Good Practice for the
Implementation of Prerequisites
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Spring 1997
Prerequisite Questions and Answers from the Field

The answers given here do not carry any legal standing in the interpretation of statute or regulation. The purpose of this document is to raise issues of concern to the field and explore possible implementation strategies to solve them. This document does not set new policy or recommend changes to existing policy, regulation, or statute.

Prerequisites are an essential tool in the construction of curriculum for courses in which student success is highly dependent on previously acquired knowledge or skills. However, effective use of prerequisites requires a balance of several countervailing factors. (Used in this general sense the term prerequisites applies also to corequisites and other limitations on enrollment.)

Applied overzealously, prerequisites which go beyond needed skills will unnecessarily limit students’ access to courses and inhibit their ability to make normal progress toward fulfilling their educational potential and may drive qualified students away causing financial loss to the college. Used laxly or not at all, weak or non-existent prerequisites do not inform students of skills needed to succeed in their courses. Instructors will find course goals hard to achieve when precious class time is needed to teach such unprepared students. In fact, these situations often create pressures to reduce academic standards. The tendency of unprepared students to drop out will create unfilled seats for which the college will generate no income and make it seem that the instructional program is weak and ineffective.

Properly set prerequisites benefit all: students, faculty, and the college. Students know what is expected of them without being denied access, faculty teach prepared students and have a positive classroom environment, and the college has efficient educational programs.

Appropriate prerequisites also require a balance between externally imposed mandates and local control. State standards help to assure that prerequisites do not deny access but yet uphold academic standards--the balance stated above. But local control must be maintained over the mechanisms employed to institute prerequisites and to empower faculty in assessing academic standards. Striking this balance was one of the goals of the framers of the Title 5 prerequisite regulations passed in September of 1993.

As good practices for putting these regulations into place are discussed in this paper, keep in mind the balance between access and success and between state and local control.

An instructor may wish to give advice to students on skills which will enable them to get more out of a class. Advisories for recommended preparation are intended to identify skills which will broaden or deepen a student’s learning experience but without which the student will still succeed in the course. The college does not block student enrollment for lack of advisory skills. Students are free to ignore the advice.

As is suitable for a recommendation, not a great deal is required to establish advisories. The process is known as a basic content review. Each local college is expected to develop its own content review process. Typically, the content review process is accepted by vote of the curriculum committee and the academic senate and a form and/or explanation for content review is included in the college curriculum handbook. A good model for content review is that outlined in Method #23 in Matriculation Evaluation: Phase III Local Research Options (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, June 1992). In short, three steps are involved.

First, the discipline faculty who teach the course examine their class materials: course outline, syllabus, text, exams, and so forth. The point is to list skills that it would be a good idea for students to have but which are not necessary to pass the class. If, in the opinion of the discipline faculty, the students would be highly unlikely to succeed without one or more previously-acquired skills, then the faculty should consider proposing a prerequisite.

Next, the faculty should agree, either by consensus or vote, on the skills to recommend. Finally, the best means by which students can acquire these skills should be identified. This is usually a course--but not always. Examples of non-course advisories might include typing speed for a computer course, a high school biology class for a college biology class, or eligibility for English 1A for a history class. Note that many of these would be difficult to establish as prerequisites.

To obtain curriculum committee approval for an advisory, the originating faculty typically 1) present a rationale which summarizes the process used and 2) include the advisory skills in the course outline [Title 5 §55202(a)]. If the process is clear and the course outline coherent, committee approval is routine.

The method to establish a prerequisite, called the level of scrutiny, varies with the type of course:

1) prerequisites for transferrable courses can be established by a basic content review plus identification of similar prerequisites used at three UC or CSU campuses;
2) courses within or across sequences, especially vocational courses which have no UC or CSU equivalents, can have prerequisites by going through a documented content review; and
3) out-of-sequence communication and computation skills (and non-course prerequisites) require data collection and analysis in addition to content review.

Many transferable courses have standard prerequisites that are well recognized in the discipline. The analysis begins with basic content review as described under advisories but with a higher level of rigor: identifying skills without which the student is highly unlikely to succeed. Agreement of the discipline faculty on these skills, either by consensus or vote, is important. In some cases it may help to have each faculty member rank the skills, for example on a scale such as 1-to-5, for the degree of impact on student success. A mean score above certain level, e.g. 4, might be recommended before advancing the skill for the prerequisite. The appropriate course which teaches these skills is then proposed. If a similar course is used as a prerequisite at three or more UC or CSU campuses, the prerequisite is justified [Model District Policy II.A.1.a.].

Documentation presented to the curriculum committee might consist of:

1) a summary of the process and rationale, and
2) copies of the catalog descriptions of the target and prerequisite courses at three UC or CSU campuses--perhaps with a narrative if the comparability of the courses is not obvious, and
3) a list of the prerequisite skills in the course outline.

The curriculum committee approves the course and the prerequisite by separate action, applying the criteria that:

1) the content review process has been followed,
2) the UC/CSU and proposed college courses are comparable, and
3) the course outline is complete, well integrated, coherent and meets Title 5 standards.

The second level of scrutiny is documented content review [Model District Policy II.A.1.b.]. This analysis is sufficient to establish prerequisites within a sequence or across a sequence, such as prerequisites for a vocational courses which have no UC/CSU equivalents. Excluded are communication or computational skills--which require data collection and analysis. The term "in a sequence" does not imply that the courses are numbered or lettered sequentially--or even that the courses are in the same discipline. If the course content of A is structured to lead into course B and students normally take B after A, clearly the courses are sequential. Examples include so-called "service courses" such as "Chemistry 70, Pharmaceutical Chemistry" (in the chemistry discipline) as a prerequisite for "Pharmacy 101: The Chemical Basis of Pharmacology" (in the pharmacy technology discipline).

The fundamental difference between a basic content review and a documented content review is the need to present evidence that the identified prerequisite skills are covered in the proposed prerequisite course.

Again, the curriculum committee approves the course outline and the prerequisite by separate action. In evaluating the proposed prerequisite, the committee is generally checking that:

1) the content review process was followed,
2) the proposed prerequisite course does indeed teach the needed skills (and that both the target and prerequisite course outlines demonstrate this--perhaps using a grid analysis such as that shown below), and
3) the course outline is complete, well integrated, coherent and meets Title 5 standards.

The analysis of the exit skills in the prerequisite course and the entry skills needed for the target course often leads to curriculum change.

• Courses in a sequence may not have a smooth flow of topics. Some shifting of content between courses may help.
  
  
• Discussions among instructors of the two courses may lead to the discovery of topics or teaching methods which make the prerequisite skills more effective for the target course. For example, science faculty need students to graph scattered experimental data but graphing may be taught in the prerequisite math class using points that fall neatly on a line.
  
