Eliminating the Word “Discipline” in the Taxonomy of Programs

Spring
2013
Resolution Number: 
09.05
Contact: 
Assigned to : 
Category: 
Curriculum
Status: 
Not Addressed

Whereas, The purpose of the Taxonomy of Programs (TOP) is to collect data and information on but not limited to the following matters: colleges where programs are offered, data on student awards, course enrollment and Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES) information, spending on instructional programs, and assignable square feet for laboratories;

Whereas, The word “discipline” is used in the TOP as a means to categorize programs and bears no relationship to the minimum qualifications for teaching in disciplines as they are defined in Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges nor is it intended to do so; and

Whereas, The use of the word “discipline” in the TOP is confusing, and may lead some districts to adopt the “disciplines” in the TOP as being state-approved disciplines for the purpose of determining minimum qualifications1, even though they do not exist in the Minimum Qualifications discipline list, which may in turn lead to incorrect assignments of faculty to classes or faculty service areas;

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges assert that the use of the word “discipline” should be limited to (1) faculty service areas, as defined in §87743.1 of the California Education Code, and (2) to faculty minimum qualifications as defined in the disciplines lists in Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges, pursuant to Title 5 §53407; and

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges oppose the continued use of the word “discipline” in the Taxonomy of Programs (TOP) and urge the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office to work with the Academic Senate to develop alternative language in the TOP to replace the use of “discipline” so that the replacement language clearly differentiates the purpose of the TOP from the purpose of the disciplines lists and delineation of faculty service areas.

MSC

1. For example, the TOP lists Environmental Sciences and Technologies as a “discipline,” yet no such discipline exists in the disciplines list. As another example, Physics/Astronomy are a single discipline in the disciplines list, yet the TOP lists Physics and Astronomy as separate “subdisciplines” within the Physical Sciences “discipline.” Even more confusing is the status of Earth Science. In the TOP, Earth Science is a subdiscipline of Physical Science (which, incidentally, is listed as “Interdisciplinary Studies” in the disciplines list), as are Geology and Oceanography. However, Earth Science, Geology and Oceanography are courses taught within the Earth Science discipline.

Status Report: 

Check with SACC?  I do not think anything was done on this but SACC may have discussed it.