Feb 17 2011
Elections in Spring 2011
From the Academic Senate Bylaws:
Section 2. Election of Senators
Academic senators are to be
elected for a term of three years so that one third of the academic senate is
elected each academic year. The
executive board of the senate, with the senate's consent, shall communicate the
necessary staggered schedule, which will be conveyed to the individual areas or
divisions listed in Art. III, I. b. by February
1st of each year.
Following the staggered
schedule, each of the areas or divisions listed in Art.
III. I.b. shall entertain nominations and elect its senator from its own
faculty members, in whatever manner it chooses. Senate representatives shall be
selected by March 1st of each year.
The staggered schedule is here:
The following areas should have elections to elect an
Academic Senate representative. There are no term limits for Academic Senate
Division or Area
We agreed on this at the Dec 2, 2010 meeting, and I have
completed this task:
The Academic Senate President, as an agent of the executive
board of the Academic Senate, communicate to appropriate division chairs, deans,
directors or coordinators of these
divisions/areas the necessary staggered schedule and the need for this selection
to take place.
Request for "problematic" statewide regulations
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: Title 5 Survey
Dear Local Senate Presidents and Curriculum Chairs:
Futures Committee is working to address Resolution 7.20 (F09) which asks that we
“Work with the Consultation Council to identify regulations that are universally
problematic and bring those regulations back to the body for further
consideration.” You are asked to consider the topic broadly, considering what
statewide regulations currently impede your ability to effectively serve your
communities. The survey that follows requests your identifying information and
simply asks two questions “What statewide regulations would you like to see
changed, and how?” and “Are there currently local interpretations of statewide
regulations that you find problematic and would like to see modified? Please
explain your answer.” You may complete this on your own, or seek input from your
senate and/or curriculum committee. We look forward to gathering and sharing the
input received. Please respond to this survey no later than February 28, 2011.
California Higher Education Ad Hoc Committee
10_07 - Limitations on Enrollment for Cohorts of Students.pdf
07-12 - Assigning Fail or I Grades due to Academic Dishonesty.pdf
Pertinent language from the 2010-2011 MPC
We need to make our colleagues aware of these issues.
Plagiarism detection is a related issue; some MPC faculty have used
Background for the Legal Opinions
From the 2010-2011 MPC Catalog, pp. 23-24.
Plagiarism and Cheating
Academic honesty is a cornerstone of the educational
community; therefore, students are expected to understand the standards of
academic honesty as they pertain to students’ behavior in the classroom.
It is important for students to acknowledge sources that are
used for completing classroom assignments. Plagiarism is a form of academic
Plagiarism may be any one of the following:
Verbatim copying without proper documentation of the source(s).
Paraphrasing without proper documentation of the source(s).
Unacknowledged appropriation of information or ideas from someone else.
If students have any questions about these forms of
plagiarism or about an assignment they are preparing, they should ask their
instructor for clarification rather than risk unintentional plagiarism.
It is important for students to act in an honest and
trustworthy manner. Work performed on examinations or other forms of evaluation
must represent an individual’s own work, knowledge and experience of the subject
matter. Students are expected to follow the classroom rules established by the
Cheating may be any one of the following:
Unauthorized looking at or procuring information from any unauthorized sources
or from another student’s work during an examination or from any work that will
be graded or given points.
Unauthorized acquiring, reading or learning of test questions prior to the
testing date and time.
Changing any portion of a returned graded test or
report and resubmitting it as an original work to be regraded.
Presenting the work of another as one’s own for a grade or points.
Knowingly assisting another student in cheating.
This list is not all-inclusive and the list itself is not
meant to limit the definition of cheating to just these items mentioned.
The disciplinary action for cheating or plagiarism is up to
the discretion of the instructor. The instructor may select one or more of the
an oral or written notification and warn the student that further acts of this
sort will result in additional disciplinary action.
an "NP" or a failing grade ("F") or "0" for the assignment in question.
the student to the Vice President for Student Services for disciplinary action.
Accreditation Report -- "SLOs"
1. In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline and building upon the
progress made in identifying student learning outcomes for nearly all courses,
program, 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).
2. In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline, the team recommends the
college completes the process of identifying course level
student learning outcomes and ensures student information is clear, that
SLOs are described, and that students receive syllabi
reflective of the identified student learning outcomes (IIA.2 and
3. In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline, the team recommends the
college take appropriate steps to ensure that faculty and others directly
responsible for student progress toward achieving stated learning outcomes have,
as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing
those learning outcomes, and that this standard is achieved by the 2012 deadline
established by the ACCJC (IIIA.1c).
4. To increase effectiveness of distance education offerings, the team
recommends the college follow through with a plan to design an evaluation
process and evaluation tool to provide students an opportunity to evaluate the
learning experience specific to online courses (IIA.2 and IIB.3a). Further, the
team recommends that the Distance Education Task Force develop clear protocols
and strategic goals for distance education learners that meet the
institutional outcomes of the college and ACCJC policy on distance
education (IIA.1, IIA.2 and IIA.6).
The team notes and encourages the college to continue to develop and
implement a more effective and clearer strategy for integrating student learning
outcomes with planning, research and resource allocation efforts. The process
should contain an evaluation and improvement component for all educational,
academic support, fiscal, technological and human resources.
