subdivision separated from Biology, Patricia Wu had the sole responsibility of
developing a career tech program. With limited resources, time, and college support, all of the
effort and time invested in Biotechnology was not enough to make it come to fruition. Learning
from this experience, it is evident that having more full-time instructors will allow the
subdivision to develop new programs to diversity the Allied-Health program to meet
community demand more quickly and efficiently.
Since 2001, the number of sections offered in the life sciences has increased from 67 to 109,
but full-time faculty has only increased from 6 to 6.5. Even though the number of sections has
decreased in recent semesters because of budget cuts, natural science courses present a severe
student bottleneck and, thus, will increase again as growth is received. At our maximum
number of sections, we are still not serving the community. Life Science classes consistently
have an average enrollment of 117% and countless students are turned away. This trend is
seen in all of the courses in the allied health and major's Biology pathways and is becoming
more severe in the General Education courses.
Each full-time Biology faculty member is the lead for a multi-section course. The lead faculty
member is responsible for the curriculum of both lecture and laboratory portions for all
sections and in most cases writes a corresponding laboratory manual to be used by all students
taking the course. This is a responsibility and workload that exceeds contractual requirements
and especially exacerbated as the number of adjuncts teaching the course increases because
the lead instructor must train and supervise them to ensure course objectives and laboratory
exercises are taught in a manner that ensures equality in student success. The increase in
adjunct faculty places additional work on the lab technicians who must now work with and
coordinate laboratories with full-time and adjunct instructors. Laboratory materials are shared
among class sections. Supplies must be ordered, inventoried, replenished, cleaned, and put
away properly. As the percentage of adjuncts to full time faculty increases, this task becomes
more complicated as does the challenge of providing a safe learning environment.
As in all areas, additional responsibilities are being given to full-time faculty in areas other than
classroom instruction:
 The increase in the number of courses taught by adjunct faculty has increased the
workload of full time faculty as full-time faculty must interview, hire, train, mentor, and
evaluate adjunct faculty.
 Full-time facultycarry increasing responsibility for activities such as program review,
development of curricula, assessment of student learning outcomes, etc.
 Several of the Biology full-time instructors have duties, mostly without reassigned time,
in addition to instruction:
o Agnello Braganza serves on the Budget Committee and is the Coordinator for the
NIH Bridges to Baccalaureate Program,
o Debra Howell is the lead for the Urban Agriculture Garden Project as well as a
co-lead for biology MESA students, and co-advisor to the Biology Club.
o Jennifer Lange serves as the Biology Subdivision Coordinator, the CTL
Coordinator, and the Staff Development Committee Co-Chair (which includes
PRBC membership),
o ZarirMarawala is the Chair of the Technology Committee,
o Rebecca Otto serves on the Facilities Committee and co-advisor to the Biology
Club.
o Carlos Enriquez serves on the Technology Committee
o (Patricia Wu is currently on sabbatical)
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and your student learning goals are
required. Indicate here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews
that is pertinent to the proposal.
Additional activities such as coordinating laboratory experiments and developing new
programs, while welcome, put lots of strain on the amount of time available to assess and
improve student learning, counsel and provide learning support for students, participate in
subdivision evaluation and planning, and participate in college-wide planning. Having two
additional full-time faculty members to assist with the workload would enable each individual
to perform the increasing amount of work outside of classroom instruction that is crucial for
students to be successful in our programs.
Appendix F2: Classified Staffing Request(s) including Student Assistants [Acct.
Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and
part-time regular (permanent) classified professional positions(new, augmented and replacement
positions).Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal, safety, mandates, accreditation issues. Please cite
any evidence or data to support your request. If this position is categorically funded, include and
designate the funding source of new categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent
upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: __3 part time positions____
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Evening Laboratory Technician
20 hours per week
2. Micro/Cell Biology Laboratory Technician
Increase contract from 10 months to 12
months
3. Custodian
<10 hours per week
3. Rationale for your proposal.
#1: Biology needs to have an evening laboratory technician (20 hours/week Monday through Thursday).
Sections of Anatomy 1, Biology 10 and 31, Microbiology 1, and Physiology 1 are offered in the evening. If
instructors (usually adjuncts) need an item, they have to leave unsupervised students in the laboratory
while searching for materials. This poses serious safety (e.g. Bunsen burners or dissection equipment)
and security issues and possibly contributes to theft in the classroom. Electronic balances, anatomy
models, and slides have been stolen in the past. With the decreasing supply budget, these items are
difficult to replace.
