CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
September 4, 2007
Members Present:
Jaswinder Bhangal, Dmitriy Kalyagin, Michael Langdon, Jim Matthews, Wayne
Pitcher, Don Plondke, Norberto Ruiz, Patricia Shannon, Ernesto Victoria
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Norma Ambriz, Jane Church, Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Patricia Posada,
Ron Taylor
Guests:
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by committee chair Norberto Ruiz.
Norberto welcomed new members Jaswinder Bhangal, , Dmitriy Kalyagin, Michael
Langdon, and Wayne Pitcher and asked those present to introduce themselves.
II.
Approval of Minutes of May 15, 2007
MSC (Matthews/Pitcher) to approve the minutes of May 15, 2007, as presented.
III.
Training—Curriculum Process, Committee Duties and Responsibilities
Norberto called attention to the presentation calendar included in the agenda packet. Jim
Matthews commented that the Library would not have a presentation this year.
Norberto explained that the Curriculum Handbook has not been updated this year. He
distributed copies of the 2006 version to new members. He called attention to the
presentation timeline on pages 2 and 3 and explained state submission procedures. He
also discussed presentation of experimental courses, noting that they may be submitted
separately from the division’s presentation packet as time allows.
Norberto outlined the flow of a presentation packet through the timeline, describing each
step. As part of the discussion on course outlines, Ron Taylor commented that we are
investigating an online curriculum development system such as CurricUNET, and asked
for volunteers to serve on a task force. He hopes to adopt in early spring in time for next
year’s curriculum process. (This would require coordination with LPC.) Jane Church
volunteered to serve on the committee.
Jane presented an overview of the forms used to identify graduation requirement and
articulation requests (found in Appendix C of the Handbook) and distributed copies of
the fliers associated with each category: AA GE; AS GE; CSU Transfer (Flier 100);
CSU GE Breadth (Flier 101); UC Transfer (Flier 102); IGETC (Flier 129). She added
that if you have courses that are not on the CSU Transfer list, it is because they have not
been submitted for inclusion. To add courses to the list, bring them forward as part of
your presentation packet. Chabot decides what courses go on Flier 100. The transfer
institutions control the other lists.
In answer to a question by Norma Ambriz, Jane discussed CSU's method of pairing
courses to meet all three areas required for American Institutions.
Curriculum Committee
9-4-07, page 2
A course must appear on the UC Transfer list before it can be proposed for IGETC, but
you can include both forms in your packet; the Articulation Office will handle the twoyear process.
Regarding submissions to the UC Transfer list, Jane stated that the college does get
denials. It is possible to rewrite and resubmit. Deadline for resubmissions is the end of
October.
www.assist.org is a database that combines information from all three systems. It will
give you the latest information on articulation.
Course-to-course articulation is done between instructors at Chabot and a transfer
institution. Each agreement represents articulation between Chabot and a single transfer
institution.
Ron stated that we need to give our courses careful scrutiny to be sure they are
baccalaureate-level before placing/proposing them for these lists. The System Office is
nearing completion on a curriculum reporting database which might open our courses up
to state review. We have some courses with potential conflicts between baccalaureate
and basic skills designations.
IV.
Apprenticeship/Non-Credit Courses
Tabled
Norberto distributed a handout published by the State Academic Senate: The Role of
Noncredit in the California Community Colleges. He reported that he recently received
notice that he would need to be trained on this subject and then train the committee.
V.
A.S. GE Pattern
Last year the college approved a new A.S. GE pattern. We will no longer require units in
American Institutions or Health, but rather a program-based, three-unit requirement.
Norberto has informed faculty and divisions of the need to identify courses to meet this
requirement.
There was discussion on whether the program-based units must come from the five
Title 5 areas listed on the graduation requirement pages. Consensus was that they could
be chosen from any baccalaureate-level course offered by the college.
Dmitriy Kalyagan suggested that when we review division packets we should be sure that
the A.S. degree programs are included. Kaaren Krueg distributed suggestions for
graduation requirement pages/fliers and program pages. She will compile a list of A.S.
degrees to be sent to deans for inclusion in division packets, and will copy the committee.
VI.
Title 5
Norberto distributed a document outlining changes to the Title 5 Curriculum Regulations.
Ron reported that the CIOs and the Academic Senate have gotten together to make
changes to Title 5 over the last year. This document shows what the Board of Governors
have already adopted. Of particular interest is change to the definition of the credit hour
(page 5). There will be a phase two that will propose further changes. One area that
might be addressed is the relationship between certificates and noncredit and basic skills
Curriculum Committee
9-4-07, page 3
instruction. (We may need to identify another name for our Certificate of Completion.)
Another is repeatability for noncredit courses.
Ron suggested that the committee review the handout and come back next week with
questions.
VI.
Good of the Order
None.
VII.
VIII.
kk 9/5/07
k: 9-4-07.min.doc
Next Meeting: September 11, 2007.
A.S. Degree
Title 5
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.