CHABOT COL LEGE
Curriculum Committee Minutes
April 5, 2005
Members Present:
JoAnn Galliano, Cindy Hicks, Gayle Hunt, Diana Immisch, Bill McDonald, Lupe
Ortiz, Patricia Shannon
Ex-Officio
Members Present:
Jane Church, Ron Taylor
Guests:
Chad Mark Glen
I.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 by committee chair Cindy Hicks.
II.
Approval of Minutes of March 8, 2005
MSC (Galliano/Hunt) that the minutes of March 8, 2005, be approved as presented.
III.
Curriculum’s role in the review of programs’ admission statements
Cindy advised the committee that some of the documents dealing with this topic were
attached to the minutes. She also copied the committee on State Specialist in Academic
Planning Charlie Klein’s response to her enquiry. The State charges the institution, but
not necessarily the Curriculum Committee, with approving program admissions. The
Faculty Senate, in their Program Change Resolution of November 11, 2004, has charged
the Curriculum Committee with the responsibility.
If the Committee agrees to the Senate’s charge, we would be reviewing criteria to be sure
that the appropriate research had been done and that changes would not disproportionately impact any group of students.
JoAnn Galliano commented that the Office of Institutional Research does a good job of
being sure regulations are followed, and that the discipline should be able to work
through them without review by the Curriculum Committee. Cindy suggested that
Nursing and Dental Hygiene keep the Academic and Student Services Council, the
Counseling Department, and the Office of Academic Services informed when changes
are being considered, and report any changes made to the Curriculum Committee.
Bill McDonald called attention to statements in the Senate’s resolution which indicate
that program admission criteria are published in the catalog or addendum and may not be
changed once they are printed. JoAnn replied that Dental Hygiene has never published
their admissions criteria in the catalog. They are available online, through the division
office, and in various fliers. Cindy added that Nursing has removed their criteria from
the catalog beginning with this year’s addendum. She will ask the Senate to revise their
resolution to reflect this fact.
In discussion of the Nursing Program’s recent change in admissions criteria, it was noted
that even though the discipline had been working with Institutional Research for some
time, when the results were announced to the rest of the college it was seen as a sudden
decision with no forewarning.
Curriculum Committee
4-5-05, page 2
JoAnn stated that Dental Hygiene students need at least a year’s advance warning in
order to meet new admission requirements. Cindy asked that the Dental Hygiene and
Nursing disciplines prepare a draft timeline for making changes, including a publication
date of 6 months to 1 year prior to application deadlines. She added that the committee
would like to see changes published as far in advance of the application deadline as
possible. The committee will formalize a policy recommendation at the May 3 meeting.
IV.
U.S. Cultures
Patricia Shannon and Lupe Ortiz distributed suggested changes to the American (U.S.)
Cultures Proposal Tracking Form.
Cindy summarized the proposal process as follows: creating a U.S. Cultures course
requires rethinking the outline, including the voice and the cultural content of the topic
being represented, and teacher education to ensure that teachers are prepared to teach the
course.
Discussion ensued on the value of a bibliography, how much detail it should contain, the
relevancy of an outdated bibliography, and whether a bibliography represents real
knowledge on the part of the person preparing it, or only the ability to access someone
else’s list.
Further discussion centered on judging the value of a course only through the course
outline, including sample lesson plans in the proposal process, and ensuring that
instructors other than the proposer(s) of a course are qualified to teach the course.
Patricia commented that sample lesson plans are still instructor specific. Consensus was
that verifying instructor qualifications should be the purview of the deans. Also, the
bibliography is understood to include representative texts. The required U.S. Cultures
proposal contents will remain as they are.
Patricia and Lupe will finalize the clearer tracking form they have developed.
V.
Guidelines for Removing Inactive Courses from the Catalog
Cindy introduced discussion on whether we need a process for keeping our catalog
cleaned up. The following topics were discussed:
• If a course (program) is removed from the catalog it must be returned within 3 years
or it is omitted from the state list and must be resubmitted.
• Jane Church commented that resubmission might affect articulation agreements, as
many courses that were grandfathered in no longer meet criteria.
• The possibility of tying the process to program review.
• Division responsibility for identifying inactive courses.
