C-ID FAQs for Faculty
1. What exactly is C-ID?
The Course Identification Numbering System, C-ID, is a mechanism for identifying comparable courses and facilitating articulation that will provide an independent number assigned to community college courses that are commonly transferred to UCs, CSUs, and private institutions. The number is based on a descriptor developed by intersegmental discipline faculty for courses frequently articulated already. Once developed, articulation to descriptors will be sought and courses that match the descriptor will be granted the associated articulation. In its initial implementation phase the focus of C-ID will be on the establishment of a descriptor-based articulation option for colleges and universities, a “one to many” articulation mechanism. Later, when C-ID is fully implemented and C-ID designations are visible, the number will convey to viewers that faculty have determined that the courses bearing that number have met standards of course content, rigor, and comparability. C-ID embraces the intersegmental collaboration and partnership seen in projects such as IMPAC, and furthers the spirit of other faculty-driven initiatives. C-ID, then, is a mechanism for facilitating articulation, a number, a system of providing the number, and an answer to many challenges still facing our post-secondary transfer efforts.
2. Isn’t all this information already in ASSIST?
No. ASSIST is a repository of transferable course articulation already completed. But it doesn’t contain the basis for awarding articulation and can’t measure the degree to which courses are truly “comparable.” That would require a general descriptor against which courses would be measured. Another way to differentiate their roles might be this: C-ID would describe for students, faculty or staff, what a course—offered by any institution offering that C-ID numbered course—would contain; ASSIST would then record how or if that course is articulated between various institutions. ASSIST continues to fill a unique and impartial recording function; however determining comparability of future or revised courses is a faculty function, and C-ID argues that function is best addressed intersegmentally. In the future, C-ID hopes that ASSIST would also publish any C-ID numbers assigned to courses, just as ASSIST published applicable CAN numbers.
3. Doesn’t this project duplicate work already done for CSU LDTP and UC Transfer Preparation Paths?
No, it commences with and complements that work done thus far, but it goes far beyond those efforts. The CSU Lower Division Transfer Pattern project (LDTP) began by proposing major preparation packages and then sought articulation to address this by creating descriptors for courses in those packages. As of September, 2009, LDTP is being substantially modified and TCSU descriptors will be integrated into C-ID, where appropriate. UC Streamlining first focused on increasing course-to-course articulation at 9 campuses, prior to launching the UC Transfer Preparation Paths with UC’s own systemwide and campus-specific requirements for the major. C-ID will build on both strategies, looking at the existing articulation to identify common features of course offerings and measuring that against other UC and CSU expectations. Courses which are contained in CSU patterns and UC paths will be given priority for descriptor development.
4. Isn’t CSU’s project to assign TCSU numbers very similar to the C-ID project?
The TCSU numbering project and C-ID are both based on several principles common to the CAN project as revised shortly before its demise: clear indications of anticipated course content, statements about prerequisites, and student learning objectives—all published in a readable form for students, faculty, and staff. And in many instances, published TCSU descriptors also acknowledge earlier IMPAC discussions and recommendations. With the CSU’s decision to modify the LDTP project, the descriptors created for LDTP will, after appropriate review and revision, be integrated into C-ID.
C-ID values and facilitates intersegmental (and, if determined necessary, interdisciplinary) discussions of discipline faculty. While the C-ID Faculty Discipline Review Groups (FDRGs) would determine what they need to pursue the project goals, it is has always been expected that the intersegmental FDRG would begin with any existing descriptors—TCSU descriptors, IMPAC recommendations, residual CAN descriptors, as well as catalog statements—to craft C-ID numbers for all essential lower division courses in that discipline, thus building on earlier efforts, not duplicating them.
5. UC and CSU faculty have already done articulation work for their own systems. How much more work would C-ID ask of faculty?
Even the work that faculty in CSU and UC have accomplished thus far is just a beginning, as developments in discipline knowledge, student experiences, and course content require new articulation for individual courses and major preparation pathways. What’s been achieved thus far is subject to continual review and revision. C-ID intends to make that work easier, as we note below. Specifically, though, under its present design, UC and CSU Academic Senates would be asked to provide each year
- 2-3 Representative faculty for each FDRG group and new or additional membership as FDRGs determine a need for new reviews, modifications, etc.
- assistance in ensuring system-wide faculty review of draft descriptors (electronic dissemination for review, comments, approvals).
6. Those requests for faculty participation suggest that C-ID’s administrative structure will differ from that of the old CAN model. Is that the intent?
Yes. C-ID—as with other curriculum projects—should be faculty-driven and staff-facilitated. The Academic Senates of ICAS through C-ID’s Steering Committee will determine the scope and speed of the project, presuming adequate funding.
