Academic Senate
2007-2008 |
 |
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.