  
• It may be that not all of the prerequisite skills are taught in the proposed prerequisite course. Options to deal with this include:
  • teaching the prerequisite skill within the target course itself
  • adding the topic to the content of the proposed prerequisite course
  • shifting the needed topic from another course into the proposed course.
    • For example, 9 of the 10 skills needed for C may be taught in B but 1 may be taught in A. By moving that topic to B, the prerequisite to C could be B alone rather than both A and B.
      

The curriculum committee should be sure that any gaps in prerequisites are covered. If not all the needed skills are taught in the prerequisite course, how are students to learn them?

The highest level of scrutiny is data collection and analysis. This analysis is applied to out-of-sequence communication and computation skills and non-course prerequisites. Examples are "English 1A: Freshman Composition" as a prerequisite to "History 17A: Early United States History," "Math 1A: Calculus" as a prerequisite to "Physics 4A: General Physics" and "Computer Science 20: Basic Programming within the last three years" as a prerequisite to "Computer Science 25: Intermediate Programming." (The latter is called a recency prerequisite, establishing how recently the prerequisite course has been taken.)

The basic premise is that the college must demonstrate, using sound research practices, that students are highly unlikely to succeed without these skills. The Model District Policy, II.A.1.g.(3), states, "The research design, operational definition, and numerical standards, if appropriate, shall be developed by research personnel, discipline faculty, and representatives of the Academic Senate." The college should establish a procedure for developing such research designs. This procedure should be approved by the curriculum committee and the academic senate and should appear in the college’s curriculum handbook.

The Model District Policy II.A.1.g. lists three options for student success:

1) grades, either mid-term or final;
2) the instructor’s evaluation of the student’s readiness for the course, and
3) the student’s own self-evaluation of his or her readiness. (A fourth option, assessment, can be used as a measure and will be covered in the next section.)

When using grades, success is a "satisfactory grade" of A, B, C, or CR [Title 5 §55200(d)]. Final grades are certainly a well-recognized measure of student success, but mid-term grades may be a better yardstick for readiness--given that students who drop a course late in the term rarely do so because of a lack of prerequisite skills. When doing a grade analysis, classifying ‘W’ withdrawals (drops after the add/drop date) and ‘NG’ no grades (drops before the add/drop date) is quite advantageous. Some W’s and NG’s result from lack of student readiness, but others are attributable to job changes, family responsibilities, and so on. Should a W or NG be counted as non-success or left out of the study entirely? One approach is to ask instructors to make the determination. Did the drop occur for non-academic reasons, job changes, family situations and so on? If so, leave the W or NG out of the sample. If not, include the student in the sample. As you will see, sample size, particularly that of the "non-success" population, is critical in producing a meaningful statistical result.

Besides grades, success may be ascertained by an evaluation of readiness by the instructor or student. Typically, instructors and/or students are surveyed for this information. A good practice is to use a scale such as 1-to-5 or 1-to-10 from "very prepared" to "not prepared at all." The five or ten point spread produces a more meaningful correlation with whether or not the student had the prerequisite. The survey may be more effective when administered about one-third of the way into the course. This gives enough time for students to attempt course material but is not so late in the term that the survey just duplicates the final grade results.

Standard research methods to evaluate the relationship between having the prerequisite and success in the course include:

• a correlation coefficient such as the Pearson r (useful for continuous data such as grade-to-grade correlations, often corrected for factors such as restriction of range)
  
  
• a matrix or four-cell table and accompanying chi-square (for discrete categories of data such as the "yes/no" answer to "does the student meet the prerequisite?"
  
  
• a matrix or four-cell analysis showing net increase in accuracy, a comparison of the percentage of the students who succeed in the course before and after imposing the prerequisite. (Applying the prerequisite should show a significant gain in the percentage of students succeeding.)
  

The details of these methods can be gleaned from standard statistics texts, and, in particular, Method #23 in Matriculation Evaluation: Phase III Local Research Options (CCCCCO, June 1992) and Appendix A in Assessment Validation Project Local Research Options (CCCCCO, February 1991). The diagram below may be useful in visualizing these methods.

The numerical standard to justify the prerequisite is entirely a local decision. Typical standards are above approximately 0.35 for Pearson r, 3.84 for chi-square, 2:1 for right/wrong ratio, and 10% incremental gain in accuracy.

The above methods give meaningful results only with reasonably sized samples. This is the origin of the suggestion for 100 in the total sample and 20 in the non-success group. Problems arise with small sample sizes such as courses of 20 students taught only once a year. Waiting five years for data is not practical. Although this is a thorny problem, some suggestions may help.

1) It may be that the prerequisite is not essential and could be replaced by and advisory on recommended preparation. Advisories are taken seriously by students and may be sufficient to assure good student success. In addition, many instructional techniques can help less well prepared students: out-of-class review sessions, tutoring, review reading and/or problem assignments, and so forth.

2) Use all research methods at your disposal to increase sample size and produce a meaningful statistical correlation. If student demand for the course is high, open an additional section. Count W’s and NG’s as non-success unless determined by the instructor to be non-academic related drops. Collect success data for all three measures and use the most statistically significant result. Use several statistical measures and use the results that seem most appropriate. If dependence on prerequisite skills is strong, correlations will be high enough that even small samples (i.e., 40) may be meaningful.

New courses do not have a tract record on which to base research analysis of the need for a communication or computation skills prerequisite. When a math or English prerequisite for a new course appears to be needed, as an outcome of the established curriculum approval process, the Model District Policy [II.A.1.g(4)] provides for the establishment of the prerequisite for a two-year provisional period while the data is collected and analyzed.

Every effort should be made to inform students of the faculty’s best advice for preparation. On a practical level, it may even be more effective to set the skills as advisory. In this way, students are advised of the recommended skills, and, typically, sufficient numbers of students will enroll both with and without those skills to make an analysis meaningful. It may be, however, that the prerequisite is needed to be formally part of the course outline to meet other requirements such as those imposed by intersegmental articulation standards (e.g., freshman composition as a prerequisite for the IGETC critical thinking-English composition course).

The steps required to use an assessment process for placement advice are sufficient to meet the research requirements to establish that assessment process as a prerequisite [Title 5 §55202(c)]. To fully implement an assessment process requires:

• that any instrument used be on the Chancellor’s Office approved list
• local validation of cut-off scores
• the use of multiple measures
• checking for disproportionate impact on historically underrepresented groups and, if found, implementing a plan to ameliorate the disproportionate impact [Title 5 §55524]. These regulations have been in place since 1990 and are generally well understood.

It is good practice to use the assessment result in concert with the equivalent course when listing the prerequisite in the course description. For example, an electronics class might have a math prerequisite listed in the catalog as "Prerequisite: Math 101 or equivalent skills demonstrated through the math placement process." This allows students the alternative of placing into the course through assessment, or, if starting the math course sequence at a lower entry point, to take electronics after passing the appropriate math course.

