CSU Lower Division Transfer Project
David McNeil Chair CSU Academic Senate
Keith Boyum Associate Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs
Ted Anagnoson Chair Academic Affairs Committee
ACADEMIC SENATE IMPAC POL
Academic Senate • LDTP • AA resolution supporting LDTP • What we liked • What seemed problematic • SB 1785 • What we liked • What seems problematic • Decision rule • 75%!
GENERAL EDUCATION • Transfer students have two ways to meet CSU lower-division general education requirements: • CSU General Education-Breadth. • Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC).
Issues to Consider: • IGETC or GE-Breadth certification is independent of the intended major. At some CSUs, campus general education requirements are markedly different for students in different majors. • CCCs do not ordinarily know the student’s intended major when they prepare a certification. • Certification is done without regard to CSU-campus-specific limitations on the double-counting of courses for general education and the major. • The process of certification is labor-intensive for the CCCs. • A student must request certification; it is not automatic.
CSU General Education-Breadth Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum • A: Communication in the English Language and Critical Thinking • A1 Oral Communication • A2 Written CommunicationA3 Critical Thinking 9 semester units • Area 1: English Communication • 1A English Composition • 1B Critical Thinking-English Composition1C Oral Communication (CSU only) 9 semester units (CSU)
Area B: Physical Universe and Its Life Forms • B1 Physical Science (at least one course) • B2 Life Science (at least one course) • B3 Laboratory Activity (associated withB1 course or B2 course) • B4 Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning 9 semester units • Area 2: Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning 3 semester units • Area 5: Physical and Biological Sciences • 5A Physical Science (at least one course) • 5B Life Science (at least one course) Laboratory Activity (associated with 5A course or 5B course) 7 semester units
Area C: Arts, Literature, Philosophy, and Foreign Languages • C1 Arts (at least one course) • C2 Humanities (at least one course) 9 semester units • Area 3: Arts and Humanities • 3A Arts (at least one course) • 3B Humanities (at least one course) 9 semester units
Area D: Social, Political, and Economic Institutions and Behavior; Historical Background 9 semester units (at least 2 disciplines) • Area 4: Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 semester units (at least 2 disciplines)
Area E: Lifelong Understanding and Self Development 3 semester units
Area 6: Language Other Than English (proficiency equivalent to two years’ high school study—UC only)
If Teacher Prep can do it…You can too! Claire Palmerino, Ph.D. Director, Academic Advising Services Cal State Fullerton
Teacher Preparation • Future teachers need preparation in… • Subject Matter • Pedagogy • Prior to No Child Left Behind, all K-12 teachers could establish subject matter competency by… • Passing a state-approved exam OR • Completing a CCTC approved subject matter preparation program • In the NCLB environment, elementary teachers must pass the state-approved exam (CSET); however, programs designed to prepare future teachers must continue to address the Elementary Subject Matter Standards.
Subject Matter Preparation Program Standards • CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing adopts new standards for subject matter preparation programs about every 10 years. • SB 2042 (Alpert), passed in 1998, set in motion the revision of subject matter standards. • In fall 2001, new Elementary Subject Matter Standards were approved.
CSU Response to New ESM Standards • Academic Year 01-02: Representatives from southern CA CSU campuses scheduled several meetings to discuss and support each other in designing programs for the new standards. • Academic Year 02-03: Similar meetings took place in northern, central and southern CA. • We were voluntarily trying to accomplish what we were later forced to do by SB 81 (Author: Alpert; signed into law in October 2003).
Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs • Integrated Teacher Preparation programs are designed to allow undergraduates to work on the requirements for the bachelor’s degree and credential in one seamless program. • SB 2042 had launched such programs in 1998. • Most programs were for future elementary teachers (even now there are very few single subject programs). • After several years of enrolling students in such programs, the bill’s author learned that campuses varied widely in the number of units required (127-167).
SB 81 and Title 5 • SB 81 required the CSU to develop a framework to establish some consistency between campus integrated programs. • Language was added to Title 5 to cap these programs at 135 units. • In summer 2003 a Task Force was convened to develop the framework.
Integrated Teacher Preparation (ITP) Framework • The ITP Framework directed the CSU system to identify courses for a 30-unit statewide agreement. • These courses would be fully “portable” from any community college to any CSU multiple subject integrated program. • Because these programs typically utilize General Education Program courses to meet the ESM Content Standards, this meant we had to agree on which classes we would use at the lower division level for every GE requirement (A-E).
ITP State Wide Meetings: Preparation Pre-Meeting Survey: • The reps were polled with respect to procedural preferences. • Did we want to vote privately or publicly? • What percentage of agreement could we live with? • Assessing our level of agreement • Using our previous agreements as a foundation, and the CSU GE pattern as an organizing tool, we asked reps to indicate how they would vote on each of several possible courses. • Votes did not commit the rep…it just revealed where we had agreement going into the meeting.
