Academic Senate
2012-2013 

Home

Student Learning
Outcomes

Accreditation

Board Policy
Review

Basic Skills

Flex Day
Info

Committees

 

President's Notes


Feb 19, 2015

 

24th Annual Lobo Hall of Fame

Honoring Dave Clemens, among others

March 7

mpcfoundation.org/news/24th-annual-lobo-hall-of-fame/

 

Doing what Matters

http://doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu/Home.aspx

 

Faculty Conversations February 27 and March 13  

MPC Faculty members attending: Jamie Dagdigian, Mary Johnson, Scott Moller, Alisson Shelling, Kari Grasmuck, Monika Bell, and Laura Loop

Thank you! We look forward to hearing about what you learn. 

 

MPC Academic Senate April Meetings:

April 9 and 23 (second and fourth; first Thursday is during Spring Break)

 

Election of At-large Representatives

The Academic Senate will oversee a campus election of two at-large seats.

 

At-large -- Heather Craig

At-large adjunct -- Sunny LeMoine

 

Election of Executive Committee members

Will occur at the second meeting in March.

Both newly elected and "old" Academic Senate Representatives may participate in the election

Positions are:

 

Aside from the implied duties, the main job of the Executive Committee is to approve the agenda.

  

Elections of Representatives and Officers.

 

Board of Trustees

Life-long Learner definition will be on the agenda February 23 (Monday).

 

Budget Advisory Committee Feb 18

Has been resurrected after a long time MIA.

Earl reported that Walt has asked him to prepare a "facts only" historical budget report to help provide context about our current budget situation. Hopefully we will see this report at the next Budget Advisory Committee meeting on March 16.

 

College Council -- Feb 24

Had a conversation about budget transfers. Heard again that Earl is preparing a historical budget document that will help provide context for understanding changes to the budget in a multi-year context. I hope that this document proves useful and will share it when we receive it.

 

AAAG -- March 4

Cancelled because of no action items.

 

MPC has a "weak" Academic Senate

Since MPC has at least three committees--Academic Senate, CAC, and AAAG--that all have a strong faculty voice, and that fulfill some of the functions that at other institutions the Academic Senate is responsible for. So, relative to many other institutions, MPC has a relatively weak Academic Senate because at MPC other groups fulfill that role. More importantly, MPC has a more powerful faculty voice than at many other institutions because of these three groups. This is something that I am very proud of.

 

Feedback on the PE Resolution

From Life Science:

Hi Mark,
I wanted to pass on to you several of the major comments I've gotten from folks in Life Sci about the PE resolution.  I'll bring some of these up on Thursday during senate and didn't want you feeling like I was trying to have a "gotcha" moment by springing this stuff on you.  I think they are roughly in order in terms of concern.  

Thanks,
Kevin

    1. Lecture only option?!
      1. How does a lecture class get people “moving their body?”
      2. If a lecture is OK (and most felt it should not be) why only PFIT 51 and the nursing class?  Why not Health 4, 7, Nutrition 1, etc.?  All of these are just as relevant to meeting the requirement as PFIT 51, maybe more so (3 unit courses vs. 2 unit PFIT course; breadth and depth).
    2. Yet one more requirement will only reduce the amount of official “graduates” we award in the eyes of the state, which makes us look increasingly bad in the eyes of the public and politicians.
    3. Mandating a PFIT course will drive students away from other Area E1 courses, potentially hurting enrollment in these other classes.
    4. 80% (52/65) of all E1 courses are already P.E. courses; 45% (~55/121) of E1 & E2 are P.E.
    5. CTE course reduction: “I think that all of the courses that are currently available to be taken as part of the GE area E2 would be negatively affected.”
    6. Reduction of diversity in courses: “I think that the students would be given a huge incentive to take the 3 unit PE class to cover the 1 unit requirement and not be given as diverse a learning experience as they are currently allowed to gain here.  Students would still have the choice but I feel like most would choose to ‘kill two birds with one stone’ as the saying goes and just take the PE course.”
    7. “Can’t students already take PFIT classes for other GE sections (Area E1)?”
    8. “Nanny State” problem: are we in a moral position to be mandating a lifestyle change? Is 1.0 unit really going to do anything about these large problems?
    9. “Seems like a grab for FTES”- understand the concern of division with dropping enrollment, but is this the way to deal with it?

 

From Mary Johnson:

Fred
As for the PE requirement. I am against it and here is why. Research has shown that by middle school and high school students are already done with school and those that do not like PE have horrible memories and experiences. Forcing this on adults is ridiculous. Second and the one I find most compelling and prudent from an ethical standpoint. As we get more ESL and first generation college students they have a total of 6 years or 90 units at MPC to finish their degree. That may sound like a lot but I had one ESL student had to take 4 levels of ESL, retake ENG 111 and take 3 levels of math and retake one of our courses and so used an extra 22 units plus the 60 for our degree and she is at 82. If she has any other interests or has to retake this hurts her. Also they only get a total of 150 and still 6 years in financial aid to complete the B.A. so 6 years from the start of financial aid. If they have to take any developmental or repeat courses at the 4 year level they have very little cushion if they use all 90 of our units. I think we have an ethical responsibility to ensure this does not hinder or negatively impact our first generation college students, ESL students or any student who may struggle and need every unit they have to use toward completion and reaching their ultimate goal. Let alone imposing this on an adult who knows by now if they want to work out, play sports or whatever in the PE area. It is not for us to put a requirement on our students to make up FTES for repeatability rules that PE are trying to overcome. 
Mary D. Johnson
Early Childhood Ed. Dept. Chair
Monterey Peninsula College