Academic Senate
2007-2008 
Home
Student Learning
Outcomes
Let's Talk About
Teaching and Learning
Board Policy
Review
The Ed
Center
Flex Day
Info
Committees

February 7, 2008

 

Academic Freedom

At flex days I asked about the status of the Academic Freedom proposed policy.

 

Program Reveiw

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

Summary:

 

1. Our 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 interests you.

 

The pertinent portion of our bylaws are reprinted below.

 

Accreditation

 

I attended the ASCCC Accreditation Institute Jan 25-27.

My Report

 

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 Effectiveness

A. Mission

B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness

 

Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services

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.

 

Background:

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

 

Question:

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

Santa Rosa Institutional SLOs (very simple)

 

  3-Prong Approach       Single Set of GE SLOs
AA GE Program
(mostly complete)
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
etc...
CSU SLO 1
CSU SLO 2
CSU SLO 3
CSU SLO 4
CSU SLO 5
etc...
IGETC SLO 1
IGETC SLO 2
IGETC SLO 3
IGETC SLO 4
IGETC SLO 5
etc...
    Core SLO 1
Core SLO 2
Core SLO 3
Core SLO 4
Core SLO 5
etc...

 

Pros and Cons

For the Two GE SLO Approaches

Flex Day 1/31/08

 

3-Prong Approach

Single Set of SLOs for GE

Pros

Pros

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.

 

 

Cons

Cons

 

 

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 often.

Adopting a single set of SLOs for all three GE patterns may require MPC to review the SLOs for GE that have already been established.

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 Cabrillo model.

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 disciplines differently.

[Note:  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.]

 

 

Single-Course Equivalencies

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 above).

 

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 above).

 

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 single course.

 

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 community.

 

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.

 

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.

c.      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.

d.      Part-time (i.e. 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.

e.      Vacancies 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.

f.        Periodic vacancies 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.

g.      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.