• A course that has not been offered in 5 years should be removed from the catalog. It
was noted that some courses are offered but consistently cancelled due to lack of
enrollment. Ron Taylor will check on what reports Banner can produce that would
give us this information. Depending on the reports available, we might be able to do
an annual search for courses that have not been scheduled or held in the past 5 years.
(Ron will report back to the committee on May 3.)
.
Curriculum Committee
4-5-05, page 3
VI.
Information Item: DECSC ongoing discussion
Cindy commented that if she were staying on as chair, she would like to see the
committee review the DECSC approval process. She stated that curriculum is linked to
Distance Education through the faculty contract and via Title 5, which requires that we
separately approve DE offerings. She said that the reason DE is in the contract is that at
one time we had a vice president who wanted to outsource our DE offerings. The faculty
wanted to retain their right to quality control of the curriculum.
Jan Novak, a member of the DECSC has initiated an email discussion involving
approval, mentoring, and consideration of broader DE issues in hopes of streamlining a
process that better meets our current needs. Cindy asked whether the Curriculum
Committee wants to be involved in the discussion. Diana replied that it would be
valuable to have a representative in the discussion, but not necessarily the entire
committee. Cindy suggested that next year’s Curriculum Committee appoint a liaison (in
addition to the Curriculum Chair) to DECSC. the liaison should participate in DECSC
email discussions and, when possible, attend meetings.
VII.
Preparing for Next Year’s Work Placing Courses into GE Areas
Cindy reported the results of the District Task Force’s vote:
Language/Rationality........................................................ 9
English Composition (3)
Writing and Critical Thinking (3)
Communication and Analytical Thinking (3)
Natural Science ................................................................. 3
Humanities ........................................................................ 3
Social and Behavioral Science.......................................... 3
Wellness............................................................................ 4
Areas of Health (3)
Physical Education (1)
American Institutions:....................................................... 3
Mathematics (Proficiency)
American Cultures (Ø).....................................................
25
We need to develop criteria for Writing and Critical Thinking to help us choose courses
for this area. Cindy also reported that she isn’t sure what the title of the American
Institutions/Cultures areas will be. The two colleges need to agree before the catalog is
printed. She noted that Chabot should have a math proficiency test developed by the end
of next year. Tram Vo-Kumamoto is leading the project.
Cindy summarized next year’s task: develop criteria (as needed) for the GE areas. She
stated that there are courses that were grandfathered onto the list that may not meet the
current criteria. The committee needs to decide whether to review the courses on the list
or allow them to remain unquestioned.
Bill McDonald commented that if we are going to give the divisions a chance to propose
new courses or allow reworking of existing courses, we should publish criteria this
spring. He added that he hopes our criteria do not mirror the criteria at CSU or UC.
Consensus was that criteria for Writing and Critical Thinking will be published this
Curriculum Committee
4-5-05, page 4
spring. Since all AA degree courses must include critical thinking, we might focus on the
writing component.
Cindy volunteered to head a task force to develop criteria for the Writing and Critical
Thinking component. JoAnn Galliano, Gayle Hunt, and Patricia Shannon agreed to meet
with her. Cindy will let Lisa Everett, chair of LPC’s Curriculum Committee know that
we are working on this.
On behalf of the Faculty Senate, Chad Mark Glen thanked the committee for the work
that has been done, adding that it was a tough job that was seen through to completion.
III.
IX.
X.
Good of the Order
•
Spring training will be on April 12, 2005.
•
It was discovered that the numbers used for the new ESL courses (125 and 126) are
already in use at LPC. The courses have been renumbered 127 and 128.
•
Next year’s chair: the Senate has suggested Patricia Shannon. She is willing to take
on the position; however, the fact that she is not yet tenured has raised some concern
over precedent setting. Cindy asked for an email discussion on members’ feelings
about whether the committee chair should be tenured. Chad asked to be included in
the emails, and requested that possible guidelines on how a chair should be chosen be
included in the conversation. Cindy added that we will have nominations and a
ballot vote at the April 19 meeting, after which we will submit a name to the Senate
for confirmation. Members should talk to their divisions to see whether there are any
interested candidates.
Next meetings:
April 12, 2005 (Spring Training)
April 19, 2005 (regular meeting)
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
kk 4/7/05
c:\documents\word\curric\2004-2005\4-5-05.min.doc