Typically, the curriculum committee establishes the assessment as an alternative to the course. Justification of the prerequisite is then based on the level of scrutiny applied to the course. Evidence that the assessment result is appropriate to include along with the course listing consists of the research needed to validate the assessment process (on Chancellor’s list, appropriate cut-off scores, justified multiple measures, lack of disproportionate impact) for the prerequisite course in the discipline sequence. For example, the college may have a math sequence such as 100 (intermediate algebra), 101 (trigonometry), 102 (precalculus), 1 (calculus), etc. The curriculum committee first establishes Math 101 as the prerequisite to the Electronics course using data collection and analysis (computational skill prerequisite). Then the curriculum committee adds "or equivalent skills demonstrated through the math placement process" when evidence is available that the assessment process is valid. The "appropriate skill level" would be that which would place the student in Math 102, thus demonstrating that the student had mastered the math skills up through Math 101.

It should be pointed out that Title 5, §55530(c) states that, "Whenever possible, students should be permitted to avoid additional testing by submitting scores on recently taken tests that correlate with those used by the district. Districts should thus develop ways to recognize the results of assessments students may have obtained in other districts. This would constitute another way for students to satisfy a prerequisite: appropriate assessment result in another district.

CO-REQUISITES

The levels of scrutiny to be applied to co requisites are the same as those for prerequisites. Co requisites are to assure "that a student acquires the necessary skills, concepts, and/or information, such that a student who has not enrolled in the co requisite is highly unlikely to receive a satisfactory grade in the course or program for which the co requisite is being established" [Title 5 §55201(c)(3)].

The basic concept involved in co requisites is that content in the two co requisite courses is so intertwined that a student cannot reasonably pass either class without the other. One example might be a nursing clinical practice lecture class and the corresponding in-hospital clinical class. Another might be a computer programming lecture class and the associated lab class in which the student actually writes programs. Because such paired courses ("two-way" co requisites) are part of the same sequence, justification typically consists of a documented content review. Information submitted to the curriculum committee might reasonably be 1) a narrative-style rationale and 2) a section in each course outline on "co requisite skills" which is clearly connected to the "student outcomes" section in the other outline.

Another situation for which co requisites meet a curriculum need is that of an ancillary course whose content is dependent on a main course, but the content of the main course can stand alone, a so-called "one-way" co requisite. An example would be a general education geology lecture class and an associated geology lab class. The lab class has the main class as co requisite because the principles of geology are essential before doing field work. Students may take the lecture class alone to meet general education requirements but may add the lab to meet the laboratory requirement as well. A common occurrence is that students taking only the lecture may become inspired to subsequently enroll in the field course. To enable this option, the catalog description of the field course, Geology 10L, might be "Co requisite: Geology 10 (may be taken previously)." The lecture course, Geology 10, would have no co requisite.

Health and safety skills constitute a separate category of prerequisites [Title 5 §55201(c)(4), Model District Policy II.A.1.f.]. Such a prerequisite is established by a documented content review. In identifying the needed skills, faculty should concentrate on those specific skills, concepts, and information without which the students would create a hazard to themselves or those around them. Those skills must be listed in the course outline, and faculty should suggest a mechanism both for how the student would acquire those skills and how the college would determine that the student possesses them. Two options for achieving these latter two objectives are described as follows.

In some cases it may be that the needed skills are taught in another course. For example, the nursing program may have a course, or a separate instructional unit in a course, such as "Safe Practices in Clinical Situations." By demonstrating that the health and safety prerequisite skills for the target course are taught in this particular course (perhaps using the grid method above), sufficient documentation is provided. If the skills are a single unit within a more general course, however, it is essential that successful mastery of those health and safety skills be a requirement for passing the class. In the case of a program such as nursing, the separate safety course could be used as a program prerequisite which students would have to meet before enrolling in the program.

It may be possible to distill the necessary health and safety skills down to a single document such as "Procedures for a Safe Chemistry Lab" or "Avoiding Hazards in the Machine Shop." If so, the document could be made available to students in advance of the class and an assessment made of students’ comprehension of the information. To satisfy the need for multiple measures, testing of comprehension of both written and oral information is possible. Written assessment could be in the form of an objective test. It would be necessary to validate appropriate cut-off scores and to assure that no group of students is disproportionately impacted. Oral assessment is achieved by showing the students a video tape giving instructions for avoiding typical hazards. The students are then asked to respond aloud to a series of questions asked orally (with very structured prompts and assessment of sufficient student responses).

Thus, when health and safety skills are found to be essential to avoiding hazards to students and those around them, four approaches are possible.

• Teach the skills within the course and do not allow students to enter hazardous situations until those skills are demonstrated. No prerequisite is needed.
  
  
• Teach the skills as a separate course or a unit within an existing course and make that course a prerequisite to the target course in which the student will encounter the hazardous situation(s).
  
  
• Teach the skills in a separate course which becomes a prerequisite to the program in which the hazards exist.
  
  
• Provide information on the skills in a separate document, video, etc. and then assess the skills using multiple measures.
  

Ability to avoid the creation of hazards is often closely tied to students’ communication and computation skills. Health and safety prerequisites must be based on very specific skills associated with the particular hazards that students will encounter. Use of a general English or math course as a health and safety prerequisite is not allowed. Remember that such general communication and computation skill prerequisites must be established by data collection and analysis.

An educational program is "an organized sequence of courses leading to a defined objective, a degree, a certificate, a diploma, a license, or transfer to another institution of higher education" [Title 5 §55000]. Programs are approved by the Chancellor’s Office and are published in the Inventory of Approved Degree and Certificate Programs. Several sections of Title 5 are relevant to program prerequisites.

§55201. Policies for Prerequisites, Co requisites, and Advisories on Recommended Preparation.

(b)(1) Determinations about prerequisites and co requisites shall be made on a course-by-course or program-by-program basis.

(c)(2) The prerequisite will assure, consistent with Section 55002(a)(2)(D), that a student has the skills, concepts, and/or information that is presupposed in terms of the course or program for which it is being established, such that a student who has not met the prerequisite is highly unlikely to receive a satisfactory grade in the course (or at least one course within the program) for which the prerequisite is being established.

