Nov 6, 2014
Notes from Oct 16, 2014
Life-Long Learning (From Oct 14)
Quite an extensive conversation about the Life-long Learning definition on what was deemed a first reading.
Lifelong learners are those students who seek some combination of personal fulfillment and enterprise, employability and workplace adaptability, and active citizenship and social inclusion, and who have not identified certificate, degree or transfer as their immediate educational goal.
The key words were "employability and workplace adaptability". Some thought that these words were edging into the CTE area of our mission. DJ, for example, thought that anybody who took even one or two networking courses were CTE students. Micheal Gilmartin recognized that many students are meeting their own goals by taking one or two courses, and many of these students are trying to improve their employability or get a better job. These seemed like CTE students to him. The conversation went to those people who are trying to improve their employability by taking courses that are not within our traditional CTE curriculum, like speech communication, or a writing class, or whatever.
Mike Gilmartin suggested that MPC needs a broader understanding of CTE in general, and suggested a similar exercise of coming up with a definition of CTE students.
In the end, it seemed people were comfortable with the definition as is, but agreed with Mike that a similar exercise for CTE would be valuable.
From Oct 28
Life-Long Learning: College Council endorsed the definition of Life-long learning. This definition will be presented to the board at a future meeting.
Budget Committee: In a discussion that Earl joined via telephone, College Council talked about the Budget Committee and how to re-engineer it. Related to this conversation is the idea to replace the Spring Program Reflections session with an Action Plan/Annual Update session at flex days. This would enable a more informed development of the budget and integrate more smoothly into budget development timelines.
AAAG (met October 29)
Prioritized faculty positions:
This ranking will be forwarded to College Council to make a recommendation to the Superintendent/President
I received the following email about the sue of paraprofessionals in student services.
Julie Adams [mailto:julie@ASCCC.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:27 AM
Subject: Defining the Role of Paraprofessionals in a New Age of Student Support Services
Dear Senate Presidents and CSSOs,
As colleges completed their respective Student Support Services Plans (SSSPs), due October 17, 2014, the discussion of whether colleges should consider other personnel, specifically paraprofessionals, to help in the delivery of counseling services has been challenging. Though this question has surfaced more prominently in recent months, the discussion is not new. One can peruse the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges resolution database and find a number of resolutions regarding paraprofessionals and most recently an updated paper on the issue. In light of the recent focus on SSSPs, colleges should now engage both counseling and instructional faculty in a robust conversation about clarifying the roles between counseling faculty and paraprofessionals.
In Spring 2012, the ASCCC adopted an updated paper titled The Role of Counseling Faculty and Delivery of Counseling Services in the California Community Colleges. This paper covers the current minimum qualifications for counseling faculty, suggested practices on the use of technological solutions in the delivery of counseling services, and appropriate use of paraprofessionals and faculty advisors. Though the paper provides an excellent foundation and a possible list of activities for the use of paraprofessionals, the field is still calling for more specification in certain areas. These topics include the following:
· Working parameters given the new Title 5 language
The new Title 5 language §55524 (Student Education Plan) (b) spells out “Districts or colleges shall provide students with an opportunity to develop student education plans.” It does not continue to specify who is responsible for the provision of student education plans. One might therefore ask whether the minimum responsibilities of paraprofessionals be defined in Title 5.
· Which colleges are using or piloting the use of paraprofessionals?
Colleges are seeking answers to the important questions of how, what, and when paraprofessionals are delivering student education plan services and whether those colleges utilizing paraprofessionals have any data on this delivery method.
The ASCCC Transfer, Articulation, and Student Services Committee (TASSC) will be investigating these questions. The committee also needs your assistance. If your college or district has been using or will be using paraprofessionals, please share the job description and any campus research about the effectiveness, satisfaction, or efficiencies of the various delivery modalities of education plans. The TASSC plans to share more with the field in the near future. All materials can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cynthia Rico, Ed.D.
Transfer, Articulation, and Student Services Committee Chair
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
One Capitol Mall, Suite 340, Sacramento, CA 95814
phone: 916.445.4753 fax: 916.323.9867
I asked Mike Torres, LaRon Johnson, and Eric Ogata about this issue. Here's what LaRon had to say about it. I think his response is very appropriate.
All of the counselors pretty much support the entire Role of Counseling Faculty document. In regards to paraprofessionals, I think the following statement from Page 8 is perfectly stated:
While the specific qualifications for a given position might differ, three crucial issues must be considered when developing a job description: first, with the full participation of counseling faculty, the competencies expected of paraprofessionals need to be explicitly defined; second, paraprofessionals need to be trained and supervised carefully with full participation of counseling faculty; and last, that paraprofessionals not be expected or allowed to perform tasks beyond their job duties and specified qualifications.
I’m not sure if this should be an Academic Senate agenda item since it hasn’t been an issue on our campus. However, if the above statement is not supported by our administration and the hiring of paraprofessionals without faculty input is being considered, it should certainly be addressed at Academic Senate.
Just my two cents.
Need a point person if we want this to move forward.