Credit Course Repetition Discussion Board

We welcome your comments and questions on this topic.  Please note that your question will not appear on the board until it has been approved by a moderator.

125 comments

  1. Brian says:

    Does the following paragraph seem sound with respect to the new regulations?

    Under the new regulations, it appears that a Community College Welding Technology Program could be restructured to meet, and fully comply with, the new regulations. This would be, in-fact, and in the spirit of the regulations. It would require new section numbers, new distinct course objectives with measurable-outcomes, and new families of classes. For example, a new family of classes could be, Beginning GTAW, Intermediate GTAW, Advanced GTAW, and so on for each of the various welding methods (Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW), Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), Flux Core Arc Welding (FCAW), Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW), Pipe Welding, etc). Since the skill-development required for advancing proficiency in each of these methods is, in general, significantly different, it would meet the new Title 5 regulations. Indeed, it is, essentially, what the new regulations are trying to achieve.

  2. Chris Erskine says:

    I sent an inquiry to the Credit Course Repetition Team at CourseRep@cccco.edu and received an automated reply that suggests I be patient while a periodic review of incoming mail might produce a reply within 30 days. So, I have revised (substantially shortened) my inquiry and resent it. I would appreciate hearing your views and expectations:

    “I have read the course repetition preliminary guidelines of July 2013 and have a question.

    The following passage refers to the limitation on repetition for performing arts ensembles (p. 26):

    “Even more complex is the determination of whether the related course limitation applies to certain large performance ensembles. Some colleges offer multiple types of large performance ensembles, such as Jazz Ensemble, Orchestra, Wind Ensemble, and Percussion Ensemble. Again, the courses must be distinct courses with different student learning outcomes for each variation (otherwise they could not be separate courses). The question then becomes whether the courses are related in content within the meaning of section 55000(l). They are related in content if they have similar primary educational activities in which the variations are separated into the distinct courses. The district, utilizing appropriate processes and personnel, will have to examine the course content and learning objectives of each course to determine whether the courses are related in content. The literature and techniques that are taught in Jazz may be completely different from those in Orchestra. Students in Percussion Ensemble might never take the Wind Ensemble class because they use totally different instruments. On the other hand, if a district wants to be more restrictive, these courses could be courses related in content (commonly referred to as “a family” of courses). In that case, the student would be limited to four semester or six quarter enrollments. If a college has properly designated any or all of the courses as repeatable because the courses are necessary for completion of a bachelor’s degree by CSU (section 55041(a)(1)), then a student could take any one course multiple times, or each course once, or a combination thereof as long as the student does not exceed four semester or six quarter enrollments. Whichever determination the district makes, the criteria should be consistent throughout the curriculum so that all decisions are fairly applied to all disciplines.”

    I don’t understand the last sentence. What does “criteria … fairly applied to all” mean – specifically with reference to the continued existence of such ensembles? The clear subject of this paragraph is that the situation of “certain large performance ensembles” is different and more complex than that of other types of course. How are “consistent” criteria adequate to their peculiar status to be “fairly applied to all”? In general, I would like to know simply whether the expectation is that such large performance ensembles should just disappear. Experience shows that they cannot survive without participation by regular members, usually drawn from the local music community who volunteer to enroll in these courses (what you might call “enrichment” students). If they are not allowed to repeat the course that is the formal vehicle of the ensemble, the ensemble will depend entirely on the more narrowly defined student body (“degree seekers”). Such a restriction will ultimately lead to the dissolution of the ensemble for lack of sufficient numbers and the necessary instrumentation coverage (an orchestra cannot function without percussionists; if there are not any among the current degree-seeking students, the ensemble will not function). So, my question basically is: How are the colleges supposed to maintain such ensembles if community members who have long participated (on a paying basis) in courses that are required for the existence of the ensembles are no longer allowed to repeat the courses more than a certain number of times?

    I hope the communities are given a chance to fully discuss the impact of these limitations and influence their implementation. In our locality (Aptos – Cabrillo College), we have recently financed and built performing arts facilities for precisely the kind of cultural activities that require the on-campus existence of such ensembles. I say “we” because Cabrillo College is on the top line of my local property tax bill every half-year.”

    • pstanska says:

      Thanks for the question, Chris. I think this is something that many colleges are struggling with right now. It does appear from the repetition guidelines that the “enrichment” students you reference are not part of credit funding intentions. Some colleges are looking into audit policies, and the Chancellor’s Office is working on legislative action to revise the current audit fee. This may be a way to ensure access to community members with no intention of transferring. A stickier solution districts may be grappling with right now is the community service classes and how they might interact with the credit classes. The legal requirements for self-funding of community service classes makes things difficult for accounting, but I think San Diego is attempting to figure this out now.
      In other words, I agree with your interpretation of the guidelines regarding who is eligible for credit funding, but there are some solutions playing out in the state to hopefully address the concern.

  3. Karen Unger says:

    Would like to subscribe please

    • Michelle Hillman says:

      You do not have to subscribe. You can simply post your questions to this blog.
      Michelle Grimes-Hillman, ASCCC Curriculum Chair

  4. Michael McCully says:

    Have a question regarding CTE and repeatability. Our Commercial Music department is classified as Career Technical Education and we have a component of performance courses (Jazz Improvisation, Jazz Ensemble, Rock Ensemble, & Vocal) required for certificate completion and are CSU transferable. Are these courses repeatable within the guidelines of Title 5 and the Credit Course Repetition Guidelines? Our do level courses need to be created?

    • pstanska says:

      If the intent of the courses are to fulfill major’s preparation for transfer, this is exactly the kind of course that may be repeatable as:
      “courses for which repetition is necessary to meet the major requirement of California State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) for completion of a bachelor’s degree” and can be documented by transfer institution catalog language. However, if the courses are primarily for certificate programs, then the answer is no, they must be leveled. It is possible to have a cache of courses that fulfill both CTE and degree requirements. Do you have a TMC aligned AA-T for Music? If so, perhaps some of these courses could serve both functions for students and be evaluated for repeatability.

  5. David Hunt says:

    I am pleased to see an Engineering AS-T, but for it to clump together Mechanical, Civil, Aerospace and Manufacturing, some some flexibility should be given for alternative courses (i.e. Machine Tool Technology, High Performance Manufacturing, etc.) Could there be a possible emphasis area elective like Surveying for Civil, Circuit Analysis for Aerospace, Dynamics for Mechanical, and Machine Tool Technology or High Performance Manufacturing for Manufacturing? Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *