AGENDA ITEM #14.a.

Curriculum Committee Report to AASC Report

November 8, 2013

60/120 Credit Waiver

At Friday, November 1, CC meeting — the committee reviewed the waiver paperwork for the remaining programs either seeking a waiver or program redesign.

On Tuesday, November 5, it came to our attention via MnSCU that the Credit Waiver process had a minor, albeit important, change that we missed in our Curriculum Committee process.

Barb Feit participated in a recent webinar on the waiver process and it became clear the checklist had been changed and a new item existed not addressed by the SCC waivers. Programs with waiver requests that include more than 15 credits of Liberal Arts and Sciences need to explain why there are more than 15 credits.

There should be some indication how the extra credits above 15 align with specific program learning objectives. Although there is no written instruction requiring the alignment of the credits over 15 to program outcomes, the person presenting the webinar Barb Feit attended indicated that the MnSCU review committee would be looking for this information.

The good news is we can still modify the waiver applications we already have submitted and send the revisions to MnSCU before they begin the formal review.

The SCC programs with waiver requests with more than 15 credits include a couple of Ag programs (Agribusiness Service and Management, Ag Production), Graphic Communications, Paramedic, Medical Lab Technician, and Accounting. Graphic Communications faculty have already completed their revision.

Lisa Lamor is working with the program faculty to discuss the change to 15 credits of Liberal Arts and Sciences or align the courses above 15 credits with the program learning objectives.

Input to MnSCU concerning change in Minnesota Transfer Curriculum Approval Process

See attached letter from Curriculum Committee to Louise DiCesare, System Director Transfer & Collaboration at MnSCU

Announcements

DACUM Process — still need to follow our internal CCO and CC process

Upcoming Deadlines for eCatalog

• Program Changes — MnSCU approval — January CC meeting
Request to MnSCU about the Intention Stage or Change in credits
No guarantee when MnSCU will approve — this deadline may be too late for Fall 2014

• Program Redesign — no credit changes — no MnSCU approval
CCOs — First Read
February 7, 2014 CC mtg

• CCOs — 2nd Read
March 7, 2014 CC mtg

Fall 2014 schedule will be published March 1, 2014

Preregistration March 31 – April 4

Early STAR sessions April 23, 2014 FBO; April 24, 2014 NM

Discussion topics that will be moving to AASC for direction

• Clarify the approval process for new programs (intent to MnSCU with or without CCOs?), redesigned programs, and common course outlines

• Course Prefix changes — changing course prefix for transfer issues - if the learning outcomes don’t change and only the prefix, why? What are the implications for the college? MnSCU?

************************************************************************************************************

November 8, 2013

Louise DiCesare, System Director

Transfer & Collaboration

Minnesota State Colleges & Universities

30 7th St. E, Suite 350

St. Paul, MN 55101

Dear Ms. DiCesare:

At South Central College’s Friday, November 1, 2013, Curriculum Committee meeting, we discussed the proposed Minnesota Transfer Curriculum Process Changes. We have deep concerns with this proposed process:

  • The new process could potentially hurt students in the long run as the college waits for curriculum approval. While it has been suggested that new courses could be offered to students before approval takes place and the MnTC goal area could be applied retroactively, this would add work to our Student Affairs staff and could be troublesome for students if for some reason the new course is not approved for MnTC.
  • The new process would cause loss of autonomy and local control of our transfer curriculum. While this might be the goal in the long-run, we should have a broader, more direct discussion of how to do this rather than changing the approval process first.
  • Finally, the new process would slow down the curriculum development and approval. If we delay offering a course, then it slows down the college process and we are not able to adjust to stakeholder demand as quickly as we claim we are able to do.

It is for these reasons, we would not support the implementation of the proposed approval process.

This approval process appears to be a fix to a larger issue that should be addressed more directly. If MnSCU institutions are not adhering to existing protocol for the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum, those colleges should be called into question to clean up their transfer curriculum and adhere to the standards that colleges like South Central College follow when approving specific transfer courses within the various goal areas.

Thank you in advance for allowing us to provide SCC’s input into the proposed process change before the policy is implemented.

Regards,

Dan Zielske and Gale Bigbee, Curriculum Committee Co-Chairs

South Central College