Www.ccccio.org



Options for Pre-requisites

Small Group Discussions at CIO/CSSO conference April 2, 2009 (Fulks, Lieu, Patton)

|Local Content Review |Statewide Pre-reqs |

|(Done course by course) |e.g. for all Transfer G.E. Courses |

| |(e.g. English 1A for History1A) |

|PROs |PROs |

|Easier to establish prerequisite. |Consistent standards; no “neighborhood” disadvantages |

|Requisite fewer resources: leg., research. |Higher threshold required to establish |

|More dialogue between disciplines. |Less local research required |

|Flexibility by college/region. |Increase in system credibility |

|Easier ---more streamlined |Increase in portability of articulation |

|Specific to program |Less work at local level |

|Direct faculty participation |Portability |

|Works well for sequential courses |Statewide standards |

|Easier |Large schools could provide data for small schools |

|Sits w/ content experts |Consistency across schools reduces confusion and frustration for students |

|Creates faculty to faculty dialogue |Prevents students from “shopping” |

|ID dialogue (interdisciplinary) |Only way to achieve prerequisites |

|Ease/Flexibility |Promotes transferability: moves toward standardization |

|Addresses local needs/situations |Consistent across institutions |

|Increase chance of student success |Clear message to standards – you need this to be successful |

|Increase in academic faculty in involvement |Allow faculty to teach to true level of course rigor |

|Local control |Course alignment |

|Involvement and investment of discipline faculty |Ease of transfer |

|Faculty know course and the requirements to succeed |Student transcripts --evaluation time |

|Streamlined content review process |Much more efficient and less costly |

|Adapted to local student population abilities |Better use of revenues |

|Flexibility in course design when validated locally |Standardization supports transferability |

|More faculty comfortable with controlling own curriculum |Easier to please in a concerted manner |

|Serves needs of specific student community |Will have help and support of ASCC (promotion and provide training) |

|Maintains local control (faculty) |Portability of prerequisites |

|Local expertise used for locally unique courses/programs |Curriculum consistency |

|Streamlined |Increase success rate of students (like having a local content review process0 |

|Satisfy concerns of faculty; local control |Consistency |

|Raise student success |“Cheaper” - less resources needed at the local level |

|Will raise involvement of faculty with establishment of prerequisites |Increase student portability |

|Don’t have to deal with state |May lead to standardization of curriculum |

|Make faculty happier |Increases college networking which may increase student success |

|Local decrease to review over demographics of community |Good pilot for nursing programs |

|Better for success of students |Level playing field with regard to student “shopping” for colleges that have different |

|College determines courses |requirements |

|Faculty have ability to determine what courses have prerequisites |Speed the “evaluation” process |

|Success likely |All would be the same – easier for student movement |

|Provide another perspective to curriculum |Address inconsistencies within multi-college district |

|Respect curriculum process |Success level of student likely to increase |

| |Some faculty welcome this, especially when they deal with under-prepared students who enter |

| |classes with no prerequisite |

| |Provide framework for articulation – college to college, etc. |

| | |

|CONs |CONs |

|Inconsistency in standards could over estimate the need for the prerequisite |Less ability to respond to local conditions *** |

|Validation? |Perceived loss of academic freedom, e.g., by providing additional support |

|Disproportionate impact |Leads to more standardization |

|Content review insufficient ; need stats |U.C. mandates could force the reading/writing faculty to rethink their programs’ consistent |

|Relationship of prerequisite to course not verified |levels of expectation |

|Need data for cross discipline |State control |

|If not done properly could set unnecessary (subjective) barrier |Agreement – statewide (common numbering) |

|Lack of consistency across institutions |All courses would have to be unified across the state |

|Potential “abuse” |Students are frequently successful in courses they would not meet prerequisites for |

|“Competitive” enrolling/student shopping |Loss of multiple measures |

|Increased need for faculty to teach additional Basic Skills |Can we ever obtain this level of agreement? |

|Student will compare one college’s prerequisites with another --- more difficult to transfer |Prevents C.S.U./U.C. from imposing curriculum, i.e. IGETC |

|between CC’s. |Ramification of addressing needs - e.g. scheduling many more sections of Basic Skills and then|

|Benefit to program enrollment not learning |don’t have load for other faculty |

|Attempts at exclusivity by faculty seeking elite students |Makes CC’s the “bad guy” for enforcing rules created by K-12 deficiencies |

|Without statistical analysis, validity is questionable |Perceived lack of Academic Freedom |

|Content review is minimal |Student transcripts evaluation time |

|Access and equity |More faculty involvement in evaluation of transcripts in a timely manner |

|Worried about excellent competition from neighboring colleges |Loss of local control |

|May not be uniformity in applying them |Resistance to change |

|Time intensive |Prerequisite courses pressured toward a standard (as well as courses having that prerequisite) |

|Decreases student portability |Cookie cutter courses limit creativity and local relevance (and arguments of restricting academic|

|Potentially adversely affects program quality |freedom) |

|Leaves potential for abuse |Statewide curriculum |

|Might affect students “shopping” for classes at other colleges |No evidence this is needed |

|Might be hard to cover the increase in Basic Skills courses |Bypasses local curriculum committee authority over curriculum |

|May make it less likely to happen |Access and equity |

|If different standards have issue with moving from campus to campus |Assumes same level/style of instructor |

|Vulnerable to external pressures |Can be problematic in reading and writing area – difficult to validate |

|What about a department of one? |One size does not fit all |

| |May lead to/require standardization of curriculum |

| |Less flexible |

| |Implementation would add time and cost |

| |Very challenging |

| |Over regulation |

| |As we meet all the state mandates |

| |Years to interpret and apply |

| |Faculty over regulated |

COMMENTS:

• The example you gave in which successful completion of intermediate algebra resulted in a much higher level of success in Econ. does not imply cause & effect. Ability to succeed in intermediate algebra may just indicate overall ability that predict success in Econ.

• Pre reqs would enable colleges to handle getting students remediation early

• We (the group) assumed statistical validation needed in either case

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download