Also, the community has demanded more Allied-Health and Biology Major classes. Based on the
Environmental Scan 2011, the number of employed has decreased from 720,000 in 2007 to 665,000 in
2010. The displaced workers returning to school has increased from 2.3% in 1999 to 7.8% in 2010. As the
tuition fees of UCs and CSUs continue to increase out of control, the number of 4-year students taking
courses at Chabot College for 4-year college requirement from 2007 to 2010 has increased from 205 to
609 students. These extra students attending Chabot College demand evening classes so they are able to
work or attain other goals during the day. Evening sections fill first and have the longest waitlists.
#2: The laboratory technician that supports BIOL 2, BIOL 6 and MICR 1 has a 10-month contract (spring
and fall semesters). Extending this contract to 12 months would allow the offering of these high-demand
courses during the summer. This would allow students to complete their programs and apply for
transfer in a shorter time frame. (Currently students in both biology and allied health take three years
to be transfer ready due to the small number of summer course offerings and the large number of
courses required to transfer [different schools have their own unique requirements, thus requiring
students to take all of them in order to apply to multiple transfer schools].) Having more students who
can complete in two years would benefit the students in terms of both federal/state financial aid and in
total amount of time spent in school.
#3: With the reductions in custodial staff our laboratory rooms are not being adequately cleaned, which
is detrimental to student learning. In particular, the chalkboards are not being cleaned – if our
laboratory technician wasn’t cleaning them on a daily basis the boards would be unusable.
4. Statements about the alignment with the strategic plan and program review are required. Indicate
here any information from advisory committees or outside accreditation reviews that is pertinent to
the proposal.
Despite demand for evening and summer courses, we have been offering fewer sections in recent years
because of the gap in technical support. This hinders the ability of students to complete their program
(including majors and GE).
To fulfill community demand and to eliminate serious safety and security issues, an evening lab
technician and a 12 month Micro/cell biology lab technician is necessary for Life Sciences.
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans and
CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the Faculty
Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data
athttp://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2012.cfm.
Life Sciences primarily serves three major student groups:
1. Allied Health/Health Science transfer students ~600 students per year
a. Courses in program needed – BIOL 31, ANAT 1, MICR 1, PHSI 1
b. Courses in other programs needed – CHEM 30A, CHEM 30B, PSY 1, SOCI 1, HLTH 1, NUTR 1, CAS
50, PSY 12
2. Biology AA & transfer students ~220 students per year
a. Courses in program needed – BIOL 2, BIOL 4, BIOL 6
b. Courses in other programs needed – CHEM 31, CHEM 1A, CHEM 1B, CHEM 12A, CHEM 12B, MTH
1, MTH 20, MTH 37, PHYS 2A, PHYS 2B
3. Natural Science GE students ~1750 seats needed per year
a. Courses in program offered – BIOL 10, BIOL 25, BIOL 50, ENSC 10, ENSC 11
b. Courses outside of program offered – ANTH 1, ANTH 1L, ANTH 13
Our current FTEF is severely insufficient to serve the needs of these programs:



The Allied Health pathway can only accommodate approximately 400 students entering each year, leaving
over 200 students unable to start taking the classes they need, plus hundreds more when Kinesiology and
other majors that require these courses are considered. All total, the program can only accommodate
about 50% of the declared students who need it.
The Biology pathway can only accommodate 72 students per year, leaving approximately 150 students
unable to take the classes they need (this also does not account for the Engineering and Environmental
Studies students who also need these classes). All total, the program can only accommodate about 30%
of the declared students who need it.
Every student who matriculates at Chabot with the educational goal of transfer needs to take a Natural
Science GE course as well as a science lab (which can be either Natural or Physical Science). Every student
who has an educational goal of associates degree needs one science course in either Physical or Natural
Science. Approximately 3000 new students enter Chabot each year (an additional 1000 transfer from
other colleges), 75% of whom need to complete the GE requirements. Subtracting students who will
complete this requirement through their major, approximately 1750 seats are needed in Natural Science
General Education courses each year. Currently, our schedule offers only ~900 *+, thus it can only
accommodate about 50% of the students who need it.
