General Meeting Information

Date: March 20, 2026
Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Location: Zoom

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    1:00-1:05
    Welcome and Framing
    • Purpose of final meeting
    • Decision threshold and scope (finalizing and adopting Version 4)
    		 I/D All
    1:05-1:50
    Finalize and Adopt Version 4 (Recommended Model)
    • Finalize Version 4 structure
    • Incorporate remaining feedback as appropriate
    • Confirm consensus on recommended model
    		 I/D All
    1:50-2:10
    Model Rules and Guardrails
    • Define core college-wide scheduling rules
    • Clarify allowable department-level flexibility
    • Identify implementation-phase items (parking lot)
    		 I/D All
    2:10-2:55
    Next Steps: Governance, Report, and Rollout
    • Schedule final report review meeting
    • Confirm and sequence spring governance presentations (DASG, Classified Senate, Academic Senate, College Council)
    • Assign report drafting and review roles
    • Align on key messaging
    • Identify presenters and materials needed
    		 I/D All
    2:55-3:00
    Wrap-Up and Final Confirmations
    • Confirm decisions and next steps
    • Final questions

    I/D

    		 All

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    1. Review of Sample Program Maps
    The task force reviewed sample program maps using current student schedules to better understand how the proposed time block model might function in practice and to inform discussion from a student perspective.
    As part of the discussion, a key question emerged regarding whether course sequences are achievable under the current schedule, under Model 3A, or both. While not the primary purpose of the review, this prompted useful dialogue and highlighted areas for further analysis. To build on this, the scheduling office will conduct a scenario-based exercise using current scheduling data across several additional program maps.
    Discussion indicated that feasibility varies by discipline:
     
    • Biology sequences are not currently achievable within the existing schedule structure.
    • Psychology sequences appear achievable in concept, though not yet at scale.
    • More broadly, some sequences may require students to significantly adjust work or life schedules to follow them fully.
    An additional constraint identified in the current schedule is that, in some cases, required course sequences (e.g., Chemistry and Physics) overlap, limiting students’ ability to enroll in both concurrently.
    The group discussed how laboratory courses interact with the proposed structure. While the model includes a community hour, lab courses will frequently extend into this time, making it functionally flexible rather than strictly fixed.
    2. Constituent Feedback Updates
    No new feedback was received from the PSME division. Previously shared concerns remain and were acknowledged in the discussion. These include:
     
    • Risks of low-enrolled sections, particularly in early time blocks
    • Operational complexities for lab-based programs (e.g., lab technician support)
    • Concerns about scheduling multiple sections of the same course at the same time, which may:
    • Concentrate enrollment unevenly across sections, including potential effects related to instructor preference and student selection patterns
    • Increase complexity in waitlist management
    The task force noted that these concerns may require operational adjustments, including:
     
    • Revisiting waitlist processes
    • Considering additional classified support in high-impact areas (e.g., Biology)
    • Allowing for flexibility in low-enrollment thresholds during the transition period
    As part of the discussion, an alternative approach was suggested: rather than implementing a college-wide time block structure, the college could explore more targeted scheduling coordination for high-impact areas, such as aligning laboratory courses to reduce conflicts, without applying a uniform model across all disciplines.
    The task force also received feedback from other constituencies, including counseling faculty and workforce-focused disciplines, expressing support for adopting Version 4 of the time block model, citing potential benefits for student scheduling clarity, pathway alignment, and access.
    Student feedback suggests that while a “pseudo” community hour is workable, a more clearly defined and protected college hour would be preferable.
    3. Modality and Scheduling Considerations
    The group affirmed that:
     
    • The proposed time block model does not dictate course modality (in-person, hybrid, or online). It is simply a schedule template to ensure that synchronous courses and the synchronous portions of hybrid courses do not overlap with one another.
    • Existing flexibility in modality remains unchanged for faculty.
    • For hybrid courses, the only constraint is that any synchronous components, whether in-person or online, would need to align within the established time blocks. This may have moderate impact on the start or end times for those components but does not affect the overall structure or total instructional hours of the course.
    There was discussion that it may be helpful for the college to articulate a broader perspective on modality balance at an institutional level, separate from the task force’s charge.
    4. Block Structure Clarifications
    The task force discussed and affirmed several working assumptions to guide implementation:
     
    1. Courses are scheduled within defined blocks and should not cross block boundaries.
    2. Departments may establish additional scheduling guidelines, provided they do not conflict with the college-wide block structure.
    3. On standalone days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday), courses of extended duration may span multiple blocks (e.g., 4+ hours across two blocks; 8+ hours across three blocks).
    4. The morning block allows for flexible start times, and the evening block allows for flexible end times.
    5. A limited number of programs (e.g., Nursing and EDAC) may operate as fully self-contained schedules.
    5. Recommendation
    After discussion, the task force reached consensus to recommend Version 4 (a refinement of Version 3A) for adoption.
    The recommendation reflects strong support from counselors and students for the model's structure and potential benefits along with a position of neutrality from transfer-discipline faculty concerned about enrollment management and implementation.
    The task force noted that addressing key operational considerations would help move transfer-discipline faculty from hesitation toward stronger support. In particular, progress in the following areas would support this shift:
     
    • Flexibility in low-enrollment thresholds during the transition period
    • Refinement of waitlist processes to better support student access
    The task force also notes that additional classified support may be needed in Biology, particularly in areas involving live samples, to support implementation.

Back to Top