February 21, 2013
Considered board policies yesterday. Lots of conversation about the Program Development board policy. One problem is that the wording before you is not clear if the CAC is to be relied on to develop the process or to be part of the process. There is lots of worry from AAAG about the vitality of the program discontinuance policy and whether or not it is mandated that it will be followed when/if administration would like to discontinue programs. My suggestion for the Academic Senate is that we consider this one as is, but recognize that it may come back to us in a slightly revised form in the future.
On Tuesday Celine and I gave an accreditation update. We had a LONG conversation about accreditation and possible things the college could do. There is still lots of confusion about what SLOs are and why we are engaging with them.
Catherine will give the February Board report. I'm sure they'll be glad to see her again.
Academic Senate Elections
Per Academic Senate bylaws Academic Senate elections should happen every February and be completed by March 1. There are no term limits.
So far I've hear from Business/Technology, Library, Nursing.
this year: Nursing, Library, Humanities, Business/Technology, At-Large held by Kelly Fletes, and the adjunct at-large held by Brian Brady. There are no term limits. Nevertheless, we should have elections. Current terms: http://www.mpcfaculty.net/senate/terms.htm
From Celine Pinet
Wait lists. Do we want them? Information from wait lists not only benefit students, but also enable management to more closely monitor student demand for classes. Better information in this area would help MPC respond to student needs in a quicker and more nimble manner. Does the MPC Academic Senate endorse wait lists? Should we agendize this?
Fred and Catherine learned a lot about accreditation at the ASCCC Accreditation Institute two weekends ago. Report to follow. Fun times.
Fred will serve on an accreditation visiting team for San Joaquin Valley College in Visalia. More fun times. I opened their self-study recently to find that they are not a CCC, but a private, for-profit, vocational institution training students mainly in the health, business, and technology fields. Their demographic information indicates that of their students who are financially independent, more than have have annual incomes of about $11,000. That's hovering near the poverty line. Their program costs $15,000 to $22,000 annually. You do the math. How do they pay? Answer: Federal grants and loans. That's our taxes. Those students better damn well be getting a quality education, one that enables them to be employed at living wages, and enables them to pay back their loans or make my tax contribution worthwhile. That's the responsibility that I carry with me as I prepare for the visit in mid-March.
Participation in accreditation site visits remains one of my most rewarding experiences in my professional world. I see it as my way to ensure quality and to influence how our accrediting agency, with all of its internal problems, evaluates institutions. It's highly recommended. Really.
How to do it: Tell Walt to nominate your name as a faculty representative to the ACCJC.
Notes for Agenda Item
We have our reply from the ACCJC on MPC's response to our four recommendations we received during our last site visit in 2010.
First the good news. MPC has "resolved deficiencies and therefore addressed" two of the recommendations:
Designing an evaluation process and tool for students to evaluate the online learning experience
Identifying course-level student learning outcomes and clearly describing the expected outcomes to students in course syllabi.
Kudos to Judee Timm, Catherine Webb, Steve Albert, Jon Mikkelsen, Elizabeth Bishop, Stephanie Tetter, and others who contributed to the writing of the various DE reports.
Now the bad news. And I think the bad news is worse than the good news is good. MPC has only "described partial fulfillment of Recommendations 1 and 3":
Using assessment data to guide improvement of student learning
Ensuring that all those responsible for student progress toward achieving stated learning outcomes have effectiveness in producing those outcomes as a part of their evaluation.
This means that we have more SLO work to do. But what should we do? This is currently unclear because the ACCJC has only told us that we have achieved only "partial fulfillment" of these recommendations. But we know about the "two-year rule". The recommendations came to us in 2010. You do the math.
To set the context, first we will report on Catherine and my experience at the ASCCC Accreditation Institute where we had another opportunity to hear Barbara Beno speak a couple of times.
Then we'll report on some of the things the SLO/Accreditation Committee is working on/talking about.
The SLO/Accreditation Committee met with Walt yesterday morning. Together, we read some of the Fall 2012 Program Reflections in order to perhaps get a feeling for what is missing, or what we could do better. We have nothing official to report, other than we all recognize two things: that we need to all be on the same page about how to proceed next, and we have to act decisively in order to implement some adjustments for Fall 2013 Program Reflections. We've made arrangements for Walt to meet with us in the coming weeks, so that the conversation will continue. One of the things we'll do is to read the Spring 2013 Program Reflections to see if the adjustments we've implemented have caused differences in responses.