Academic Senate
2011-2012 

Home

Student Learning
Outcomes

Let's Talk About
Teaching and Learning

Board Policy
Review

The Ed
Center

Flex Day
Info

Committees

President's Notes

 

November 3, 2011

 

College Council

 

AAAG

Voted on faculty position prioritization. Results are:

1. Psychology

2. Math

3. ASL

4. Sociology

5. Counselor

6. Reading/Writing

7. Librarian

8. Anatomy/Physiology

9. Women's studies

10. Math (new position)

11. Entrepreneurship

12. Physics/Astronomy

13. Graphic/Fine Arts

14. Director, Intl Studies

15. Women's Athletics Coach

16. Theater Arts

 

Commented on the Plan to Respond to ACCJC Recommendations #1-3 (SLOs)

-See below under MPC SLO Committee

 

Commented and suggested revised language on Board Policy 3040

-See below under Board Policies

 

MPC SLO Committee

AAAG asked that language addressing CTE students be added to the section in institutional SLOs. It turns out that Business and Computer Science believes that using GEOs and the institutional SLOs does not address CTE students. During an MPC SLO Committee meeting attended by Leandro Castillo, the committee pointed out that because CTE students also take GE courses if they are pursuing a degree. The people that the GEOs do not address are those students who pursue individual classes or a certificate. the SLO Committee pointed out that when the GEO plan was first proposed there was a lot of dialog about this issue. It was decided that the institutional SLOs would most appropriately apply to those students who spend a few semesters at the institution engaging in a spectrum of the instruction it offers before *institutional* SLOs would be attained.

 

The proposed revised language is here:

ACCJC Recommendation #1

Language

In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline and building upon the progress made in identifying student learning outcomes for nearly all courses, programs, certificates and degrees, the team recommends that the college complete the process of assessment to guide improvement of student learning (IIA.1 and IIA.2).

 

Progress So Far

The institution has made much progress since receiving the recommendations in March 2010. These accomplishments include the following:

 

·         Continued to communicate the philosophy of SLOs at MPC as an emphasis on the dialog and encouragement for faculty members to assess student attainment of learning outcomes in any way they think is most appropriate

·         Engaged in Program Reflections dialog at the Fall 2010, Spring 2011, and Fall 2011 flex day events

·         Decided to use the General Education Outcomes (GEOs) as the institutional outcomes because these course-level outcomes reach those students who engage with a variety of the institution’s offerings for a number of semesters as they pursue CTE and transfer degrees

·         Developed an explanation of SLOs that is now included in the faculty handbook

·         Improved the alignment between Program Reflections and the Program Review Annual Update in Academic Affairs and Student Services

 

MPC Board of Trustees

Fred's Prezi to Board of Trustees Oct 25, 2011

Doug's ppt presentation to Board of Trustees Oct 25, 2011

Alan Haffa's address to the Board of Trustees Nov 2, 3011


Board decided to hold a special meeting 9 am Wednesday Nov 2 to consider a resolution responding to the SSTF recommendations

This is a very positive result of our presentation.

 

RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 1143 (Chapter 409, Statues of 2010) required the

California Community Colleges Board of Governors to establish a panel to examine best

practices for promoting student success and then to adopt a plan for improving degree and

completion rates within the California community colleges; and

 

WHEREAS, a Task Force was named by the Board of Governors to fulfill these

responsibilities which has published a set of recommendations known as the California

Community Colleges Task Force on Student Success Report [September 2011] for consideration

by the Board of Governors; and

 

WHEREAS, the Task Force has provided a limited period of six weeks for the college

constituencies to provide feedback on the recommendations; and

 

WHEREAS, the recommendations include many that could greatly benefit students; and

 

WHEREAS, the Task Force is scheduled to present its final recommendations to the

Board of Governors in January 2012; and

 

WHEREAS, the Student Success Report contains recommendations that have the

potential of substantially changing the mission and scope of course offerings of the California

Community Colleges, the assessment standards for community college courses, and the funding

model of California community colleges that will significantly impact individual colleges, their

students, and the communities they serve;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Monterey Peninsula Community College

District Governing Board strongly urges the California Community Colleges Board of Governors

to withhold its adoption of and defer any implementation of recommendations from the

California Community Colleges Task Force on Student Success Report until detailed analyses

can be conducted to determine the consequences of each recommendation; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Monterey Peninsula Community College

District Governing Board recommends that these analyses be conducted with sufficient time and

involvement of California community college professionals and representatives of the

communities they serve to ensure a comprehensive, inclusive result that is in the best interests of

the California community colleges and California residents.

 

 

ASCCC Report --SSTF

Minutes from the Oct 21 Area B meeting are available.

Key paragraph about the SSTF is reproduced here (bold is mine):

a.     Updates SSTF draft. Jane spoke on the issues since she was present at the meetings. There is a rostrum article coming out in December. Jane wrote an article that discusses that faculty did not necessarily agree with all of the outcomes.  Initially the SSTF listened to guest lecturers. There are quite a few recommendations that are inline with ASCCC positions and there are several that are inline with something that the ASCCC would support. We need to pick our battles. Jane spoke at a hearing with Senator Liu. Jane pointed out there are certainly parts that we can agree with but we need some time to discuss.  At plenary, the chancellor and the facilitator will present the SSTF recommendations and then there will be a panel and breakouts. The ASCCC is taking a lot of time and effort on this matter. Locally it is important that you have the discussions on your campus. And, go to the website and make comments from your senate. (Common assessment, e-transcripts, alignment between the colleges and with high schools.    There is a lot of pressure for performance based funding.)  Attendees asked what are the 4 or 5 talking points on this – Beth said it is under development right now and documents are being developed. There are some resolutions in your packet on this matter.  The ASCCC is trying to pull together a comprehensive response.  CCA has already published their response to the SSTF recommendation from their perspective.  Other attendees asked questions and discussion ensued. Jane made it clear that we should continue in the dialog. Do everything you can to respond and participate in the discussion.