The emphasis on student learning is apparent and the college
has begun to identify student learning outcomes for courses, career and
technical programs and general education requirements. While it is attempting to
fulfill its mission of student learning, the college has further work to
do in assessing learning outcomes and using assessment results for improving
instruction in all college divisions and departments. (p. 16)
The 2009 changes to the instructional program review template to include
reflection documents have the potential to provide future evidence about student
learning and learning outcomes, as does the emerging work in Student Services to
articulate and assess student learning outcome accomplishments. Campus
interviews confirm that the college does not report student learning
outcome assessment to a wide audience on campus or to the public. (p.
The college recently adopted a software program to facilitate
the curriculum process. Within that system course level objectives and student
learning outcomes are documented independently. Through interviews with faculty
in multiple venues, the team found evidence that it is unclear to the
faculty at large what the difference is, if any, between course level objectives
and course level student learning outcomes. At this point, it is still
voluntary whether course level SLOs are included in the students’ course
syllabi. Also, the assessment method that faculty choose to use and the results
of that assessment are not shared with the institution; rather, they are kept at
the faculty member or department level. The program review and action
plans may reflect the aggregate results of assessment; however, discrete results
need to be shared at the course and program level for quality improvement
purposes (IIA.1c, IIA.2a, IIA.2b, and IIA.6). (p. 25)
Board Resolution in Support of Expediting Transfer
I received this proposed resolution last week from CCLC with the recommendation
that it be presented to our Governing Board for adoption. As I read the
document, I was uncomfortable in presenting it to the Board without Senate
review. While the statewide Academic Senate is collaborating with the overall
process of developing the implementation plans, I wanted to offer the
opportunity for the MPC Senate to review this language before presenting it to
our Board. Further, as you know, Carsbia is participating on the SB 1440
Task Force, and I would want his feedback on this language as well.
As a result, I will hold any consideration by our Board until at least the March
2011 meeting. Please take steps to include discussion of the
language of this resolution in time for consideration for that agenda. I am not
asking you to specifically take action on the actual resolution, only give
comment on its language and whether you would want to make comment at the Board
meeting if it is ultimately presented for adoption.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Samantha DeMelo on Behalf of Scott Lay
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:02 AM
To: Douglas Garrison
Subject: Resolution in Support of Expeditious Approval of SB 1440
Chief Executive Officers
Boards of Trustees
From: Scott Lay
Community College League
Resolution in Support of Expeditious Approval of SB
1440 (AA for Transfer) Model Curricula
SB 1440 (Padilla) was enacted last year to require
that the California State University admit community
college transfer students who have earned an “AA for
transfer” degree, effective Fall 2011. The
bill specifies the units needed and the
Academic Senate for the California Community
Colleges is working with the CSU Academic
Senate to develop guidelines for transparent
and effective transfer patterns in the most
popular majors. In addition, a task force has
been charged with developing a series of model
curricula for use by local boards and curriculum
committees in developing local AA for Transfer
degrees which are reasonably consistent across
districts in the most common majors.
SB 1440 is a critical element within our student
success agenda, as it is expected to smooth the
pathway of community college students to and
through the California State University,
thus increasing the number of students who can
be served in California's public higher education
systems. We have included a link to a
copy of a proposed resolution for adoption by your
local board of trustees and hope that you will use
this as a public statement that your district will
be actively engaged in implementing this important
initiative in a timely manner.
Download SB 1440
Connecting Community Colleges for a Strong California
Community College League of California • 2017 O Street,
Sacramento, CA 95811 • (916) 444-8641
Here is the Resolution:
Resolution In Support of Expedited Implementation of SB 1440
WHEREAS, the Legislature, with the support of all 72 community college districts
in California has passed, and
the Governor has signed, SB 1440 (Ch.428, Statutes of 2010), the Student
Transfer Achievement Act;
WHEREAS, SB 1440 is the most significant measure in more than 20 years for
improving transfer rates from community colleges to campuses of the California
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that once the AA transfer degrees proposed by SB 1440
are in place, many more transfer students will also earn an associate degree;
there will be more clarity and consistency about the best lower-division
preparation; and students will be guaranteed a place in the California State
University with junior standing;
WHEREAS, SB 1440 will reduce the amount of time and money spent in obtaining
both AA transfer degrees and BA/BS degrees due to its provisions that:
prohibit community colleges from adding any local requirements to the sixty
units provided for in the bill;
encourage community colleges to facilitate acceptance of
credits earned at other community colleges toward
the associate degree for transfer; and
prohibit CSU campuses from requiring any additional courses other than the sixty
units required for majors with 120 semester, or 180 quarter, units;
WHEREAS, the bill provides that, commencing with Fall 2011, students who earn an
associate degree for transfer will be guaranteed admission into a CSU
baccalaureate program, it would be most beneficial if colleges have as many
associate transfer degrees as possible in place by Fall 2011;
WHEREAS, the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges is
coordinating a statewide system to develop a model curriculum that identifies
the most appropriate coursework not only for transfer preparation but also for
earning an AA or AS degree in a common discipline, local colleges will soon be
able to adopt the model curriculum for their degrees, and the California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office is preparing to expedite approval of
degrees that reflect the model curriculum;
WHEREAS, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the
California State University have established a Joint SB 1440 Task Force to
ensure coordination between the CSU system and California community colleges for
a smooth implementation process and may also make recommendations for further
legislation, regulatory changes or other policy changes;
WHEREAS, in order to have these AA transfer degrees in place, local college
faculty as well as the local board of trustees must approve degrees based on
transfer models provided by the Academic Senate for the California Community
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Trustees of the _______________
Community College District, by passage of this resolution, hereby expresses its
intent to expedite approval of these degrees in order to have SB 1440 fully
implemented in _______________ Community College District by Fall 2011.