§58106. Limitations on Enrollment

In order to be claimed for purposes of state apportionment, all courses shall be open to enrollment by any student who has been admitted to the college, provided that enrollment in specific courses or programs may be limited as follows:

(a) Enrollment may be limited to students meeting prerequisites and co requisites established pursuant to Sections 55200-55202 of this Division,

(b) Enrollment may be limited due to health and safety considerations, facility limitations, faculty workload, the availability of qualified instructors, funding limitations, the constraints of regional planning, or legal requirements imposed by statutes, regulations, or contracts. The governing board shall adopt policies identifying any such limitations and requiring fair and equitable procedures for determining who may enroll in affected courses or programs. Such procedures shall be consistent with one or more of the following approaches:

• limiting enrollment to a "first-come, first-served" basis or using other no evaluative selection techniques to determine who may enroll; or
• limiting enrollment using a registration procedure authorized by Section 58108; or
• in the case of intercollegiate competition, honors courses, or public performance courses, allocating available seats to those students judged most qualified; or
• limiting enrollment in one or more sections of a course to a cohort of students enrolled in one or more courses, provided however, that a reasonable percentage of all sections of the course do not have such restrictions....

In summary, program prerequisites may be established by justification for a single course or a collection of courses within the program or for performance in the entire program. Limitations on enrollment may be established by identifying the constraining factor (facility limitations, faculty workload and so on) and ensuring fair and equitable practices for limiting enrollment. Programs cannot have a separate admission process; students are admitted to the college (open access) and enrolled in its courses and programs, although an application for such program enrollment is permitted. The pool of students qualified to enroll in a program is created by identifying those who have met the prerequisites for the program. If fewer seats are available for courses in the program than the number of qualified students in the pool, a non-evaluative process must be used to determine who will be in the classes. Beyond the registration priority system established for all courses at the college through Title 5 §58108, determination of which students will enroll in the program may be based on health and safety considerations; limitations imposed by statute, regulation or contract; or a selection process such as first-come-first served, waiting list, or lottery. The Board of Trustees must act to establish policies for registration priorities, health and safety limitations, statutory/regulatory/contractual limitations, and the no evaluative selection process to be used.

Thus the activities involved in selecting students for enrollment in programs fall into two areas: establishing prerequisites and other limitations on enrollments and then devising a process for selection among those in the qualified pool.

The structure of programs which typically need prerequisites usually begins with students taking courses from the general curriculum and then, based on that performance, advancing to specific courses that constitute the program. One example might be a biotechnology program, during the first year of which, students take general courses in biology, math, chemistry, and physics. Based on satisfactorily completing these fundamental courses, students are selected for enrollment in the program, consisting of specific biotechnology courses, for their second year of study. Another example would be a nursing AA degree program in which students would be expected to meet general education requirements and satisfactorily complete core courses in biology, chemistry and safe clinical practices before being selected to enroll in the program. Only those enrolled in the program would be eligible to take the specific courses that constitute the two-year nursing program.

Establishing program prerequisites follows the same levels of scrutiny as prerequisites for courses. For a course prerequisite, justification requires basic content review plus 3 UC/CSU equivalencies for transferable courses, documented content review for courses within or across sequences and for which UC/CSU comparability is not available, and data collection and analysis for communication and computation skills. Non-course prerequisites also require data collection and analysis. Health and safety prerequisites require documented content review. The process is typically to find the course within the program which is most dependent on the prerequisite skills under consideration. Then, using the appropriate scrutiny, justify the prerequisite for that course and thus for the program. It may be that this process is best applied to a collection of courses or for performance in the entire program. Some examples may help:

• A biotechnology program may have an advanced course in toxicology for which certain skills in chemistry are essential. Through a documented content review, those skills are identified, and general college chemistry is found to have each of those skills among its student outcomes. This is justification for having general chemistry as a prerequisite for the course and thus for the program.
  
  
• An emergency medical technician program has a series of critical care courses for which understanding of human anatomy is essential. No one course is dependent on all the aspects of anatomy, but, when taken together, success in the critical care series is highly dependent on the skills taught in human anatomy. Thus the course in anatomy constitutes a prerequisite both for the critical care series and for the entire program.
  
  
• An electronics program contains a course in circuit diagrams in which students are highly unlikely to succeed without certain algebra skills, found to be taught in intermediate algebra. Through data collection and analysis (following the college-based process), success in the circuit course is found to be highly dependent on success in intermediate algebra. This means that intermediate algebra can be a program prerequisite as well.
  
  
• A dental hygiene program is observed to have an unacceptable drop-out rate. Profiling those who have unsuccessfully left the program indicates that poor grades in a composite of anatomy, physiology, and chemistry seem to be a common factor. Being a non-course prerequisite, the GPA in these classes is correlated by sound research practices to the success rate in the program as a whole, with the greatest gain in accuracy obtained at a cut-off of 2.75 in the composite GPA for anatomy, physiology, and chemistry, thus establishing a prerequisite for the program.
  
  
• A fire science program is operated under an instructional agreement with the county. The contract, as adopted by the Board of Trustees, specifies that the work experience portion of this program requires a Fire Fighter Academy 1 Certificate and an EMT certificate. This contract is sufficient justification for these certificates as a limitation on enrollment in the work experience course (§58106) but NOT to the program as a whole (as this is not specified in the contract). Note that this is a limitation on enrollment, not a prerequisite. As such, establishing this limitation for the course cannot be generalized as a limitation on enrollment in the program because this would go beyond the language of the contract. Note also that contracts are NOT sufficient justification for prerequisites [§55201(c)(1)].
  
  
• A commercial photography program is having trouble with high drop out rates. A content review shows complex analytical and critical thinking skills that may be acquired in a variety of degree-credit courses. In an attempt to identify those who have those skills, a study is done on the correlation between GPA in previous degree-credit courses and performance in the program, both by course and in the program as a whole. No acceptable level of correlation is found, and no prerequisite is established.
  
  
• A nursing program has been using a point system for enrollment in the program consisting of points for GPA in all college courses, for GPA in science courses, for grade in English 1A, and for performance in an interview. Content review shows skills needed in sciences, English, and interpersonal skills as well. Through sound research practices, the two GPA factors are found to be significant at 2.75 overall GPA and 3.00 GPA in science courses and are thus retained as program prerequisites. Research shows that the grade in English 1A is not well correlated with student success in the program or its courses. English 1A is retained as an advisory on the basis of the content review. The faculty is concerned about the lack of an English prerequisite and the impact on safety in clinical situations. As a result, a course entitled "Safe Clinical Procedures" is implemented and a documented content review places this course as a program prerequisite. The interview process is found to be too inconsistent to meet the requirements of Title 5 and is eliminated. The qualified pool of those with an overall GPA of 2.75, a GPA of 3.00 in the sciences and a passing grade in "Safe Clinical Procedures" still exceeds the number of seats available in the program. Thus a waiting list process is instituted, using the registration priority system for general courses, and is approved by the Board of Trustees.

  The last example illustrates the final step in producing a workable enrollment system for impacted programs. Usually, the process begins with a requirement for students to fill out an application for enrollment (not admission) to the program by a certain cut-off date. After the pool of qualified students is determined by using prerequisites, non-evaluative enrollment measures must be used to determine who among those remaining will actually get a seat in the program’s courses. Typically, one of three processes is used.

