CHABOT COLLEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
March 7, 2006
Members Present:
Desmond Chun, Rudolph Cockerham, Jim Matthews, Clara McLean, Jan Novak,
Norberto Ruiz, Patricia Shannon
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church, Tom Clark, Edna Danaher, Kaaren Krueg, Ron Taylor
Guests:
Cindy Rosa
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 p.m. by committee chair Norberto Ruiz.
II.
Minutes of January 24, 2006
Item V. was not included in the previously approved minutes. The error has been
corrected. Item VI. was corrected by Ron Taylor to read, “Ron said that we should look
to the College Enrollment Management Committee to develop a plan for addressing 500
course issues.”
MSC (Novak/Matthews) to approve the revised minutes of January 24, 2006.
Minutes of February 21, 2006
Jan Novak asked that the third bullet under IV. be revised as follows: “whether courses
offered in DE format must be listed in the college catalog as DE before they can be
offered.”
MSC (Chun/Shannon) that the minutes of February 21, 2006, be approved as corrected.
III.
Course Repeatability
Clara McLean reported a situation in which an adjunct instructor who is teaching
English 102 would like students who are not succeeding in the class to remain enrolled
(because they would gain some knowledge) and to enroll again in the following semester.
Banner will not allow them to reenroll in the same class. She asked for Curriculum
Committee help to alleviate the problem.
Regulations covering repeatability were discussed. Norberto referred Clara to Ed Code
58161 as being relevant. It was noted that students would be allowed to repeat the course
if they withdrew or if they received a D or F grade. Jane noted that even if the student
were to withdraw from the class, Banner would not recognize the fact until after the
grades had been rolled and would not allow the student to reenroll during the semester in
which the withdrew.
Jane stated that Counseling would ask A&R to override Banner if the student presented a
document from the instructor saying that the student is failing and he/she has advised the
student to reenroll. Patricia Shannon voiced the opinion that this is a short-term solution,
and that there might be a better one for the long term. Clara will work with her division
to develop a card that would expedite providing the information Counseling and A&R
need to override Banner.
Curriculum Committee
3-7-06, page 2
IV.
Experimental Course Approval Process
Norberto distributed three handouts:
1. Good Practices for Course Approval Processes (State Academic Senate,
Spring 1998)
2. Changes to the Graduation Requirements for the Associate’s Degree: What
Happens Now?
3. Fall 2006 Schedule, Electronics and Computer Technology
He referred first to Handout #1, page 9, which calls for full Curriculum Committee
review of experimental courses. He called attention to an article in Handout #2 which
cautions against using experimental courses to circumvent established curriculum
processes. He explained that neither the Discipline nor the Curriculum Committee has
reviewed the courses listed in Handout #3.
Ron added that in the past, the Curriculum Committee has not reviewed experimental
courses. He has recently learned that it should have been doing so. He added that he
would not like to see an overreaction to this topic restrict our ability to offer experimental
courses. Kaaren described current practice: instructors/deans/ administrative assistants
ask her to provide the next unused number for a specific discipline, and the dean then
submits a change order, catalog master, and course outline to Academic Services. After
VP sign off, the course is entered into Banner.
Jim Matthews said that he sees three issues:
1. We may not be going by the spirit of the law.
2. We have an old process that needs to be cleaned up.
3. We need to clean up the division process for course approval. He added that
division approval has to be documented in writing (such as in division meeting
minutes). It cannot be provided verbally.
Patricia referred to Page 10 of the Curriculum Handbook, which states that 49, 149, and
99 courses “…may be scheduled with division approval only…they may be offered for
only two semesters before the process to make them catalog courses approved by the
Curriculum Committee has begun. Also, these courses may not be offered as DE
delivery courses or as courses that meet the American Cultures requirement.”
Ron said that the committee should look at this section regarding DE and American
Cultures because both of those areas have been evolving. Kaaren commented that
courses that are not listed in the catalog should not be approved as degree requirements.
Jane Church moved to table this discussion to the next meeting. The motion died
for lack of a second. Jane volunteered to draft a revision to this section of the
Handbook.
Jim pointed out that the letter of the law is that the Curriculum Committee must approve
any classes for which we receive apportionment.