Our courses are all in high demand, and most have been identified as amongst the most severe campus
bottlenecks – demand greatly exceeds capacity; sections all have waitlists early in the enrollment period, always
before new students can enroll; several courses have waitlists that completely fill, thus closing the course to
further enrollment.
19
Current FTEF in Life Sciences by program:



Allied Health/Health Science = 21.62
Biology = 3.64
Natural Science GE = 4.24 (4.32 additional in Social Sciences*)
In order to serve the number of students declared in these programs:
COURSE
CURRENT
FTEF
(2012-13)
ADDITIONAL
CURRENT ADDITIONAL
CURRENT
FTEF
SECTIONS
SECTIONS
STUDENT #
NEEDED
NEEDED
SERVED
Allied Health/Health Science Transfer Majors
BIOL 31
8.84
4.32
17
9
408
ANAT 1
7.15
1.1
13
2
312
PHSI 1
4.95
2.2
9
4
216
MICR 1
5.50
1.1
10
2
240
Biology Majors
BIOL 2
1.56
1.56
3
3
72
BIOL 4
2.08
2.6
4
5
96
BIOL 6
2.08
2.6
4
5
96
Natural Sciences General Education offered by Life Sciences Program
BIOL 10
2.08
1.56
8
6
192
BIOL 25
0
1.0
0
5
0
BIOL 50
1.04
2.08
4
8
96
ENSC 10
0.4
0.4
2
2
48
ENSC 11
0.72
1.36
2
2 (double
48
current)
4 (additional
double
sections)
Natural Sciences General Education offered by Anthropology Discipline
ANTH 1*
3.0
15
660
ANTH 1L
1.12
7
168
ANTH 13
0.2
1
44
* ANTH 1 can also be used to meet the Social & Behavior Sciences GE requirement
Total Natural Science GE FTEF in Life Sciences Program = 4.24
Total Natural Science GE FTEF in Anthropology Discipline = 4.32
Total Natural Science GE FTEF = 8.76
Total seats in Natural Science GE courses = 1,256 (1,088 lecture; 504 lab)
Percentage of Natural Science seats in Life Sciences Program = 31%
Percentage of Natural Science seats in Anthropology Discipline = 69%
Comparison with Physical Science GE:
Total Physical Science GE FTEF = 8.98+ (4.46 in Math&Sci, 4.52 in GEOG)
Total seats in Physical Science GE courses = 1,724 (1,484 lecture; 384 lab)
+
GEOG 1 can also be used to meet the Social & Behavior Sciences GE requirement
20
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
216
48
96
48
72
120
120
144
220
192
48
144
Conversation topics in these GE numbers:
 the Natural Sciences General Education area has approximately 50% of its seats in a single course – ANTH
1 – and it offers very little breadth or depth in its offerings
 all of the highest WSCH/FTEF courses are offered by Anthropology, while all sections of BIOL 25, which
has an equal productivity level, have been cut in order to preserve laboratory seats
 BIOL 10, BIOL 50, and ENSC 11 lectures actually have higher WSCH/FTEF than ANTH 1, 13 or BIOL 25, as
they have 48 students; their overall productivity is reduced because of their associated laboratories
 The majority of the low WSCH/FTEF GE courses are offered by Life Sciences because we have preserved
our laboratory seats
Further conversations are needed within the GE area to find an FTEF and productivity balance that best serves our
students.
Conversation topics in these majors numbers:
 Our Allied Health program is operating at approximately 50% of student demand
 Our Biology program is operating at approximately 30% of student demand
 Are these numbers on par with ALL other programs on campus? If not, we essentially saying to students
“Sorry, if you want to study the life sciences, go elsewhere.” We need a campus-wide conversation
about our capacity to meet the declared needs of students. This has begun in the Basic Skills and
General Education areas, but not in declared majors.
21
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors,
learning assistants, lab assistants, supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your
request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of new
categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
1. Number of positions requested: __26 total tutors; 6 learning assistants____
2. If you are requesting more than one position, please rank order the positions.
Position
Description
1. Tutors/Study Group Leaders and Learning
Assistants
2.
3.
4.
3. Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact
on student learning outcomes and alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is
for the same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
From fall 09 to spring 11, 192 Anatomy and Biology 31 students received tutoring service. In Anatomy,
students with tutoring and without tutoring had a success rate of 80% and 76%, respectively. The
success rate for Biology 31 students with tutoring and without was 53% and 48%, respectively. It is
evident from the data that tutoring increases the success rate for these classes. However, budget cut
has significantly reduced the number of tutors in the Learning Connection. Students who would like to
get tutoring were deterred because their schedules did not match with the limited availability from the
small number of tutors. In Spring 2013, we have students in BIOL 31, BIOl 4, and PHSI 1 who are on the
tutoring “waitlist”, because we do not have sufficient tutoring services to accommodate all students
who request assistance.
In the past, students really enjoyed having Learning Assistants in the classroom. Learning Assistants are
in-class tutors. Students who couldn’t make an appointment with a tutor often sought help and advice
from the Learning Assistants. Chabot College Learning Engagement in Sections with Learning Assistants
– Spring 2011 Survey indicated students were more likely to ask questions, participate in small group
discussion, meet as a group to study, talk about class topic with family and friends, do extra work to
improve skill, and work harder to meet an instructor’s expectations. Budget cut has virtually eliminated
the Learning Assistant program.
Life Sciences request more science tutors/study group leaders and Learning Assistants.
22
Appendix F5: Supplies & Services Requests [Acct. Category 4000 and 5000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation of
funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your current and requested budgets for categories 4000
and 5000 in priority order. Do NOT include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix
M6. Justify your request and explain in detail any requested funds beyond those you received this year.
Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are very limited.
Project or Items
Requested
Supplies
Supply Budget for
Life Science Courses
2012-13 Budget
Requested
Received
2013-14
Request
$
$
$55,945.25 $39,849.00 $68225.56
Services
$8,000
total
$4500.00
$8800
Microscope
maintenance
Autoclave
maintenance
Hood maintenance
3,000
3300
4,000
4400
1,000
1100
23
Rationale
These are for the consumable
supplies (including tax & shipping)
that are necessary for the
experiments conducted in our
laboratory classes. These costs are
detailed by class in the table below.
Please note that these costs are lower
than the actual cost of running these
classes because we have been
regularly scrounging at closing
biotech companies for usable
glassware, probe tips, gloves, etc.
that are necessary for our
experiments. We make a great effort
to minimize our annual requests!
These are for maintaining equipment
that is necessary for the experiments
conducted in our laboratory classes.
2012-13 requests by Course
Course
Sections
Cost/sec
2013-14 requests by Course
Total
Sections
Cost/sec
Total
13
$573
$7,405
Anatomy 1
13
$
397.44
$ 5,166.72
Biology 2B
1
$
503.36
$
Biology 2
1
$ 1,982.55
$ 1,982.55
3
$2180
$6540
Biology 4
2
$
503.36
$ 1,006.72
4
$550
$2200
Biology 6
3
$
600.00
$ 1,800.00
4
$660
$2640
Biology 10
8
$
314.60
$ 2,516.80
10
$346
$3460
Biology 31
17
$
264.26
$ 4,492.42
18
$290
$5220
Biology 50
4
$
268.84
$ 1,075.36
6
$315
$1890
Envirn. Sci.
11
2
$
160.16
$ 320.32
3
$200
$600
Microbiology
10
$ 2,246.82
$ 22,468.20
10
$2291.75
$22,917.56
Physiology 1
9
$
$ 5,662.80
9
$692
$6228
629.20
Bio/Micro
Prep
$
Central
Cadaver
Total
503.36
No longer offered
Na
$605
$ 2,200.00
Na
$2420
$ 6,200.00
Na
$ 6,500.00
550.00
$ 55,945.25
24
$68225.56
Appendix F6: Conference and Travel Requests [ Acct. Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee,Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for conference attendance, and to guide the Budget and Staff Development
Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions:Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the
name of the conference and location. Note that the Staff Development Committee currently has no
budget, so this data is primarily intended to identify areas of need that could perhaps be fulfilled on
campus, and to establish a historical record of need. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals
and/or connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
Conference/Training
Program
2013-14 Request
Rationale
$
25
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee and to inform priorities of the Technology
Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests.If you're requesting classroom
technology, see http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf for the
brands/model numbers that are our current standards. If requesting multiple pieces of equipment,
please rank order those requests. Include shipping cost and taxes in your request.
