February 7, 2008
At flex days I asked about the status of the Academic Freedom
I will be serving on a committee to review the Program Review
documents and process with some AAAG folks. This is an AAAG subcommittee. Since
program review processes is one of the 10+1 (it's number 9), we will be hearing
further reports on this issue.
Revised Facilities Committee and Process
Facilities Committee now a College Council subcommittee
Can we approve this now, or should we put this on the agenda?
Election of New Senators and then Officers
staggered schedule dictates Physical Sciences, Student Services, Supportive
Services, Academic Readiness/TRIO, and one At-Large representative be elected
early this spring. These elections occur within these divisions or areas. We
have no term limits.
2. Since we are being asked to schedule fall classes earlier
than in the past, we should get these elections done as soon as possible.
3. We need to conduct an at-large representative election.
Idea: can we entrust our Vice-President and Secretary to collect nominations and
carry out an election as they see fit?
4. Representatives must be elected by March 1.
5. On March 20, the second meeting in March, we will elect
officers. All representatives-elect will join us on that day only to help elect
officers, as per our bylaws. Start thinking about being an officer now if that
The pertinent portion of our bylaws are reprinted below.
I attended the ASCCC Accreditation Institute Jan 25-27.
Guide to Evaluating Institutions is the best reference; we should all become
acquainted with this document.
Accreditation is number 7 of the 10+1 (Faculty roles and
involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports)
I am currently working with John Gonzalez to determine a
group of folks to lead the effort for gathering evidence and then writing the
self study for each of the four standards and their major sections. Each of the
following standards and major sections gets a faculty member to co-lead that
section of the self-study.
Standard I: Institutional Mission and
B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness
Standard II: Student Learning Programs and
A. Instructional Programs
B. Student Support Services
C. Library and Learning Support Services
Standard III: Resources
A. Human Resources
B. Physical Resources
C. Technology Resources
D. Financial Resources
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
A. Decision-Making Roles and Processes
B. Board and Administrative Organization
I anticipate that this group of leaders will participate in a
training session off-campus on March 11 and that it will form a sort of steering
committee for the Accreditation process. I will bring the members of this group
to the COC for consideration and to the Academic Senate for confirmation.
Each of these standards/sections will then involve more
faculty members working on them.
Suggestion: The Academic Senate
should empower each of the faculty members that we appoint to these
standards/sections to select/recruit additional faculty members to help with all
phases of the self-study process: evidence gathering, research, writing.
I think it would be exceedingly cumbersome for it to go
through the COC and Academic Senate each time a faculty members joins or leaves
one of these committees. We could instruct the faculty members we appoint to
select/recruit other faculty members from as wide a range of MPC constituencies
as possible to do the work.
Question: At what point should
we ask for drafts of the self study to review? Should we try to avoid avoid
getting a draft of
the self-study a mere few weeks before it is scheduled to go to the board, at
which time a careful and considered critique would be difficult.
General Education SLOs
I led this group at flex days. Susan Walter, Homer Bosserman,
Stan Armstead, and John Gonzalez attended. The result of or session is that we
developed a question for the Academic Senate and for the institution.
We have three GE programs at MPC: the AA degree, the CSU
transfer pattern, and the IGETC GE Pattern (used for UC).
Each of these GE programs have similar themes, but differ in
detail and some of the classes. The requirements for all three are shwn in the
catalog. Currently, we have SLOs for the GE portion of the AA degree printed in
the catalog (some, especially those for the natural sciences, are a bit
goofy--no lab experience outcomes, for example). Susan and I wrote example SLOs
for the CSU and IGETC transfer programs based on the descriptions of the
expectations from these institutions. See this example of
generation of example IGETC GE
SLOs from the IGETC standards
Should we create a 3-pronged approach for SLOs for the three
different GE programs that we have here (AA is already mostly done), OR should
we create a single set of core GE SLOs that would be good for all of our GE
programs, as Cabrillo has done.
Examples of institutions with "core" SLOs
Cabrillo's "core four" GE SLOs
Grossmont's Institutional SLOs
Institutional SLOs (very simple)
||Single Set of GE SLOs
|AA GE Program
|CSU GE Program
|IGETC GE Program
||AA, CSU, and IGETC GEs
|AA SLO 1
AA SLO 2
AA SLO 3
AA SLO 4
AA SLO 5
|CSU SLO 1
CSU SLO 2
CSU SLO 3
CSU SLO 4
CSU SLO 5
|IGETC SLO 1
IGETC SLO 2
IGETC SLO 3
IGETC SLO 4
IGETC SLO 5
||Core SLO 1
Core SLO 2
Core SLO 3
Core SLO 4
Core SLO 5
Pros and Cons
For the Two GE SLO Approaches
Flex Day 1/31/08
Single Set of SLOs for GE
Statements have already been provided by UC and
CSU. These statements
will need to be transformed into SLOs.
