District Academic Standards Committee
December 7, 2011
DL 409; IT 218; HM 234
3:30 – 5:00
Minutes
I.
Called to Order at 4:10 pm
II.
Present:
*Jeanne Howard, Counseling (MOV); *Deborah Smith, Mathematics (NOR);
*Sarah Burnett, ECE (NOR); *Rosemarie Sarkis, World Languages (RIV); *Cliff
Ruth, Communications Studies (RIV); Kelly Douglass, English and Media Studies
(RIV – left at 4:00); Joan Gibbons-Anderson, Communication Studies (RIV);
Sylvia Thomas, Associate Vice Chancellor, Educational Services (* voting
members)
Absent:
Guests:
*Nick Sinigaglia, Philosophy (MOV)
Richard Mahon
II.
Approval of Agenda 12/7/11 - MSC/Howard/Sarkis
III.
Approval of Minutes 11/9/11 – MSC/Howard/Sarkis (1) abstention – Sarah Burnett
IV.
New Business
Discussion took place regarding having a representative from the committee present when a
recommendation is forwarded from the District Academic Senate to the local academic
senates. Richard Mahon was present and provided some background on the Standards
organizational structure at Riverside which differs from the other two colleges.
a.
Richard Mahon discussed a new process for AoEs and Gen Eds as it pertains to this
committee’s charge – He briefly discussed the history of DAS along with the past
committee’s thinking regarding AoEs. From his curriculum perspective he feels that
issues involving content of course outlines and the way courses are combined to meet a
requirement, are a curricular issue. Policies having to do with grades, plagiarism, and
residency requirements fit under the purview of Academic Standards. Conclusions:
 Last year when the DAS committee came up with criteria to be applied for course
inclusion and exclusion into an AOE, the District Academic Senate received it,
but said they wanted the Curriculum Committee to approve or disapprove of
proposals in this area. The Curriculum Committee is still trying to generate what
the process with criteria would look like.
 Guidelines forwarded by the DAS Committee last year are similar to the original
guidelines which included the following preferences: (1) if something was going
to be part of an AoE, it would helpful if it was a transferrable course (2) the
course would be available on all three colleges and (3) it should not be part of a
program (e.g. Physician Assistant course). It has been agendized by all
Curriculum Committees that a proposal cannot move forward unless the process
is recognized and shared by the other colleges.
 At most community colleges, it is determined whether or not a course will meet
the Gen Ed requirements at the individual course level, not at a discipline level by
a committee which functions as a standing subcommittee of the local Curriculum
Committee.
 Richard trusts that DAS will decide that it’s not the right body to start reviewing
individual courses in terms of whether or not they fit into Gen Ed but instead look
into creating a process for reviewing Gen Ed.
 DAS can forward recommendations to the District Senate for criteria and/or a
process for Gen Eds who will forward them to the Curriculum Tech Review
Committee. It should be the purview of the curriculum committees to add or
delete courses from AoEs.
 DAS could recommend, as a starting point, that the current Gen Ed configuration
be reviewed and then recommend criteria for inclusion and perhaps exclusion




from the existing Gen Eds. The Curriculum Committee would then use the
criteria to review the Gen Eds and implement the process.
DAS could send forward two recommendations to the District Academic Senate:
(1) guidelines or criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the Gen Eds and (2) a
process or a structure.
Richard will report back to the District Curriculum Committee next week
regarding this discussion and ask whether or not the committee would prefer
Academic Standards help in this area or not.
Jeanne and Joanie agreed to start working on developing a draft for criteria
and/or a process for inclusion and exclusion in the Gen Eds to bring back to the
committee for discussion at our next meeting in February 2012.
Richard will send a post to the Curriculum Chair Listserve to see if anyone has a
process for inclusion or exclusion in the Gen Eds.
a. Plagiarism Policy – A new form has been drafted by Nick with input from Kelly. The draft
has not been circulated among the entire committee. Cliff will forward the draft to the
committee for review and bring it back to our next meeting for discussion – tabled until
February 2012.
b. Inconsistencies in the Graduation and Basic Skills Competency Requirements – tabled
until February 2012.
V.
Old Business
The withdrawal date recommendation forwarded to the District Academic Senate has been
forwarded to the local academic senates. Norco tabled the recommendation and there has
been no response from Moreno Valley or Riverside. The committee will revisit this issue in
our February 22nd meeting.
Meeting Adjourned: 5:00/MSC/Sarkis/Smith
Next Meeting:
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
3:30 – 5:00
Hum 234; IT 218; DL 409