Curriculum Procedures in Metropolitan Multicampus Community Colleges.

Autor/in	Merren, John
Titel	Curriculum Procedures in Metropolitan Multicampus Community Colleges.
Quelle	(1992), (22 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Administrative Organization; Administrator Role; College Curriculum; Committees; Community Colleges; Community Role; Curriculum Development; Decision Making; Governance; Institutional Autonomy; Multicampus Districts; Questionnaires; School District Autonomy; State Standards; Teacher Role; Two Year Colleges + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Committee; Ausschuss; Community college; Community College; Curriculum; Development; Curriculumentwicklung; Lehrplan; Entwicklung; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Education; Educational policy; Financing; Steuerung; Bildung; Erziehung; Bildungspolitik; Finanzierung; Institutionelle Autonomie; Fragebogen; School district; School districts; Autonomy; School autonomy; Schulautonomie; Lehrerrolle
Abstract	An examination of curriculum development procedures at multicampus community colleges was conducted through telephone interviews with administrators from the following five institutions: Miami-Dade Community College, in Florida; Northern Virginia Community College; Pima Community College, in Arizona; Tarrant County Junior College District, in Texas, and Cuyahoga Community College District, in Ohio. Each is a unified college with regional accreditation and a single catalog. With enrollments ranging between 24,000 and 51,000, all of the colleges have multicampus representation on a deliberating body to balance campus issues against broader concerns of faculty, students, the community, and state governance bodies. Each also has a professional coordinator of curriculum who presides over the process to ensure consistency, to maintain processing of complex paperwork, and to provide technical assistance to those who initiate and react to proposals for new curriculum or changes in existing courses or programs. The bulk of this report provides a detailed comparison of specific policies and mechanisms in place at the five colleges, including the following: (1) campus approval procedures; (2) district-wide review and approval; (3) state level curriculum authority; (4) the role of constituent groups; and (5) intercampus reliability and quality control. The report concludes that each of the five colleges has responded differently to the need to balance campus autonomy with district-wide concerns, to establish systematic procedures that provide timely information concerning curriculum proposals, and to include a diverse group of college stakeholders in the decision process. The survey instrument is appended. (MAB)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2004/1/01