In a discussion of whether the proposed 99s are new courses, Tom stated that these are
revisions to existing approved courses. There have been substantial changes, but they are
not completely new. There was no intention to bypass the curriculum process. Jim
commented that it does look as though this is an attempt to go around the process.
Curriculum Committee
3-7-06, page 3
There was discussion about why these revisions were made and what the motivation was.
Tom responded that it was in response to recommendation by KH Consulting Group.
Ron noted that Program Review had not been mentioned. He stated that experimentation
is encouraged as part of Program Review, but that experimentation probably is seen as
having a more dramatic impact when it comes in multiple numbers.
Norberto reported that the Electronics program is currently undergoing Program Review.
The plan was to look at the program and include changes in the Division’s 2006
Curriculum Committee presentation. He added that he views the proposed changes as
administrator driven, rather than faculty driven, as they should be. Tom disagreed with
his interpretation.
Patricia asked Norberto whether he had polled the number of experimental courses in the
Fall schedule. She would like to see the scope of the problem. Norberto asked Ron to
provide a list.
It was moved and seconded (Shannon/Matthews) that we identify experimental
courses slated to be offered in 2006-07 and ask faculty to submit course outlines to the
Committee in April for review and approval.
Tom asked to amend the motion to present only Fall courses in April; Spring courses
would be presented and approved by September 30. Patricia accepted the amendment.
Jim noted that paperwork other than course outlines (i.e., statement of rationale, etc.) is
not necessary at this time. It can be provided if/when an experimental course is
converted to a catalog course.
Patricia called the question. The motion carried unanimously.
Norberto asked how conflicts among faculty in a discipline should be resolved. Patricia
suggested that the dean should work with the faculty to arrive at a compromise. Jim
added that the Advisory Committee might be a resource.
V.
Next Year’s Schedule
Various suggestions were made on revisions to the schedule.
• Place approval of experimental courses for 2006-07 on the first presentation date.
• Eliminate one of the two Applied Tech & Business slots.
A revised schedule will be provided to the committee.
VI.
What is an A.S. Degree?
MSC (Shannon/Novak) to take DE next and defer this discussion to next meeting as
necessary.
(Tabled to next meeting.)
VII.
Distance Education Subcommittee Report
Jan distributed a handout and stated that the actual recommendation is on the front and
back of the first page. The rest of the packet is back-up material. She stressed that if the
Curriculum Committee accepts this proposal, it will not increase their workload.
Curriculum Committee
3-7-06, page 4
Norberto asked that the committee look at Page 5 of handout IV.2, which deals with a
concern, raised at the 2005 Spring Plenary Session, that challenges the 50% rule. Jim
clarified that the DECSC qualifies as “Curriculum Committee review” in this document.
There was discussion on
• the value of having an evaluation process in place before making changes to
existing procedures;
• the success rate of students in DE vs. on campus courses (Carolyn Arnold has
that information);
Moved and seconded (Shannon/Matthews) that the Curriculum Committee approve the
last four bullets of the proposal and ask the DECSC to provide some checks and balances
for the first bullet.
Norberto disagreed with the motion. He said that he would like to review the document
more thoroughly before voting. Jim withdrew his second so that the discussion could
be tabled to the next meeting.
VIII.
Good of the Order
Patricia reported that she was asked by her division to find out what is going on in the
Senate regarding DE. There have been rumors. Ron answered that there is an initiative
to develop more online courses in conjunction with one-time monies. Also, according to
Jan, Rick Moniz has asked for a broader dialog about Distance Education. It was agreed
that the DECSC should not be making recommendations to the Senate without first
informing the Curriculum Committee. Consensus that there is a lack of communication
between the Committee and the DECSC.
Norberto distributed two documents,
• Observing Online Classes
• What is the Meaning of a California Community College Degree?
He asked members to review the second handout for the next meeting
Kaaren reported a correction to the January 31 minutes: The minutes approved at this
meeting were from January 24, not December 24.
IX.
X.
Next meeting: March 21, 2006
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
kk 3/8/06
c:\documents\word\curric\2005-2006\3-7-06.min.doc