Simplicity for students and the institution, as
well as establishing and conducting assessment of SLOs.
Each of the three prongs address different
groups of MPC students.
Single purpose of GE regardless of the
student’s goals or whether those goals change.
Confusing for students as they try to figure
out what courses to take in order to achieve their goals.
This is especially onerous as students’ goals change quite
Adopting a single set of SLOs for all three GE
patterns may require MPC to review the SLOs for GE that have already
Increased complexity in assessment of SLOs.
It may be challenging to identify a single set
of SLOs for GE for all three GE patterns.
However, it is not impossible; Cabrillo has done it.
Establishing multiple SLOs for different GE
patterns (i.e., CSU GE, IGETC and AA) would require the MPC Catalog
to contain more information, which would make it even longer.
Single all-purpose SLOs for GE may not align
perfectly with the three different patterns unless they are written
more generally. See
SLOs for each pattern (i.e., CSU GE, IGETC and
AA) must be aligned with specified areas within the GE patterns,
which adds to the complexity since the patterns group the
When the sub-group originally met, Homer wrote this as a
neutral comment (i.e., neither a pro nor a con).
However, after thinking about this some more, I feel strongly
that it is a con for a 3-prong approach.]
Main ASCCC Reference
The ASCCC and the Chancellor's office disapprove of single
course equivalencies. The main argument is that the Ed Code (Section 87359; see
also Title V Section 53430) states, "No one may be hired to serve as a community
college faculty...unless the governing board determines that he or she possesses
qualifications that are at least equivalent to the minimum qualifications
specified." Minimum qualifications are determined for disciplines, not for
courses or subject areas within disciplines.
"The Academic Senate believes that faculty members must
exemplify to their students the value of an education that is both well-rounded
and specialized" (ASCCC, Equivalence to the Minimum Qualifications, linked
Furthermore, "faculty members, both full-and part-time are
expected to have the expertise to teach a range of courses in the discipline for
which they were hired. To require less from some faculty would be to develop a
second class of less qualified faculty and thereby compromise the integrity of
the entire faculty" (ASCCC, Equivalence to the Minimum Qualifications, linked
The ASCCC wants all faculty members to have a full
understanding of their full discipline, not just a small part of it covered by a
On the other hand.....
MPC has regularly granted single course equivalencies because
we would have great difficulty addressing our mission statement if we did not.
We are in a relatively non-urban area where people with appropriate masters
degrees do not abound for all disciplines. This is especially problematic for PE
and Creative Arts. This is a problem that we share with many rural colleges like
Lake Tahoe Community College, College of the Redwoods, etc...
The basic problem is this: obey the recommendations of the
ASCCC and Chancellor's office, OR, address our Mission Statement and serve our
Luckily, a conversation is being initiated on this subject at
the Consultation Council level that we hope to participate in via Anita Johnson.
The Equivalency Committee is also discussing this issue
regularly and we may see a proposal from them in the near future.
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.
At-large representatives: Every year, each of the
areas listed in Article III I.b shall entertain nominations for the at-large
senate position which is then due for election.
Each area is entitled to nominate any current MPC faculty member, in
whatever manner it chooses. From
these nominations, the faculty as a whole shall elect one at-large senator for a
three-year term, with the Senate supervising the balloting procedure and the tally of votes, by March 1st
of each year.
adjunct) faculty representative: Every three years
the executive board shall call for nominations from all members of the part-time
(i.e. adjunct) faculty and shall supervise the balloting procedure and the tally of votes, for the senator who is
to represent that group, by March 1st every 3rd year.
in the senate because of resignation, recall, or incapacity are to be filled
(for the remainder of the term) by the same methods by which the predecessor was
selected within four weeks of the time the vacancy occurs.
in the senate due to sabbatical, personal, or other leaves for up to one year
are to be filled on a temporary basis by each division/area within four weeks
after the vacancy occurs. An
"at-large" vacancy shall be filled on a temporary basis by appointment of the
Executive Board and confirmed by the Senate.
Leaves extending beyond one year shall be considered a permanent vacancy
requiring election procedures as described in Section 2, paragraph e, above,
within four weeks after the vacancy occurs.
There shall be no term limits
for any senators.
Section 3. Election to Senate Offices
After Senate membership has been determined (by March 1st each year)
senators shall elect officers for the coming year at the second meeting in
March. Outgoing and incoming
senators shall vote (only for these elections) as members of the senate, and a
quorum shall consist of a majority of the total number of such senators.
At the second meeting in March, the senate shall elect from its new roster of
members, the president, vice-president, secretary, the ASCCC representative, and
COC chair. Names shall be placed in
nomination with the consent of the nominee. A ballot shall be prepared by the
Secretary of the Senate, and a vote taken. Newly elected senators who are not
already serving on the senate shall have no further voting privileges until they
take office at the first meeting in the fall semester;
until that time sitting senators only shall vote on all other actions
before the senate.