• A waiting list is established, the priorities within the pool of qualified applicants being determined using non-evaluative criteria such as those in the registration priority system used for general courses in the college. Examples of such factors which can produce a prioritized list include continuing enrollment status, total units at the college, percentage of W’s, and matriculation status. The same type of letter-by-an-acceptance-date process is used to fill the seats in the program. The waiting list can be rolled over to the next year with new qualified applicants added to the bottom. This gives students who are not accepted in a given year some indication of when they would make it into the program. Alternatively, the old and new applicants can be reprioritized each year. This practice has engendered some student complaints regarding uncertainty in predicting when they will actually be allowed to enroll in the program.
  
  
• Enrollment is determined by first-come-first served. Post marked dates on the required application determine the order in which qualified students are accepted. If one of those selected does not accept by a certain date, the next person on the list is sent an acceptance letter. By rolling the list over from year to year, students are given more certainty of the year in which they will be allowed to enroll.
  
  
• A lottery is held to determine who is enrolled. If 24 seats exist for the program, 24 names are chosen randomly, and those applicants are sent acceptance letters asking them to respond affirmatively by a certain date. A negative or non-response removes the students from the list and more names are drawn from the hat and the process repeated until a full complement of students is obtained. Some colleges hold previous applications over for the following year and some require students to reapply. Even if old applications are retained, there is little predictability as to when a given student will actually be allowed to enroll. This factor probably makes a lottery the least favored of these three choices.
  

In addition to requiring justification for limitations on enrollment, Title 5 §58106 requires the Board of Trustees to act upon which non-evaluative enrollment method the college will use. This is typically just a general policy without the specifics of the procedures as discussed above.

Section 58106 of Title 5 specifies that all courses shall be open to enrollment by any student who has been admitted to the college but allows the Board of Trustees, by enacting specific policies and requiring fair and equitable procedures, to limit enrollment in specific courses or programs by using:

1) prerequisites and co requisites;
2) health and safety considerations;
3) practical considerations such as facilities limitations, faculty workload and availability, and funding limitations;
4) registration systems such as first-come-first-served or a priority system within the constraints of §58108;
5) statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements;
6) for intercollegiate competition, honors, or public performances courses, procedures allocating available seats to those judged must qualified; or
7) limiting enrollment in one or more sections of a course to a cohort of students, provided that no more than a reasonable number of sections are restricted.

The last three of these "other limitations" will be covered in the following categories:

1) performance courses (intercollegiate competition and public performances),
2) honors courses,
3) blocks of courses or sections, and
4) legal requirements (statutory, regulatory, or contractual). See the Model District Policy II.C. It should be pointed out that these are NOT prerequisites and are not subject to the levels of scrutiny described earlier in the paper.

Because curriculum is an academic and professional matter, the policies and procedures adopted by the Board to enact these four "other limitations" should be based on recommendations of the academic senate. (See the Model District Policy II.C.) It would be good practice for the academic senate to develop such policies with a campus-wide committee. Typically, this would be the senate’s Educational Policy committee or other standing or ad hoc group. These policies should be passed as resolutions of the senate and sent to the Board as recommendations.

Performance courses may have limitations such as tryouts for intercollegiate athletic teams and auditions for courses involving public performance, e.g., band, orchestra, theater, competitive speech, chorus, journalism, and dance. The Model District Policy specifies that such limitations:

1) should not block student access to a degree or certificate,
2) should be reviewed during the regular six-year program review cycle, and
3) should not result in disproportionate impact on historically underrepresented groups.

For example, consider a Drama 1A course which contains a public performance of a stage play and, as a consequence, requires a successful audition for enrollment. This course cannot then be a requirement for an AA degree in drama. It could, however, be part of a list of restricted electives, any one of which must be taken to get the drama degree. In this way students who do not audition successfully have an option to take another course to get a degree in drama. Note that it is not the audition itself which triggers these strictures but rather its use to limit enrollment. It could be that ALL students are allowed to enroll in the course and the audition is used to determine the roles within the performance. All must have an opportunity to benefit from instruction (§51006). All will get an equivalent experience, although some may do so in lead roles, others in supporting roles, and perhaps some through acting in front of the class rather than in the public performance.

The Model District Policy also specifies that the course outline list the degrees and certificates for which the performance course is a restricted elective and include the other courses the student has the option to take. In cases such as this, the program requirements are typically listed in the college catalog, so not a great deal of effort should be involved in gathering this information.

Performance courses must be reviewed on a regular six-year cycle to determine if the audition or try-out is still needed. The basis for the review is up to the faculty in that discipline. One of the considerations should be the impact on historically underrepresented groups. Model #12 in Assessment Validation Project Local Research Options (February 1991) gives an example of research methods to do this analysis. If bias is found, it may be possible to broaden the base of participation through recruiting efforts or better articulation with related programs in feeder high schools.

The "fair and equitable procedures" requirement of §58106 implies that students should be fully aware of the limitations on their enrollment. The course description in the catalog and schedule of classes should contain a statement such as "enrollment subject to audition; see page XXX" and the full information on the audition (date, time, place, skills assessed, etc.) should appear on page XXX or in another referenced publication easily accessible to students.

Honors courses, or sections of courses, if used to restrict enrollment as the other limitations in this section, must be enacted by Board policy (upon recommendation by the senate), usually as an "honors program." As with performance courses, honors courses cannot block student access to a degree and must be structured in a fair and equitable manner. The Model District Policy, however, does not specify any special program review or disproportionate impact studies for honors courses.

The criteria for enrollment in an honors program (really, its courses and sections) can be based on any fair and equitable criteria. Typically, students are expected to maintain a respectable GPA and continue in good status in the college. The catalog description of honors courses and the schedule of classes description of honors sections might be something like "enrollment limited to honors students; see page XXX." Again, page XXX or another readily available publication would tell students how to become part of the honors program. With this restriction, only those students identified by the college as part of the honors program--following the Board adopted policy--would be permitted to enroll in these courses and sections. A less restrictive process is to designate the courses or sections as "designed primarily for honors students; see page XXX." In this way, any student is free to enroll. Honors students may be identified as a cohort of students and then enrolled as a group in the course, but any remaining seats can then be filled through regular enrollment. This type of honors program does not limit enrollment and so takes no special Board action.

