(213) 891-2434 (213) 891-2144 DISTRICT ACADEMIC SENATE www.laccd.edu/das Curriculum Committee

Kathleen Bimber, Vice President, DCC Chair (City), David Beaulieu, President, DAS, Yasmin Delahoussaye, Vice Chancellor Educational Services, Dr. Kim Perry, VP Academic Affairs Liaison (City)

Minutes Friday, October 15, 2010 12:30 to 2:30 pm LACC Child & Family Studies Building, Room 210 (Park in the Lot #4 on Heliotrope and Monroe-south of the Administration building. The building is located on the second floor above the Child Development Center and south of the college Library)

1. Attendance: E. Atondo; PIERCE, J. Babb, TRADE; D. Beaulieu, DAS President S. Berger, VALLEY; K. Bimber, DAS VP and DCC Chair, Judy Chow, WEST; L. McKenzie, HARBOR; A. Moore; SOUTHWEST, Said Pazirandeh, MISSION; K. Perry; VP Academic Affairs CIO Liaison, Maria Reisch, CITY; Steve Wardinski, EAST. Guests:J. Berella, V. Flores 2. Welcome and Approval of the Agenda-the Chair welcomed guests and opened the meeting at 12:40 pm. 3. Approval September 10, 2010 Minutes. The agenda was approved as presented. 4. Announcements:K. Bimber reminded the committee that Sharon Levick’s memorial service takes place this afternoon. In consideration of this, the committee would conclude discussions by 2:30 for those who wish to attend. Sharon’s Memorial Service Friday, Oct. 15th at Pierce at 3:30 PM 5. DCC 2010-2011 dates Oct. 15, Nov. 19, Dec. 10, Jan. 14, Feb. 11, Mar. 11, Apr. 8, May 13, June. 10. Old Business:

1. ECD –J. Berella-discussion (12:30 – 1:30) Johnny Berella began the meeting with an overview of the transition from supervision by Steve Holton to the District Office. When a problem is reported the DO will attempt to take care of it within one to two business days. S. Berger also gave pointers on how to respond for effectively when reporting a problem. Sheri mentioned that faculty often don’t provide enough information about the problem so the DO can evaluate what is the underlying problem that needs fixing. Berella mentioned more support documentation has been added to the ECD system to guide faculty. Often the problem is a lack of knowledge on how to do something rather than an actual malfunction. Johnny also mentioned a series of Administrative training sessions have been scheduled that are open to anyone needing more training on ECD. J.Berella also informed the committee that enhancements to the system suggested by users will be considered by the steering committee when resources become available. The DO provides support and repairs malfunctions but has no money at this time for enhancements. IT does no have a programmer on hand to make enhancements to ECD and there is no money set aside for the next phase of this system. K. Bimber asked Yasmin Delahoussaye to look in to finding funds to take this very important system to the next phase. ECD is an integral part of curriculum processing and is required to upload to the state. The following ECD items for consideration were discussed:  1. Programming ECD to calculate the Effective Semester-Protocol doesn’t have all the fields needed to up load for the schedule. DCC Representatives: Elizabeth Atondo, PIERCE , Jing Babb, TRADE TECH, Sheri Berger- VALLEY, Judy Chow- WEST, Lauren McKenzie- HARBOR , Said Pazirandeh,- MISSION, Maria Reisch-CITY, Steve Wardinski EAST, Allison Moore, SOUTHWEST 2018 年 4 月 29 日 Page 2  2. ECD Course Descriptions and Protocol-M. Reisch asked if these could be insinc in order to upload into the Schedule and the Catalog. Currently the course description entered in ECD does not go to Protocol so when Schedulers upload Protocol data elements the old description is used. S. Berger explained that we want one system to populate two data fields but they are not synchronized. It was decided that this problem will be eliminated (hopefully) with the new SIS system.  3. Colleges are requesting ECD and CurricUNET be somehow linked or connected. It was felt that IT should be able to code this in order to generate a bulk upload to CurricUNET.  4. Users would like other ECD routing choices, i.e. routing with attachments. Different routing options can be programmed into ECD.  5. Remove CAN information from section IV. The committee agreed to remove CAN information from this section as it is no longer relevant. CAN may be replaced with CI-D.  6. Maintain IGETC and CSU Cert information in ECD tables and don’t pull from Protocol since this is not maintained for accuracy. Articulation Officers requested this since it causes confusion when it conflicts with ECD.  7. Program ECD to check for sections before archiving and sending requests to Harold. We shouldn’t be able to archive if there are active sections. ECD could be program to check a course to see if there are active sections and faculty would need to choose a different effective date.  8. Email and Course Change Request hours are diffent that what is in Harold’s In Box and these should be the same. When hours are changed we send them as a total rather than per week. We need to change this and send them as weekly hours rather than total hours. This tells Harold the change is standard hours.  9. UC, IGETC, and CSU GE approval dates should all change to Term Approval Date. Currently we post the date as month, day and year. However, Articulation Officers get the approval date by effective term.  10. Non-credit outline, Section III needs a question about levels below transfer. It was agreed to add a question to select a level below that will populate to Protocol. We must have this in order to send it to the State.  11. Downloadable forms in Section VIII – Not sure what this is referring to as we already have downloadable forms  12. ECD Section IV UC transferability warning message needs a change in wording. A). When you update a course you get a warning that this is a District attribute but it is a college attribute. Needs to be corrected. B) Campus attributes-Warning: This is a campus level course change attribute. C) Section VI: Remove warning entirely but leave information part about why. D) On Submit: remove warning of course change form needed. Will remove course change form warning upon downloading.  13. Course Change warning. District attribute warning-This is a district-wide course attribute . Changes require district-wide vetting.  14. Remove repeatability as a district-wide attribute. It is not a District-wide attribute. It was decided that numbers 8, 10 and 13 were a priority and items 12 and 14 are items to be fixed by IT. The rest of the requests need to be assessed for cost before deciding whether they can be addressed. 2. Re-review of Curriculum Posting Schedule-the revised version of the Curriculum Posting Schedule was reviewed and approved by the committee unanimously (msp). 3. CLEP Addendum-The math District Discipline Committee approved the minor changes to the CLEP addendum. 4. Transfer Degree Update: next steps. The committee discussed next steps in order to meet the SB 1440 deadline to create new transfer degrees by Fall 2010. After a long passionate discussion, it was decided to schedule a meeting with our Area C colleges and local feeder CSU’s to create “regional” 2018 年 4 月 29 日 Page 3 transfer degrees using the top five majors. It was felt we could create a more meaningful transfer degree regionally that better meet the needs of our students. Some committee members expressed concern about the C-ID project and whether the model transfer degrees created would work with our programs requirements and meet our student’s needs. A subcommittee (K. Bimber, D. Beaulieu, S. Wardinski, S. Berger, Y. Delahoussaye) will meet to plan a regional meeting. Y. Delahoussaye offered to pay for the meeting in support of the work. New Business:

1. E-65 Clarity on effective date statement-M. Reisch asked for clarification on effective date. The following statement in E-65 , “Changes affecting courses with active sections will be effective in the next available semester,” does not appear clear. Once department chairs receive the schedule galleys, new courses to the district or college and course changes/updates must have an effective date in which scheduling has not already commenced. 2. Clarification of Catalog Rights-non-credit vs. credit-S. Berger asked for clarification of Catalog Rights for non-credit courses vs. credit courses. The committee agreed that students are enrolled and it doesn’t matter if it they are enrolled in a non-credit or a credit course. 3. One line course justification to state-M. Reisch asked the committee if there is a one line statement that could be used to send to the state for a justification. S. Berger said she spoke with someone at the state about the justification and was advised to use one of the five justifications required when creating a new course or program. Demonstrating how it fits into an existing program if applicable, or how it supports a community need are also good examples of effective justifications statements. 4. The meeting adjourned at 3 pm.