Please note: Equipment requests are for equipment whose unit cost exceeds $200. Items which are
less expensive should be requested as supplies. Software licenses should also be requested as
supplies.
Project or Items
Requested
Earthworm Anatomy
Museum Mount
2012-13 Budget
Request Received
ed
$89,525
2013-14
Request
68225.56
$250
Perch Anatomy
Museum Mount
Grassfrog Anatomy
Museum Mount
Chicken Development
Museum Mount
Frog Development
Museum Mount
Brain Collection
Museum Mount
Cat Respiratory
System Museum
Mount
$350
Somso Paramecium
Model
Green Hydra Model
Planarian Model
Comprehensive
$900
$300
$300
$550
$650
$550
$350
$600
$1600
26
Rationale*
Museum mounts have permanently
mounted, pre-dissected specimens
that can be used by thousands of
Biology 4 students
for many years without the expense of
buying specimens each year. Many
are injected and labeled to make it
easier for students to identify internal
structures.
Museum mounts have permanently
mounted, pre-dissected specimens
that can be used by thousands of
Biology 4 students
for many years without the expense of
buying specimens each year. Many
are injected and labeled to make it
easier for students to identify internal
structures.
The existing models are decades old
and are in poor condition. Many of
the labels are no longer visible and
keys are no longer available. New
models will be used by thousands of
Biology 4
students for many years.
The existing models are decades old
and are in poor condition. Many of
the labels are no longer visible and
Starfish Model
Bone Structure Model
$300
Somso Striated Muscle
Fiber Model
Somso Digestive Tract
Model
Somso Removable
Neuron Model
Denoyer-Geppert
Classroom Brain
Model
Somso Comprehensive
Female Pelvis Model
Somso Comprehensive
Male Pelvis Model
Altay Respiratory
System Model
Biology of Animals
DVD set
$800
Slide Set
Paramecia
Rhizopus
Peziza
Ammocoete larvae
Areolar tissue
Allium root tips
$1000
Chart/Poster Set
Cells
Mitosis
Meiosis
Kingdoms of Life
Pond Charts I, II, III
$350
$900
$700
$300
$500
$600
keys are no longer available. New
models will be used by thousands of
Biology 4
students for many years.
The existing models are decades old
and are in poor condition.
Currently, these models must be
borrowed from the Anatomy classes.
Because they are often being used by
Anatomy classes, they aren’t available
and the Biology 4 students have to do
without.
New models will be used by thousands
of students for many years.
The existing models are decades old
and are in poor condition.
Currently, these models must be
borrowed from the Anatomy classes.
Because they are often being used by
Anatomy classes, they aren’t available
and the Biology 4 students have to do
without.
New models will be used by thousands
of students for many years.
The DVD set will replace outdated
videos that are wearing out. (Biology
4)
$350
$600
The slide set will replace damaged,
faded slides that are no longer usable.
(Biology 4)
27
Charts/posters will replace old charts
that are yellowed with age and are
torn and disintegrating.
(Biology 4)
Biomes
Chicken Development
Frog Development
Insect Identification
chart
26 Olympus CX31
microscopes
$30,000
Comparative Structure
of Digestive Duct Wall
Model
$300
Microstructure of the
Stomach Wall Model
Head/MRI model
Microstructure of
Veins and Arteries
Model
Micropipetes
$210
$450
$310
$18975
The microscopes used, in room 2124,
by microbiology and biology students
are approximately 10-years old. Their
efficient use has become more
difficult, as they are showing the
normal wear and tear.Students cannot
fully develop the necessary microscopy
skills using these aging instruments.
These are all models that have not
previously been available from the
manufactures. They will be used by
ANAT 1, BIOL 50, and BIOL 4 students
to increase their ability to visualize
internal body structures in 3D and to
compare and contrast the structure of
related organs. Currently, no models
exist for these particular organs at the
microscopic scale.
These are all models that have not
previously been available from the
manufactures. They will be used by
ANAT 1, BIOL 50, and BIOL 4 students
to increase their ability to visualize
internal body structures in 3D and to
compare and contrast the structure of
related organs. Currently, no models
exist for these particular organs at the
microscopic scale.
2 sets (16 each) 0.1-2l, 2-20l, 20200l, 100-1000l, Replaces old
micropipettes for Bio 2 which have
been used my Microbiology and have
had high usage and are becoming
inaccurate.