Some honors courses are uniquely designed, but most are modifications of existing courses. To what extent does the curriculum in an honors course or section differ from the regular course or section? If it is the section of the course which is designated as honors, then the required student outcomes are the same as for all sections. The "honors" nature is justified by optional topics beyond those in the course outline and/or the stimulation offered by being among more talented students. If it is the course which is honors, then a unique course outline must be written and presented to the curriculum committee. It is NOT sufficient to just turn in the same outline as for History 17 and call it honors History 17H! Each course must meet a distinct need in the curriculum and must have a unique course outline of record. History 17H would be expected to have more advanced student outcomes, a broader and deeper content, more challenging assignments, more invigorating instructional methods, more rigorous grading, and/or an exceptional text and instructional materials. Creation of honors courses is not to be undertaken lightly. A good deal of planning is involved, particularly because the creation of such new courses means that they must be articulated separately from the base course.

Blocks of courses or sections are identified to create a cohort of students who will all enroll together in that set of classes. Again, limiting enrollment in such blocks of classes cannot create a barrier to attainment of degrees and certificates. It is specified by the Model District Policy that, if part of a restricted elective for a degree, course outlines of block-enrolled sections must list that degree and the other courses on the restricted elective list as options for students. Typically, cohorts of students are part of a special program such as GAIN, PACE, or Puente. As with the other limitations, restricting enrollment in courses or sections for the specific use of students in these programs requires Board action. There is no specification of special reviews or impact studies for block enrollment.

To maintain fair and equitable practices, courses or sections for block enrollment are identified in the catalog and/or schedule with language such as "enrollment limited to those in the Puente program; see page XXX" where the mentioned page lets students know how to become part of the Puente program. With such a limitation in place, just students in the specified cohort may enroll. A less restrictive approach might say "designed for students in the Puente program; see page XXX." The students in the cohort would be enrolled as a block, and then remaining seats could be filled through regular enrollment.

It may be that enrollment in certain courses is restricted because of statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements. The Board policy in establishing such limitations need only cite the regulation or statute. Adoption by the board of a contract for an instructional agreement containing enrollment limitations is sufficient to put such contractual enrollment restrictions in place.

For example, Title 22, Section 101216(g)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, established by the state Department of Social Services, specifies that all those providing services in a child care facility--including volunteers doing so as part of a course--shall be in good health and shall pass a tuberculosis test.

Title 22, California Code of Regualtions: Division 12, Chapter 1

Child Day Care General Licensing Requirements 101216 Personnel Requirements

(g)(3) The good physical health of each volunteer who works in the facility shall be verified by:

A) A statement signed by each volunteer affirming that he/she is in good health.
B) A test for tuberculosis performed not more than one year prior to or seven days after initial presence in the facility.

A course such as "Early Childhood Development 12: Preschool Practicum" would then have a catalog description specifying "Enrollment limited to those in good physical health with TB clearance."

In another case, the college may have an instructional agreement with the county fire department to provide work experience training. The contract may specify the certificates such students should possess. A course such as "Fire Science 95: Work Experience" might then have a statement such as "Enrollment limited to those with a State Fire Fighter I Academy Certificate and an EMT Certificate." Note that courses designed for the employees of a particular public or private entity must still maintain open enrollment, Title 5 §58051 and 58051.5.

Again, these are NOT prerequisites. The only action required is that of the Board in citing appropriate laws or regulations or in accepting the terms of the contract. In its action the Board must specify the fair and equitable procedures to be used in implementing such limitations on enrollment. In approving outlines of record for such courses, the curriculum committee would merely record in its own minutes the citation of the applicable Board of Trustees minutes.

Prerequisites, by their very nature, assure that only students who have the necessary skills or knowledge are permitted to enroll in the target class. That notion is reinforced by Title 5 §55200(a): "‘Prerequisite’ means a condition of enrollment that a student is required to meet in order to demonstrate current readiness for enrollment in a course or educational program" (emphasis added). Thus colleges are required to develop mechanisms for enforcing enrollment blocks on students who do not have the stated prerequisites. The Model District Policy, Section I.E., says that such enforcement "must be done in some consistent manner and not left exclusively to the classroom instructor." It goes on to specify that "every attempt shall be made" to enforce such limitations prior to enrollment.

The most comprehensive method to enforce prerequisites is undoubtedly the use of computer checks. Most colleges now have student historical records on file and the capacity to flag enrollment requests which do not meet prerequisite criteria. In most cases it is a matter of searching the historical file to ascertain if the student has taken the particular prerequisite course.

Some situations can be a bit more complex, however. A quite common occurrence is that of a student who has taken the prerequisite course at another institution. It is extremely important that students are notified of the prerequisite blocking system both in writing when they apply and during orientation. Particularly, students with course work at other colleges should have their records on hand--for a variety of reasons, just one of which is to have their transcript analyzed for course work equivalent to college prerequisites. Of course, this implies that the college has a mechanism in place to do transcript analysis and enter the results in the computer to remove the blocks. It is good practice for community colleges within each region to have agreed-upon comparability of courses, particularly in math and English. This comparability might be displayed, for example, in grid form as shown below. With such information close at hand, it becomes a relatively straight-forward clerical task to find the comparable courses on the transcript. Those doing such an analysis should have computer clearance to enter the appropriate codes to clear the blocks.

When an assessment process is used as a prerequisite, the placement result must be entered into the computer and accessed during the prerequisite check. In the case of math and English, many colleges establish a number for the "steps in the ladder" of the sequence. This allows the assessment recommendation to be entered with the same code as the corresponding course in the sequence. Comparable courses at other colleges can also be entered with that coding system. For example, student A might have placed into the English sequence by taking an assessment test which, combined with the college-approved multiple measures, led to a placement code of 4 (fourth step in the English sequence; see above chart). Student B started with the entry level English course at the college and has now passed courses to earn the same placement code of 4. Student C took English courses at a neighboring college which were comparable to those at the present college to give the same placement code of 4. Student D challenged the prerequisite and demonstrated knowledge equivalent to a placement at level 4 of the English sequence. (See the next section for a discussion of student challenges.) By the way, these four options constitute the only legitimate ways to remove a prerequisite computer block. No one person, not a counselor, not the instructor of the course signing an add card, not the college president, can remove a waive a prerequisite. No one can allow a student to "walk by" a prerequisite.

Computer checks can be done on-line while the student is standing at the registration window. However, the extensive computer searching necessary can slow down the process considerably, for example, from 20 seconds or so to something like a minute or more. This may not seem like much, but when multiplied by the number of students registering, a considerable delay can result. When implementing such an on-line computer check system, it is prudent to budget for the hardware to produce a reasonable increase in computing speed and memory if processing time is anticipated to be a problem. Most colleges have put such systems in place gradually, testing the impact on the system and making adjustments accordingly. Because of the complex nature of the process, most colleges initially just use computer checks for a subset of courses, typically math, English, and ESL.

