PASADENA CITY COLLEGE
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011
CALLED TO ORDER: 2:22 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON: Joe Futtner
The following Curriculum and Instruction Committee members were present:
FACULTY CHAIRPERSON
Joe Futtner
INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS
Blanca Hernandez Henderson, CEC
Jacqueline Smith, Engineering & Technology
Tim Melnarik, English
Armando Duran, Guidance/Counseling Services
Lorraine Gagliardi, Health Sciences
Olga Gonzalez, Languages
Judy Ohye, Library Services
Carrie Starbird, Mathematics
Janet Chen, Natural Sciences
Robert Eaton, Performing & Communication Arts
Phillip Ricards, Social Sciences
I.
DIVISION DEANS
Doug Haines, Engineering & Technology
James Arnwine, Fine Arts
Michael Finkenbinder, Humanities
David Douglass, Natural Sciences
MEMBERS EX-OFFICIO
Cynthia Olivo, Associate Dean, Counseling/Student
Success Services
Edward Martinez, President, Academic Senate
Cheryl Storms, Classified Senate
Ana Ogaz, Articulation Officer
Robert Miller, Interim Dean, Educational Services
STUDENTS
Cameron White, ASB Vice President, Academic
Affairs
WELCOME
Self introductions were made.
II. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
On the subject of Normal Closing Numbers (NCN), Edward Martinez explained committee what the
committee is being asked to consider, that is, there the NCN currently stand. Edward does not pretend to
be an expert in any other division to determine these numbers. The C&I committee needs to come up
with basic numbers.
The Academic Senate and Faculty Association have asked the committee to review the guidelines and the
numbers that have been recommended. The numbers can be changed as teachers believe it is
pedagogically sound to do so. There may be budgetary and facilities concerns, but we are not the budget
or facilities committee. We are the curriculum committee. These numbers are a guideline and would
become a default number if we get inconsistent information from the divisions. If you don’t get someone
from the division advocating different numbers, then we will defer to these numbers.
The target date to report to the committee is May 2, but we can be flexible. We are being asked to have
these numbers in place for the fall semester. The target date of May 2 gives us enough time to publicize
this for fall.
Minutes of the Curriculum & Instruction Committee Meeting
March 17, 2011
Page 1
Q: If we change a limit in a class and it becomes LGI, then what?
A: Contract issues come in to play. If the dean and instructors agree to a larger number, the contract
says that the increase is a percentage with a certain amount of compensation added. The old formula for
computing LGI under the old contract is gone.
Q: As a teacher, I love the closing numbers, however, as a dean, at what point do budget/fiscal
implications come into play?
A: We are not being asked to do the budget.
Q: In dental assisting, it is not unusual to have 7 to 60 people in a class which is correct for accreditation.
How do you come up with a one-size-fits-all number?
A: If you need different numbers, you can advocate for those numbers. For Health Sciences, the new
numbers will be the closing numbers.
Q: Do these new numbers need to go back to the Faculty Association?
A: The tentative contract agreement says that until all parties come into agreement, the old version
stands. There has to be a final sign-off between the Faculty Association, Academic Senate, and C&I.
We are looking at a number for each class so we can move forward with a new LGI.
If a division agrees to a larger number as the closing number, instructors would be compensated over the
Normal Closing Numbers. It will be based on the percentage, not the number.
Q: Based on the current timeline, if the divisions don’t come to an agreement, will deans pay LGI based
on the old numbers?
A: There has to be some grandfathering. If it can’t be implemented, it can’t be implemented. The
numbers are adjustable from the perspective of pedagogy. LGI will be paid out in the new payscale once
it is determined.
Q: What is the normal class size?
A: There needs to be agreement between the dean and instructors if you go over. If the instructor
independently goes over, that his decision, but it is not LGI. It has to be agreed to by the Vice President
of Instruction and the Dean. There are no rogue LGIs.
Q: What about combined levels, that is, four levels taught at one time, with 25 students maximum. When
registration comes up, so many entry level students sign up that the upper level students are kicked out.
A: This continues to be a question for scheduling, not for Normal Closing Numbers.
Carrie Starbird pointed out that instructors just need to determine what they normally close at. Ask the
instructor: Is that number good? If not, why not? We’re just getting guidelines from the Academic
Senate.
Q: If a course goes to a new closing number, that number is given to the Faculty Association, the Senate,
and to the budget committee, and then someone says it’s been taught at a larger number in the past, is it
still set at the higher number?
A: The lower number is more pedagogically sound, regardless of budget implications.
Q: Do students drop because classes are so large?
A: The C&I Representatives need to pull data on success, retention, and persistence.
This committee (C&I) is part of a triad. We determine the best CNC. Then the Faculty Association and
the Administration come to an agreement. If we decide to lower the numbers, there could be a
controversy with the other parts. We need to look at it from pedagogy.
What we put forward has implications for the future. We need to do this in a straightforward way.
Minutes of the Curriculum & Instruction Committee Meeting
March 17, 2011
Page 2
Cameron White of the Associated Students said that the most vocal students were opposed to larger
classes sizes.
Q: In Health Sciences, what do you do when there are 7 sections, 3 of which are online with a cap of 45,
but the face-to-face classes have a cap of 60? How do you determine different numbers for the same
course?
A: The guidelines for online are lower than for face-to-face. It takes more time to teach online. Last year,
the Academic Senate adopted Distance Education guidelines of 30 students/lecture. The Health Sciences
cap would change from 45 to 30. These would be the changes the dean would make.
Q: At the CEC, they have open exit courses, with a cap of 30. CEC High School classes are not open exit
and have a cap. However, the ESL classes close at 35 or 40, and they enroll 65 or 70. How would that
work?
A: Their recommendation would come through reasoning. At the CEC, total enrollment varies; it is a
unique case.
Q: Once the cap is established, will wait lists go away?
A: They would remain in a modified form.
In Natural Sciences, all faculty members were emailed asking if they were happy with the numbers or
what they should change to. In general, it was 30 or 35. Some courses were higher, but instructors
weren’t sure if the classes fell into the guidelines categories. But we know the numbers of the classes.
Just plug them in. Some suggest increasing the number.
Q: What was the response rate in Natural Sciences?
A: About 10%. The rest must be satisfied.
The C&I chair will modify the memo giving directions to the committee. The most important point:
pedagogy vs. budget. By May 2, list every face-to-face course and bring the information back to C&l.
Include the Distance Education numbers as well. The DE committee is looking at recommendations and
is finalizing a DE policy.
The mandate we have been given is pedagogy.
III.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/ACTION TO PLACE ITEMS ON FUTURE AGENDAS
Next week, the committee will discuss and vote on Policy 4060.
IV.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
V.
ADJOURNMENT
MSC STORMS/DOUGLASS to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 3:14 p.m.
Minutes of the Curriculum & Instruction Committee Meeting
March 17, 2011
Page 3