7. So is there funding for this project?
At present, funding is being provided by the Chancellors’ Office of the California Community Colleges. 2009-2010 is the 1st year of an anticipated 5 years of funding. If the project achieves its aims and it is clear how C-ID assists each segment in meeting its own obligations, funding is likely.
What internal incentives are there for all three segments to participate in
C-ID on an on-going basis?
The most obvious incentive is the assistance that C-ID offers students. Students,
their parents and counselors, and faculty and staff across the state can use
the C-ID number as a shorthand to the information we mentioned above. Considering
various segmental interests, C-ID responds to unmet needs in all three segments
and enables the segments to respond to the full letter as well as the spirit
of the legislative mandates of, SB 450, SB 851, SB 1415, SB 1785, and SB 652.
For UC, C-ID can:
- “identify other—possibly unrelated—majors where the common preparation applies, and describe any additional criteria that students must achieve.” (SB 652)
- assist in identifying additional transfer paths
- provide the Academic Senate of the University of California with the mechanism to notify California Community Colleges “when an articulation request is denied, and . . . provide information that will enable the California Community Colleges to achieve course comparability with UC” (SB 652).
- provide necessary “annual reviews” of its lower division transfer paths because C-ID is an on-going project, conducted primarily electronically and maintained on a publicly available website
- ensure that the proposed articulation links between uctransfer.org and ASSIST also reflect fully described C-ID approved courses
For CSU, C-ID can:
- provide an on-going descriptor-based articulation mechanism that can assist campuses in rapidly identifying locally determined and, where applicable, statewide major requirements that meet a descriptor CSU faculty will have had a part in defining;
- define and publish a descriptor, and ensure it is reviewed and revised regularly, to simplify articulation of community college courses as “locally determined courses” for each major; and
- satisfy the requirements of SB 1415 and the CSU-CCC MOU stipulating that a numbering system be created jointly with the California Community Colleges and published by both systems.
For CCCs, C-ID can:
- provide a one-to-many articulation mechanism that may offer CCCs articulation options not previously available;
- offer students and faculty the published C-ID descriptors, matrices of participating institutions, and comparable courses to assist them in planning their academic paths;
- continue with a common and easily decipherable numbering system while expanding the original intent of CAN, now more inclusive of post-secondary institutions and particular in its application to courses and programs offered at community colleges.
8. Could campuses opt out?
The “opting out” would occur when departments, not campuses as a whole, determine that the descriptor is not of significant rigor or depth to meet the needs of that particular major at that particular campus. We hope that opting out would be the exception, though, since the descriptor itself would have been drafted by representative discipline faculty from each of the three segments, and then open for review and comment by the entire field prior to C-ID formal adoption or subsequent assignment to any specific courses. Departments choosing to “opt-out” could also submit modifications or alternative descriptors for C-ID consideration.
9. Where will C-ID begin? Will it rely on existing articulation agreements or create new ones?
As noted, C-ID descriptors will serve as the basis for articulation. Given that many factors beyond a course’s content and objectives may influence the articulation it possesses, it was determined that C-ID needs to provide a means of obtaining articulation and of indicating the willingness to accept a course to fulfill requirements. C-ID will not alter existing means of obtaining articulation – it will provide an alternative mechanism for articulation.
10. Can all three segments use these C-ID numbers?
Ideally, yes—for both political and practical reasons. Politically, prior legislation has repeatedly required CSU and CCC and requested UC to devise and use a “common numbering system.” The former Chancellor of the CCC declared that CAN should serve the community colleges as that “common numbering system”; with the demise of CAN, though, that supranumbering system no longer serves that legislative mandate. To date, neither UC nor CSU has fulfilled the mandate or the request that their systems adopt common numbers, and the legislative desire to repeat this request shows no evidence of abating. Use of the C-ID supranumbers—in UC and CSU catalogs and other publications—would satisfy the many legislative efforts to reach some commonly held number among our 145 campuses.
Practically, and more importantly, we know that these numbers published in all catalogs will serve our shared students. Based on our past experience with CAN, students, faculty, and counselors at all participating community colleges found the CAN numbers in catalogs and schedules of classes useful to identifying comparable courses offered across the state. A few CSU campuses also published CAN numbers for their comparable courses to benefit students and counselors. Today, cross-enrolled students and an increasing number of reverse transfers (or “4-2-4” students) also need to understand how courses they have taken at 4-year institutions and courses they now take at a CCC will enable them to return to a 4-year institution to resume their baccalaureate studies; C-ID numbers published broadly and used by all institutions will assist our students first and foremost.