A common situation which arises when using computer blocks is the need to enroll students in the target course for the spring term while they are still in the midst of taking the prerequisite in the fall term. A common approach is to program the computer so that active enrollment in the prerequisite course also removes the block. Once grades are available, a computer run is done to identify those who did not succeed in the prerequisite course. Those students are involuntarily dropped from the course and sent a letter to that effect. It is imperative that students be warned of this consequence when enrolling. It will also change the students fee status, usually necessitating a refund. It is also a good idea to print out a roster of such involuntarily dropped students for use by the instructor of record. In this way, students who may mistakenly show up for class can be notified of the situation by the instructor.

An increasingly popular innovation is telephone registration. While programming prerequisite checks for on-line phone registration is certainly feasible, it is not often a high priority when instituting such a system. However, it is not unreasonable to plan for its addition to the system. Even without on-line blocks, the issue of prerequisite enforcement can still be addressed. It may be possible to trigger a recorded message when a student attempts to enroll in a course with a prerequisite. Depending on the approach favored by the college, the student could be instructed to come to the college in person to enroll in such classes or could be told that prerequisites will be checked at a later time, and, if found lacking, result in the student being involuntarily dropped.

An alternative for colleges with limited computer capacity--or limited staff resources to do the necessary programming--is to substitute batch runs at periods of low activity for on-line computer checks. It may be possible, for instance, to do a computer run each night to identify those who have enrolled without the necessary prerequisites. Those students are involuntarily dropped from the course and sent a letter to that effect. The disadvantage is that these students are no longer physically present to deal with the consequences: choosing a more appropriate class, paying the correct fee for the adjusted units, and so forth. It therefore becomes essential for the college to provide students with accessible information and adequate warning of the outcome of enrolling in a course for which they do not have the prerequisite. Those students will be involuntarily dropped from the course, may need to choose a more appropriate class, and will have to request a refund of fees.

Less effectively, a computer run could be done at the time rosters are printed, involuntarily dropping students who do not have the prerequisite, sending a letter to those involved, and printing a list of such students for each class affected to be sent to the instructor of record.

Non-automated prerequisite checks are allowed as long as they are applied consistently. Each student entering a given course should be checked for prerequisites in the same manner. Probably the most common non-computer method in use is that of roster checking. In this method the instructor checks the printed roster against a record of those students who have met the prerequisite. Those who do not are identified and informed by the instructor on the first day of class. If this system is to work effectively, the college must provide a reliable record of students who are qualified for courses with prerequisites. Several examples may help to illustrate the point. College A has a complete historical data base of student grades but no automated computer blocking mechanism. Instructors teaching classes with prerequisites, do, however, have access to the system and can query the data base as to whether or not students on their roster have met the prerequisite. (In this example, instructors have a "right to know" because they are enforcing the college policy on prerequisites.) College B maintains a data base of English course grades and assessment results in the division office. Students are required to get a print out authorizing their enrollment in the appropriate English class and present that print out at registration. College C also maintains an English data base in the division office but makes it available only to English instructors for roster checks. College D has a "paper data base" consisting of an alphabetical print out of students who have either taken English or the assessment and the appropriate placement level. College E has a paper data base that consists of photocopies of past student grades and assessment results. Instructors must leaf through these to ascertain the prerequisite status of their students. As you can tell, examples A to E vary from the more to the less technological and so also gradually become less consistent and place a greater burden on the classroom instructor. Such departmental or divisional roster checks tread perilously close to violating the Model District Policy statement that prerequisite enforcement be "not left exclusively to the classroom instructor." They also do not follow the Model District Policy guideline that "every effort be made" to check prerequisites prior to enrollment. More than that, instructors checks allow the instructor access to the level of preparation of the individual students. This opens the instructor--and the college--to claims of prejudicial or discriminatory behavior if this information is used to the detriment of the student. They do, however, meet the letter of the regulation, Title 5 §55202(g).

The determination of whether a student meets a prerequisite shall be made prior to his or her enrollment in the course requiring the prerequisite, provided, however, that enrollment may be permitted pending verification that the student has met the prerequisite or corequisite. If the verification shows that the student has failed to meet the prerequisite, the student may be involuntarily dropped from the course if the applicable enrollment fees are promptly refunded . . . .

The Board policy on prerequisites must include the bases and process for an student to challenge a prerequisite [Title 5 §55201(b)(4)]. The grounds for a student to challenge a prerequisite are set forth in Title 5 §55201(f):

1) the prerequisite has not been established following the district’s policy;
2) the prerequisite has not been established in accord with Title 5;
3) the prerequisite is discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner;
4) the student can demonstrate knowledge equivalent to the prerequisite; and
5) the student progress is unduly delayed because the prerequisite course is not reasonably available.

The regulation points out that "the student shall bear the initial burden of showing that grounds exist for the challenge." The college will resolve the challenge in a "timely manner" and, if the challenge is upheld, allow the student to enroll in the class. The Model District Policy, in section I.B.1., specifies that the challenge be resolved within 5 days and that a seat in the class, if available, be held for the student for that time. The Model District Policy also states that the evaluation of equivalent knowledge be done by a faculty member in the discipline but, if possible, not by the instructor of the section of the course into which the student is attempting to enroll. The Policy also states that, when an appeal is decided by a single person rather than a committee, the student be given the right to an appeal.

Most colleges have met the requirement for a student challenge process with:

1) a Board policy,
2) a detailed process, and
3) a form for the student to initiate the process. Adequate information about the challenge process must be in the catalog and schedule of classes.

It is good practice to publish the information in the student handbook, or any other such written material, and to present the concept of prerequisites and the student right to challenge during orientation. It is NOT good practice to just hand students a challenge form. This is a complex issue which is best covered by a one-on-one discussion with a competent staff member. Many times students pursue the challenge because they are uninformed about the prerequisite process, and a bit of sensible conversation can settle the matter without initiating a time-consuming paper process. It is a good idea to have the contact staff person be in an accessible office. Commonly, students are asked to go to the matriculation office or to the appropriate division office.

The majority of challenges cite equivalent knowledge as the basis. In these cases the form and attached documentation are reviewed by a faculty member who teaches the course which has the prerequisite being challenged. Because such challenges often occur during registration periods when classes are not in session, it is important for the office where the student made first contact to get in touch with the appropriate faculty member as soon as possible. Most instructors recognize the importance of having qualified students in their classes and are more than willing to take the time to drop by the college and go over the documentation. Some areas where challenges are common, such as English, might want to form a committee to become well aware of the process and to stand available to review challenges.

The "timely manner" required in Title 5 to settle the challenge is refined to "five working days" by the Model District Policy. Many colleges also require the challenge to be filed before the first day of class. If the challenge is filed later than that, or there is no space available in the class, the challenge establishes the student’s eligibility to enroll in the course for the next term.