Fred's Prezi to Board of Trustees Oct 25, 2011

Doug's ppt presentation to Board of Trustees Oct 25, 2011

Alan Haffa's address to the Board of Trustees Nov 2, 3011

 

CCA's Response to the SSTF Recommendations

CCCI Response to the SSTF Recommendations

ASCCC Talking Points on the SSTF Recommendations 10-25-11

 

 

 

 

ASCCC -- Repeatability vs Repetition

 

Repeatability -- The topic for Nov 3 Repetition -- done deal; no discussion
This is for certain courses that have been defined as "repeatable" based on pedagogy.
Current T5 (which was recently revised in this area) has four "takes" of a course, or family of courses, that are designed as "activity" or "repeatable" courses.

Under pressure from the Chancellor's and Legislative Analyst offices, the ASCCC is recommending changes that define repeatability based on discipline.

The fear is that if faculty don't put forth recommendations, the BOG will enact some version of the recommendations from the LAO.
LAO report
The SSTF Recommendations are another vision of the future

Those recommendations are here. Endorsement will be voted on at the Fall Plenary.
Recommendations Regarding Repeatability

Recommendations can then be taken to the Consultation Council and on to the Board of Governors. We understand that if these recommendations are not approved, then the ASCCC, representing the faculty, will have no way to recommend any changes.

More info below...

Three “Takes” of a Course: Limiting Withdrawals and Repetition to Alleviate Substandard Grades

by Beth Smith, ASCCC Vice President

 

This is a done deal. Three "takes" no matter what the grade: F, D, C, W, NC, whatever. No grandfathering.

 

The goal is to now to educate students and faculty about these new regulations and make recommendations to the institution to make changes so that these new regulations cause as little disruption to students' lives as possible.

 

See the linked paper for implications and ideas.

 

 

Repeatability -- Background Documents

 

Resolutions for discussion on Nov 3, 2011 at the ASCCC Plenary

This document includes 7 new resolutions and 2 amendments, all of which seek to lessen the restrictions on repeatability and maximum number of courses or units. They will probably "separate the resolves" for many of these.

 

The basic question is to vote up or down the ASCCC Recommendations Regarding Repeatability

and to provide our ASCCC delegate, Kathleen Clark, some indication on how to vote.

 

Fred's Suggestion:

Direct Kathleen to learn from discussions, breakouts, plenary debates, and ASCCC leadership, and vote appropriately so that CCC faculty members vet a set of viable recommendations for ASCCC leadership to bring to the BOG/Consultation Council. This route may (will probably) include voting for amendments and new resolutions that lessen the restrictions on repeatability and maximum number of classes/units in PE, the Arts, and CTE.

(Fred’s opinion/prediction: resolutions and amendments that lessen restrictions will pass. The body will then vote on the amended recommendations. )

 

Opinions, conversations, and e-mail exchanges:

Input from Business and Computer Science faculty  -- Oct 31, 2011
Robynn Smith #2 -- Oct 31, 2011

Lyndon Schutzler -- long e-mail exchange with Fred starting on Oct 29, 2011

Robynn Smith letter regarding repeatability at MPC Oct 25, 2011

More background #2: More info from Erik Shearer responding to Fred's question about what will happen if these recommendations are voted down, Oct 26, 2011

More background #1: Conversation between Erik Shearer (who was on the committee that developed the resolutions) and Mark Majarian, through the Curriculum list-serve e-mail, October 21, 2011

 

 

Board Policy

The Executive Committee is asking you to bring this policy to your divisions for comment NOW, so that we can have an informed discussion on November 3.

PACC (click here if the links below don't work)

Proposed BP 3040 --Community Service Program

Existing BP 3040

 

AAAG (motion from John Anderson) proposed wording :

"The College will strive to enhance cultural and personal enrichment opportunities for the community through its credit and non-credit curricular offerings.  In addition, MPC may offer, through a community services program, a varied schedule of short courses, concerts, speakers, films and other activities, of the highest possible quality and merit."

 

Version we are responding to:

"As a part of its curricula and programs, the College will strive to enhance cultural and personal enrichment opportunities for the community by offering through a Community Services program, a varied schedule of short courses, concerts, speakers, films and other activities, of the highest possible quality and merit."

 

 

E-mail from Mike Gilmartin providing background for the Community Service board policy:

Fred,

 

This is mainly a cleanup of the original board policy that was approved in 1988.  We had not looked at this in quite a long time and we wanted to make sure it was up to date.  So, I reviewed the language that the League version of the policy had and made a few tweaks to our policy.  I also tried to make the language clearer in a few places especially when it comes to the funding of these programs.  I don’t see any of this as major changes from the original policy.  We do want this policy to be current and in place in case we decide to move forward with community service in the future. Let me know if you have specific questions.

 

Michael

 

 

ASCCC SLO Committee