$18975
* Rationale should include discussion of impact on student learning, connection to our strategic plan
goal, impact on student enrollment, safety improvements, whether the equipment is new or
replacement, potential ongoing cost savings that the equipment may provide, ongoing costs of
equipment maintenance, associated training costs, and any other relevant information that you believe
the Budget Committee should consider.
28
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Following the completion of the 2012 Chabot College Facility Master Plan, the Facilities
Committee (FC) has begun the task of re-prioritizing Measure B Bond budgets to better align with current
needs. The FC has identified approximately $18M in budgets to be used to meet capital improvement
needs on the Chabot College campus. Discussion in the FC includes holding some funds for a year or two
to be used as match if and when the State again funds capital projects, and to fund smaller projects that
will directly assist our strategic goal. The FC has determined that although some of the college's greatest
needs involving new facilities cannot be met with this limited amount of funding, there are many smaller
pressing needs that could be addressed. The kinds of projects that can be legally funded with bond
dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities."
Do NOT use this form for equipment or supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests.If requesting more than one
facilities project, please rank order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name): Biology facilities
Building/Location: 2100
Description of the facility project. Please be as specific as possible.
Building 2100 was built in 1965. Since construction the building has been upgraded with air conditioning
and a new roof. More than twenty years-ago, building 2100 was identified as a structure needing
upgrades and blueprints were drawn up to renovate the building. This renovation never materialized.
Approximately sixteen years ago, an electrical fire in the microbiology classroom caused damage
sufficient enough to require remodeling of room 2124 and its adjacent preparation room. This is the only
area in the building that has received significant upgrades since the building's construction. Building 2100
was identified in Chabot College's 2005 Master Plan as a building needing renovation and was originally
part of the current Measure B Facilities Bond. It was given low priority and eventually as money became
scarce was removed from the Bond's remodeling list. In 2008 a proposal was drafted under the
Community College Construction Act of 1980 to modernize building 2100. Refurbishing of the electrical,
heating, and ventilation systems and the correction of health and safety concerns were cited as objectives
of the modernization. Funding of this proposal was never procured. Building 2100 is once again listed on
the 2012 Draft Master Plan as a building needing replacement/renovation.
Health and safety standards have changed dramatically in the last 48 years, but no significant structural
changes have been made to Building 2100 to comply with new standards. Our "temporary" safety
solutions have been in place for decades. We have two fewer laboratory rooms than were in the
building's original design. There is not enough classroom space to meet student demand. Student
completion of programs has been reduced by the inability to offer enough classes at times when they are
required. Facilities are deteriorating and are out-of-date. Classroom space is now used for activities and
technologies that did not exist in 1965, and for which they obviously were not designed. We are
proposing that the building be completely replaced, but a few problems, such as the air quality in the
anatomy room (2110), are so appalling actions should be taken immediately. These projects, in priority
order are:
1. Cadaver room .Remodel The current small cadaver room (closet) is not designed for dissection and
has several OSHA violations. It lacks proper ventilation, drainage, temperature control, and storage for
equipment and specimens. OSHA regulations once limited formaldehyde exposure to 3ppm. The current
29
standard is an average of 0.75 ppm over an eight-hour period or 2 ppm for 15 minutes. No changes have
been made to the building to meet this requirement.
2. Smart classrooms. Remodel Most of our classrooms contain computer projection systems, but
the rooms were not designed for them, they have a maze of wires, screens are in bad locations
and lighting is poor. The blinds are inoperable. We cannot control incoming sun glare and
blinds cannot be closed as per requirements if an emergency requires a building lockdown. We
would like lighting we can control and clearly visible computer/Elmo/ microscope projection
systems, which do not block the chalk/marker boards, in all of our classrooms.
3. Greenhouse/plant growth facilities. Remodel Our current facility for growing plants is nonfunctional.
This inhibits the activities we conduct in Biology 6, Biology 10 and Environmental Science 11. A
greenhouse would be ideal.
4. Student lounge. Remodel Due to the nature of our classes, food and drink are not allowed in our
classrooms. Students typically have lecture and lab back to back in a 4hr 20min time block. Most
students are also taking other classes. It is not uncommon for biology majors to spend nine or more
hours on campus. Consequently, students sit on the floor in the hallway to take a break or have lunch.