February Meeting • Voting Procedures— • Public • Ballots were printed with the rep’s name and institution. • Blue ballots (Yes) • Red ballots (No) • White ballots (Abstain) • Reps initialed their ballot for collection and count.
February Meeting • We agreed to begin the first round of votes with those courses where 20-22 campuses had voted “yes” on the pre-meeting survey. • Oral Communications (A.1) • Written Communications (A.2) • Critical Thinking (A.3) • U.S. History • U.S. Government
February Meeting • For the second round of votes we used courses where 15-19 campuses had voted “yes” on the pre-meeting survey. • Intro to Biology • Math for Elementary Teachers • Intro to Art, Music, Dance or Theater • Survey of literature
February Meeting • For the third round of votes, we asked for nominations from the floor. • Nominations were accepted, discussed (sometimes extensively) and voted upon. • Result from the February meeting: 39 unit agreement.
Between Meetings After the February meeting and before the March meeting…reps • Reported results of the meeting to their campus communities. • Consulted with community college contacts to elicit feedback. • Reps were surveyed about their preferences… • Is our work done or do we go for a “full 45” in anticipation of SB 1785? • If we go for 45, what classes should be nominated?
March Meeting • Reps reported out about the response from their home campuses. • Reviewed the community college feedback. • Agreed we would go for a “full 45” in anticipation of SB 1785.
March Meeting: Getting those last 2 courses… • The pre-(March) meeting survey informed us that we already had substantial agreement about one class: Intro to Education. • We reached agreement on this class fairly quickly. • Finding the last class was much more difficult.
March Meeting: Getting those last 2 courses… • For the final course on the agreement, we asked for nominations from the floor. • Six courses were nominated. • Earth Science Survey • California History • Health • Health and P.E. for Children • Children’s Literature • P.E. for Children
March Meeting: Getting those last 2 courses… • We agreed to take a straw vote on each course. This revealed that two courses, Health & PE for Children and Children’s Literature, did not have strong support. • We took another straw vote for each of the remaining four classes which revealed that the Earth Science Survey (9 votes) and CA History (6 votes) had the strongest support. • After a 3rd straw vote for these two courses, we agreed to nominate Earth Science as the next course to discuss for the agreement. • Earth Science completed the final 3 units for the agreement.
Thoughts about process… • Establishing procedures prior to the meeting via online discussion and/or survey was beneficial… • Saved time. • Gave reps the opportunity for input. • Pre-meeting surveys and nominations allowed us to begin with success.
If teacher prep can do it, anybody can! • We had to agree on every single GE requirement in the transfer pattern plus 6 additional units. • For most of you, a 39-unit GE certification package + 6 units for the major will do it. • You can do this!
Marshall CatesMATHEMATICS • IMPAC • Math Council
Problems Physics Computer Science Solutions Physics in Campus 15 No Agreement
Math Agreement • GE except B1 (Physical Science) • Calculus sequence Physics or other part of campus agreement
What Is EXPECTED?
POL Projects Business History Integrated Multiple Subjects Sociology Psychology Mathematics Family and Consumer Science Nursing Criminal Justice Chemistry Speech Communication Economics
Math Biology Engineering Computer Science Physics Chemistry Nursing Agriculture Earth Science Computer Information Systems Business Economics Political Science Anthropology Geography History Psychology Human Development Sociology English Foreign Language Communication/Speech Journalism IMPAC
What is an Agreement?
EXAMPLE • Discipline A has few LD requirements and room for free electives. • Their agreement is 39 units of GE + 6 units of free electives.
EXAMPLE • Discipline B wants a specific pattern of GE ,believing that the purpose of GE is to gain breadth, and certain major courses (6 units) outside of GE • Their agreement is: Any courses that satisfy GE except area D. In area D choose classes that are outside the discipline. In addition take Intro A and Intro B.
EXAMPLE • Discipline C has a structured program that usually involves double counting. • Their agreement is: Complete areas A and B. In C1 choose either X or Y. In area D choose anything but Z. X or Y also satisfy a major requirement. Also take major course1 and major course 2.
EXAMPLE • Discipline D usually specifies a particular class in area D of GE, however not all campuses agree on what that class should be. • Their agreement is: Complete GE (any pattern) except for area D.(36 units) Complete major course 1 and major course 2 and major course 3 (or one free elective) (9 units). In each campus’ 15 units, completion of area D is specified.
After The Agreement
Final report • Discipline Name • Facilitator’s Name • Recorder’s Name. • Date of Report • Date of Disciplinary Meeting(s) • Attendance list(s)
The Agreement The list of courses agreed to as part of the 45 or more system transfer core. Where specific courses are required (Intro to Chemistry) as opposed to generic courses (any class satisfying GE area B1) these courses should have attached a proposed CAN descriptor. The CAN descriptors may be developed outside of the meeting or may be the subject of a second meeting.