Academic Senate


Student Learning


Board Policy

Basic Skills

Flex Day



President's Notes


October 18, 2012


Fred went to the RP Group Strengthening Student Success (Assessalot) conference a couple of weeks ago. He accepted his state-wide award. It was actually a very touching experience. A lot of people spoke to me about it and expressed appreciation for the things I had to say at the conference and at previous conferences. Main point is that there are many ways address the SLO issue.

Finally, we often speak of this meeting in derogatory terms (i.e., "assessalot"), but I think that this group of people truly wants to improve the success of students. A common refrain was that in order to best use any type of data, you need to see the faces of your students in the data. I think this is another way of saying that all data needs context, and without the context, the data is difficult, if not impossible, to use.

My Comments to the group upon receipt of the Power Award



Area B meeting is tomorrow, Oct 19 in Alameda.

See agenda item today.



Faculty position requests were described, and voted upon.

Results in order of priority


Also discussed a variety of cost-cutting measures. Elimination of Early Spring got a lot of play.


College Council

Approved the BSI Chancellor's report.

Signed copy, including a cover letter from Doug addressing faculty concerns, was submitted to the Chancellor's Offfice

Reactions to the kinds of data currently included in the report as expressed at the meeting were extremely diverse. They ranged from conviction that this narrow set of data does not tell the whole story and cannot be used as a sole metric of success, to the suggestion that if MPC continues to be unsuccessful with this effort that the institution consider BSI a bad investment and put its money elsewhere.


SLO Stuff

There were slight revisions to the Program Reflections form. These reflect a greater desire for departments/divisions to at least write down specific SLOs that they are investigating for the semester.

Program Reflections for Spring 2013



Technology Committee


The membership shall consist of 10 voting individuals, two of whom are to be from Administration including the IT Director, and an additional 8 representing functional areas to be covered (see below). One member can cover one or more functions depending on their experience.

         3 chosen by Academic Senate

         3 chosen by MPCEA

         1 chosen from ASMPC

         1 identified by the other 9 committee members.

Additional resource people can be asked to attend specific meetings or all meetings as non-voting experts or non-voting members.


Suggested list of functional representation which includes:

a.       Distance Learning technology, (Mary Johnson)

b.       Open computer labs (Library, ESSC, etc.), (Erik McDonald)

c.        Alternative platforms and mobile computing, (Kevin Raskoff)

d.       Adaptive technology for students with disabilities, (Alexis Copeland)

e.        Classroom instructional technology (smart classrooms & instructional computer labs), (Steve Bruenner)

f.        Specialized computer instruction (CTE, Auto Tech, Physics, etc.), (Tom Clifton)

g.        Staff use of technology for Student Services, Academic Affairs, and Administrative Services,

h.       Institutional technology (data center, infrastructure, telephone & paging, etc.)

i.         Website technology.


Members should plan to serve two-year terms. Members who miss three consecutive meetings without notifying the chairperson(s) shall be considered inactive.  The appointing group will be asked to submit a new nominee to replace any inactive members.


Board Meetings

Board meetings are on Wednesday when I teach. Would anybody else like to present our musings to them?