This creates a hazard when cultures and chemicals are transported in the hallway. Currently we are
planning to convert 2112 to a student lounge, but the room requires upgrades.
5. Fire safety .New construction The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Life Safety Code
recommends two or more exits in every laboratory, which are to be located at opposite ends of the room.
Only room 2124 meets this standard. Building 2100 only has a sprinkler system in the prep. room.
6. Standard safety equipment including fume hoods, safety showers, eye washes, ventilation
systems, and plumbing upgrades .New construction Our fume hoods are 48 years old and some were
installed in inconvenient locations. Some of our rooms lack safety showers and permanently installed
eyewashes. Our ventilation is inadequate and we require plumbing upgrades to prevent contamination of
the sewer system. The pipes in 2100 have lead and corrosion and leaks are becoming more frequent.
Faulty plumbing has resulted in mold growth in several areas of the building.
7. Preparation room upgrades .New construction Locations and configurations of our current
preparation and student project rooms are no longer in compliance with safety regulations. Currently we
have two separate preparation rooms that are each managed by one laboratory technician. For safety
reasons, our laboratory technicians should not work alone in the preparation rooms, yet this is common
practice due to our building constraints. Our laboratory rooms have side storage rooms, which were
originally designed as student project rooms, but can no longer be used as such because they do not
allow for the required line-of-site observation by the instructor.
8. Laboratory classrooms of adequate size and number .New construction Building 2100 originally
had eight laboratory classrooms. One of these (2108) is used exclusively for lecture and another is now
our central stockroom. Six functional laboratory classrooms remain. This number is insufficient to offer
classes when they are needed while also having time for equipment set-up between classes.
Many of our laboratory rooms have less space than is desirable between workstations, creating potential
spill hazards as students move about. Shelves obstruct windows and some windows do not open.
Additionally, counter space, and in some cases electrical capacity, is insufficient for the technology
needed for modern biological experiments and computer stations. Lab workstations are not designed for
computerized recording and analysis of experiments. Bringing in the computers clutters the workspace
and the aisles, creating multiple potential hazards. Room 2124, our only remodeled classroom, was
constructed with low-grade materials. The countertops are burnt, gouged, and have exposed raw wood.
This is a serious issue in a Microbiology Laboratory, which requires regular disinfection. Chabot has more
than enough student enrollment demand for at least eight biology laboratory rooms, ideally none of which
would be smaller than our current 2130.
30
9. Gender equity concerning restroom facilities .New construction The current men's restroom in 2100
contains 3 sinks, 4 urinals, and 2 toilet stalls. The woman's facility is much smaller and contains only 2
sinks and 2 toilet stalls. The next nearest student restroom in 3900 is a men's facility. To exacerbate this
situation, the majority of the courses offered in 2100 are designed for Allied Health majors whom are
mostly women.
10. Lecture rooms of adequate size and number .New construction Our main lecture room 2108 was
originally a laboratory room designed to accommodate a class of 20 students. Laboratory fixtures such as
a fume hood and storage cabinets have never been removed and occupy valuable floor and wall space.
We have been prevented from making small structural changes due to the hazard of exposing asbestos.
Today we hold lectures with 48+ students in 2108 even though it is an unacceptably cramped space with
virtually no aisles between student desks. Our second lecture room, 2112, is too small for even our
smallest classes. We have need for at least two lecture classrooms, each built for occupancy of 56
students.
11. Space for contemporary laboratory equipment .New construction Allied Health and Biology
students will work in the medical and biotechnology fields, which demand sophisticated skills. Students
can only acquire these skills in modern laboratory with 21st century equipment. Space restrictions prevent
us from obtaining large equipment.
12. Pond.New construction Biology department lost its pond to accommodate the construction of 3900.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this equipment support?
Biology majors, Allied Health majors, and General Education.
Briefly describe how your request relates specifically to meeting the Strategic Plan Goal and to
enhancing student learning?
1. Provide a safer environment for student learning.
2. Additional rooms will allow us to offer the number of classes we need at the times they are required. It will
allow us to coordinate biology classes with other STEM classes so that students can have a reasonable schedule
and complete their program faster.
3. Space for modern equipment will better prepare students for transfer and employment by giving students
experience with laboratory techniques of the 21st century.
31