Feb 19, 2015
24th Annual Lobo Hall of Fame
Honoring Dave Clemens, among others
Doing what Matters
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
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 -- 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
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:
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.
Lecture only option?!
How does a lecture class get people “moving their body?”
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).
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.
Mandating a PFIT course will drive students away from other
Area E1 courses, potentially hurting enrollment in these
80% (52/65) of all E1 courses are already P.E. courses; 45%
(~55/121) of E1 & E2 are P.E.
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.”
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.”
“Can’t students already take PFIT classes for other GE
sections (Area E1)?”
“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?
“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:
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