CHABOT COLLEGE
March 8, 2011
Members Present: Debbie Buti, Indrani Chaudhuri, Jane Church, Begoña Cirera Perez, Barbara
Ogman, Judy O’Toole, Ernesto Victoria, Christine Warda
Ex-Officio Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg\
Members Present:
Guests: Gary Carter, Tim Harris, Matt Kritscher, Kurt Shadbolt, Clayton Thiel, Tram
Vo-Kumamoto
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order without a quorum at 2:10 p.m. by the chair, Jane
Church. A quorum was achieved at 2:11.
2.
Jane welcomed Indrani Chaudhuri as Science/Mathematics new representative.
Minutes of February 22, 2011
It was noted that the wrong date appears in the first page heading. It should read
February 22, not February 15. Christine noted that while the minutes correctly quoted her as saying that Communication Studies plans to adopt the AA-T as their only degree, they have since decided to keep their current AA as well.
3.
MSC (Warda/Ogman) to approve the minutes of February 22, 2011, as corrected.
Curriculum Standards: Repeatable Courses
Jane presented a PowerPoint that included excerpts from Title 5 and the State Academic
Senate. She stated that there are financial and grade consequences for students who are allowed to repeat excessively. She is considering requesting additional information from faculty who are presenting new/changed repeatability for courses they are submitting.
Jane called particular attention to Slide #7, “Take it once, Repeat 3 times = 4. To meet these criteria, only one of the following may be chosen, not both:
•
One course could be set up to be repeatable 3 times. Take it once, repeat 3 times = 4.
•
Another course could be set up A, B, C, D each taken once = 4 repeats of the same topic.
Discussion yielded the following stumbling blocks:
• an instructor doesn’t know whether the student has taken the course before;
• it might be difficult teaching a class with students at varying levels;
It was noted that the number of times a course can be taken for credit is probably based on the premise that this is a “2-year college.”
Slide #10, which outlines Title 5 language regarding repetition, was discussed. Matt
Kritscher distributed the Counseling Division’s “Petition to Repeat a Course” form.
Matt stated that grades for all courses a student takes go onto the student’s transcript and are permanent unless a grade change is approved. Repeating a course to improve a substandard grade does not remove the first grade, and it is figured into the student’s grade-point average unless the student petitions for Academic Renewal (see page 56 of the College Catalog.)

Curriculum Committee
3-8-11, Page 2
There was discussion on whether it is “fair” to allow students to repeat to raise a “C” to and “A,” especially in preparation for competitive programs such as Nursing or Dental
Hygiene. Should the amount of time since the course was last taken make a difference?
It was noted that Chabot’s Nursing and Dental Hygiene programs do not specify how recent an admission prerequisite course must be, although programs at other schools often do.
Ernesto noted that the Petition to Repeat a Course requires only one signature (that of a counselor). He suggested that maybe there should be others. Tram voiced the opinion that there is a difference between a student who petitions to repeat a course to raise a passing grade and a student who has exhausted repeatability without achieving a passing grade.
Slide #11 (Apportionment issues)
It was reported that we repay the state for apportionment received for the 5 th
repeat in
SOTA classes. Jane does not believe the same system is being used for PE repeats.
Jane summed up by reading The Task at Hand as listed in Slide #12.
•
For classes already in the catalog: Research existing repeatability to meet Title 5 standards. If not compliant, then initiate curriculum changes as appropriate
(Division/discipline faculty)
•
For new class proposals: Curriculum Committee to develop criteria/guidelines for new courses being proposed as repeatable (Curriculum Committee)
•
For processes regarding petitions for exceeding the standard repeats: research existing processes to ensure compliance (Student Services)
Gary Carter reported that SOTA has done an audit of courses not in compliance. He hopes that there might be a way to expedite the process. Jane replied that each outline that is being changed must go through the full curriculum process, but we may be able to approve by consent rather than have lengthy discussion.
Jane will agenda the discussion of guidelines for new courses for the next meeting.
4.
5.
Update on SB 1440 and the first 3 TMC proposals
Jane thinks that we will have AA-Ts from Communication Studies and Sociology. In answer to a question about major preparation, Jane stated that the recent email discussion was really about the elimination of local requirements.
Report on first proposal going through the new process
We will review Kurt’s proposal on March 22.
Tram voiced her concern for lack of a timeline. There was discussion of going to an unstructured process. Divisions may set up internal timelines if they wish. Jane will send out another reminder of the new process.
6. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Next meeting: March 22. kk 3/11/11 c:\documents\word\curric\2010-2011\3-8-11.min.doc