In evaluating equivalent knowledge, instructors must be consistent in applying standards. For example, a common challenge on equivalent knowledge is that of a computer science sequence for which a student submits materials related to work experience in the field. If one student is judged to have met the prerequisite by being an experienced programmer, the next such challenger must also. It is good practice for discipline faculty to have a written description of the kind of evidence which has been accepted as precedent for establishing equivalent knowledge. It may even be possible for the person first contacted by the student to relate the substance of this past practice to the student to aid in the preparation of documentation.

A note of caution is appropriate here. Granting a student request to waive a prerequisite on the basis of equivalent knowledge does NOT give the student academic credit for that course. For example, a student may be allowed to enroll in French 3 by demonstrating knowledge equivalent to French 2, but no credit for French 2 will be granted. If the students needs credit for French 2, to meet degree or transfer requirements for example, it might be more appropriate to advise the student to pursue the college’s credit by examination process. If successful, French 2 would appear on the student’s transcript with the appropriate units AND the student would also meet the prerequisite for French 3.

When more than one faculty member is not available to review a challenge, the student has the right to an appeal. This may be a subsequent review by another faculty member on a content basis or by an administrator on a process basis. It is good practice for the instructor(s) doing the review to not be the instructor of record for the section of the course into which the student is asking to be placed. When this is not possible, it is a good idea for the initial contact person to remove any references to the identity of the student. If measures such as these are not taken, a situation may develop in which the student feels that knowledge about the challenge is being used in a prejudicial or discriminatory manner by the instructor in the class. Where possible, routine practices should remove even the possibility of discrimination.

This section will address various ways which colleges have found to be effective in putting the prerequisite requirements into place. At this point in time, colleges are at various stages of implementation and not all of this will be relevant to each situation. Even if your college is well into the prerequisite process, some of the discussion of the early stages may give you hints for improvement.

If a college has not initiated a comprehensive plan to meet the standards, a prerequisite team should be considered to do the work needed. Listed below are some key functions of those who might be on the team.

• Faculty Curriculum Committee Chair or Co-chair
  • Because the institution of prerequisites, co requisites, and advisories requires Curriculum Committee review and changes in the course outline of record, the role of the committee chair is central.
    
    
• Chief Instructional Officer (or administrator charged with curriculum support)
  • Institutional support for the prerequisite process is essential. Advancement of the needed policies, assignment of classified staff and reassigned time for faculty to do the work requires administrative support. Changes in the catalog and schedule are substantive and need administrative coordination.
    
    
• Matriculation Coordinator
  • Prerequisites affect the implementation of almost all of the other seven components of matriculation. In addition, the strategies developed for implementation of prerequisites must be included in the matriculation plan. In areas where deviations from the Model District Policy are sought, the coordinator can work with the Chancellor’s Office to obtain approval. Prerequisite compliance is maintained through the matriculation site visit process for which the matriculation coordinator is the point person.
    
    
• Institutional Researcher
  • Prerequisites require both a content review and a data collection process, areas of expertise of the institutional researcher. Assessment validation, also a function of the researcher, is required before placement results can be used as prerequisites.
    
    
• Counseling Professional (dean of counseling or a counseling faculty member)
  • Coordination with student services is key for components such as orientation, multiple measures and student rights.
    
    
• Management Information Systems (MIS) Professional
  • Computer blocks are an efficient tool for prerequisite enforcement and require good understanding of the prerequisite process on the part of those setting up the system.

After the team becomes well informed about the Title 5 regulations and the Model District Policy, a Board Policy should be constructed. Section 55201(b) gives the minimum areas such a policy should address:

• a process for establishing prerequisites, co requisites, and advisories, such process to require that the prerequisite or co requisite be "necessary and appropriate for achieving the purpose for which it is being established;"
• specification of the level of scrutiny to be applied, minimally a content review and specifically data collection and analysis for communication and computation skills used as prerequisites or corequisites;
• procedures to assure that courses with prerequisites or corequisites are taught to the course outline; and
• a process for review at least every six years.

The next step is typically identification of the prerequisites, corequisites, advisories, and other limitations on enrollment currently in use, that is, listed in the catalog. Because colleges have been given six years (through November 4, 1999) to review legally established prerequisites (see the list below), it is not necessary to immediately toss out the entire collection of prerequisites. Those which do not meet Title 5 standards should be removed, as well as those approved subsequent to the effective date of the new regulations (October 1, 1993) which were not reviewed in accord with the new regulations. Those which were "grand parented" and so do not need to be reviewed until November 4, 1999 are specified in Title 5 §55201(d) as:

1) those established before July 6, 1990, and are part of a sequence of degree-applicable courses within a discipline; or
2) those established between 7/6/90 and 10/1/93 which met the requirements of the regulations at the time; or
3) those required by statute or regulation; or
4) those part of a lab-lecture corequisite pair; or
5) those required by four year institutions.

The result will be two lists: those which will immediately be removed from the catalog and not enforced and those which can stay in place but will require review within six years.

It may also be that, in the joint opinion of discipline faculty and the curriculum committee, some prerequisites are not really needed. It is a good idea to send out the list of prerequisites which will need to be reviewed to the faculty with a recommendation that they consider which among them should be continued and undergo the new review process. By responding in writing to the curriculum committee stating those prerequisites which can be dropped and those which can be converted to advisories, the committee can act to refine the current needs of the college in terms of prerequisites needed to maintain academic standards in its courses and programs. The result will be a refined, and most likely significantly reduced, list of prerequisites, corequisites, advisories, and other limitations which will need to be reviewed.

In reviewing the need for prerequisites, the discipline faculty and the curriculum committee should consider the available alternatives to prerequisites. It may be that student success can be enhanced without the need to limit access through prerequisites. Faculty may wish to enrich those portions of the course content which are taught early in the term and serve to provide foundation skills for learning material taught subsequently. Many of us realize that student success is not just dependent on previous skills but is connected to a whole host of characteristics including study skills particular to the subject, access to study time and place, and an encouraging atmosphere both in the classroom and outside. As a result, many of us have instituted practices such as tutorials, study groups, math/writing/you-name-it labs, review sessions, mastery learning styles, classroom research, and so on. It may very well be that, through dedication to these techniques, students who enter our courses poorly prepared can nonetheless finish them having achieved the stated student outcomes.

While this initial refining of needed prerequisites is occurring, the team can work on setting up policies and procedures for the process. These include:

• content review;
• data collection and analysis;
• student challenges;
• health and safety;
• program prerequisites and enrollment practices;
• other limitations: performance, honors, and block enrolled courses; and
• identifying regulatory, statutory, or contractual limitations.
  

Many colleges find it useful to design forms for each of these functions and to gather the procedures and forms into a "prerequisite guide" to assist faculty in the process. Consideration of the methods of enforcement to be used for prerequisites should take place at this time as well.

Of course, not all of these policies can be put in effect immediately and not all prerequisites can be reviewed at once. Priority should first be given to stopping illegal practices. Then a time line should be developed