Academic Senate


Student Learning

Let's Talk About
Teaching and Learning

Board Policy

The Ed

Flex Day


Feb 3 2011


Elections in Spring 2011


From the Academic Senate Bylaws:

Section 2. Election of Senators

a.    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.

b.    Area representatives: 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 representatives.

Division or Area

Senate Representative

Term Began

(Fall Semester)

Term ends

(Spring Semester)

Physical Sciences

Fred Hochstaedter



Student Services

Debbie Anthony



Supportive Services

Alexis Copeland



College Readiness/TRIO

Chris Calima




Susan Walter




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.


DE Task Force

I don't have the exact wording in front of me, but College Council approved the recommendations of the DE task force as a way to address the accreditation concerns, but stipulated that the document did not represent a long-term DE plan for the college.


Institutional Goals

Are now out for review by advisory groups.


The following is an e-mail message from John Anderson:

Dear Fred –
I actually had a moment to think about the institutional goals as presented yesterday at AAAG, and I would like to send along a reaction.  All of the goals are worthy and articulate, but the problem over the years has been faculty, and indeed institutional buy-in.  It is probable that at least a fair percentage of the faculty and staff have no awareness that we have these goals at all.  (Yes, we Chairs do tell them)!  My suggestion would be to word the first goal  something like:  “Insure that levels of financial, personnel and technological support are adequate to insure excellence in instructional programs.”  I think that this would grab everyone’s attention and promote buy-in.  In my experience, our rank and files instructors’ chief concern is whether or not they will have the resources to do their jobs well.  Subsumed in this goal could be objectives 6.1 and 6.2, and 8.1 through 8.4.  
Everyone knows that, despite what we say, we are not meeting this goal now nor can we reasonably do so in the immediate future.  But to be assured that this is one of the institution’s most important long-term goals is what everyone longs to hear, and what I believe will bring them along for the rest of the verbiage.
Cheers - John



Request for "problematic" statewide regulations

From: Kathy Harmonson [mailto:kathleen@ASCCC.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:28 PM
Subject: Title 5 Survey


Dear Local Senate Presidents and Curriculum Chairs:


The ASCCC 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.



Michelle Pilati

Chair, Futures of California Higher Education Ad Hoc Committee



Legal Opinions
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 Catalog
We need to make our colleagues aware of these issues.
Plagiarism detection is a related issue; some MPC faculty have used this software:


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 dishonesty.

Plagiarism may be any one of the following:

1. Verbatim copying without proper documentation of the source(s).

2. Paraphrasing without proper documentation of the source(s).

3. 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 instructor.

Cheating may be any one of the following:

1. 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.

2. Unauthorized acquiring, reading or learning of test questions prior to the testing date and time.

3. Changing any portion of a returned graded test or report and resubmitting it as an original work to be regraded.

4. Presenting the work of another as one’s own for a grade or points.

5. 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 following options:

1. Issue an oral or written notification and warn the student that further acts of this sort will result in additional disciplinary action.

2. Issue an "NP" or a failing grade ("F") or "0" for the assignment in question.

3. Refer the student to the Vice President for Student Services for disciplinary action.



Accreditation Report -- "SLOs"

Team Recommendations

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 IIA.6).

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. 19)

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)