With faculty review, C-ID has produced “descriptors” for about 400 types of lower division and transferable courses, detailing the material to be covered and sometimes the texts and amount of student work. That system, called Course Identification Numbering or C-ID, works fairly well, they said, although critics said it is very limited in scope and adds another layer of bureaucracy. FACCC’s president-elect, Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, said she does not think that the number of students taking wrong or repetitive classes is high enough to “warrant the insane amount of time, effort and money” that statewide course numbering would require.īesides, she and others point to a system that already aims to help students and faculty choose and qualify courses for transfer. of California Community Colleges also argues against the plan. The statewide community college Academic Senate recently approved a resolution to oppose AB 1111, saying it is not needed, would cost too much and “would create undue and unnecessary difficulties for colleges.” Beyond the changes needed in information systems, schedules and transcripts, more than 150,000 courses would have to be reviewed. The Berman bill faces headwinds as it moves now to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill’s author, Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), said the “current system is unnecessarily confusing for students and that the differences in course numbers can unintentionally set students back and create a barrier to timely transfer.” Without a common course numbering system, he added, “students are struggling to transfer credits between institutions and plan out a coherent road map to earning their degree.” Those professors also criticize it for usurping the authority of the 73 districts that run the community colleges. Faculty organizations oppose the change, saying it will divert time and resources from much-needed reforms, such as better financial aid and ensuring students pass their classes, no matter the catalog numbers. Gavin Newsom’s senior policy advisor for higher education, and the Governor’s Council for Post-Secondary Education.īackers say the change is an important step to help improve the low transfer rates: Only 19% of community college students who say they intend to transfer to universities do so within four years. The idea to phase in a new common numbering system by 2025 was among the recommendations of the recent Recovery with Equity report organized by Lande Ajose, Gov. The Assembly’s Higher Education Committee unanimously approved the legislation on April 22. If California adopts the changes, it will join 17 states, including Arizona, Florida and Texas, that have or are developing common course numbers for their lower division courses usually taken in the first two years at public colleges and universities, according to a survey by the Education Commission of the States.Ī bill in the California Legislature, AB 1111, would require the state’s 116 community colleges to adopt a common numbering system that would cover general education classes and those needed for transfer into various majors at universities. It would ensure that similar courses at any California community college are aligned so they fulfill the same transfer requirements for California State University and the University of California systems. A new effort is underway, however, to create a broad new numbering system that would be accessible and easily understandable to all community college students and cover many more courses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |