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

President Notes, 3-6-08

 

John would like us to more accountable for flex day participation.

Hand out name tags as a way to assess participation?

 

Should we shorten the program?

 

Accreditation Report

 

We've had an organizational meeting. Here are the standards and those in charge of the standards and sections.

Training meeting Tuesday March 11 in SLO (That's San Luis Obispo).

 

Standards Administrators Faculty Classified Students
   
Standard I - Institutional Mission and Effectiveness Rosaleen Ryan Alfred Hochstaedter Stephanie Perkins  
   
A.  Mission  
B.  Improving Institutional Effectiveness  
   
Standard II - Student Learning Programs & Services John Gonzalez Eric Ogata Susan Villa  
   
A.  Instructional Programs Michael Gilmartin Anita Johnson  
B.  Student Support Services Larry Walker Eric Ogata  
C.  Library & Learning Support Services Susan Osorio Bernie Abbott  
   
   
Standard III - Resources Joe Bissell Gary Fuller Linda Ransom &  
  Brenda Kalina  
A.  Human Resources Barbara Lee Caroline Carney  
B.  Physical Resources Joe Bissell Lyndon Schutzler  
C.  Technology Resources Sharon Colton Tom Rebold  
D.  Financial Resources Joe Bissell Gary Fuller  
   
Standard IV - Leadership and Governance Lynn Davis Gail Fail Paula Norton  
   
A.  Decision-Making Roles and Processes Carsbia Anderson Gail Fail  
B.  Board and Administrative Organization Loren Steck Mark Clements  
   
Editors John Gonzalez Diane Boynton    
Legend:
Red Training Attendee
Black Non-Attendee

Program Review Review

We recently appointed faculty members to a group that will review our Program Review process. Michael Gilmartin will call a meeting soon.

 

I met with John and Mike this morning about Program Review.

 

Two basic problems.

 

1) We don't follow our current process closely or take it seriously enough.

Two divisions are 1.5 years late.

Two divisions are 6 months late.

Program review is one of the big themes of Accreditation. It shows we are talking to each other about how well we are doing and what we can do to improve.

The Accrediting Commission will certainly notice this tardiness and it might not be pretty.

We must change culture to submit these things in a timely manner.

This is the only way to merge Program Review with Resource allocation.

What should happen to the late divisions?

-This is an issue of institutional culture of how we view program review.

Is it something we have to do every six years and forget about, or an opportunity for dialog on student/program success and potential improvement?

Subject of equity. If one or two divisions are terribly late, and it is accepted, why should other divisions bust their butts to get it done?

 

2) The questions we ask in our current program review are too minutia oriented and don't give the opportunity for big picture reflection on how we're doing;

 

-We have a standard process for Academic Affairs, but no standard process for Student Services or Administrative Services.

 

-There may be a need to look outside MPC to see how other colleges accomplish these goals.