Feb 3 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.
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.
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
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)