Future Academic Senate Meetings
Three Academic Senate meetings remain: May 2, 16, and 30.
1. College Council did not make quorum on March 26. Please continue to let Fred or the Executive Committee know if/when you can't make a meeting. We do not want to waste the effort that goes into preparing all of the background material for one of these meetings because not enough people attend. Please make every effort to attend these meetings and let us know if the agenda items are not worthy of our attention or we can improve the effectiveness of the meetings in some way.
2. College Council met on April 16. Approved the Academic Senate recommendation to put Administrative Procedures in an easily accessible place. We can now watch to see how this progresses to the board.
3. College Council is embarking on discussion about the Planning and Resource Allocation Process (the Cloud Diagram). One emphasis is to get the dates right for program reviews and action plans. A second emphasis is to incorporate the Reflections/SLO process into the diagram.
Here is a proposed draft put forward by the SLO Committee. Note the enhanced presence of the SLO/Reflections process.
The discussion on this diagram was tabled to give PVP a chance to make some adjustments. I understand their concerns are in the area of timing of resource allocation, not the way that the SLO/Reflections are presented.
Expect this to be on our agenda soon. Comments and feedback welcome.
4. College Council discussion about SIS. The crystal ball says that SIS has become inadequate in today's data-centric world, and that the institution will have to make an investment in a more sophisticated system soon. This will be an investment on the order of ~$5 million. I learned a new acronym: Enterprise Resource Program (ERP). One example: SIS has caused MPC to overestimate FTES by ~100.
5. College Council would like to see more Flex breakouts by the BART team and others involved in student mental health.
6. College Council did discuss Fred's suggested changes to the College Council bylaws. Making the SLO/Reflection process more central and visible in the bylaws was the main theme of the substantive changes. The proposed changes were received positively, but word-smithing continues.
AAAG met on Earth Day, April 17. It considered the SLO Committee Plan to guide future actions. This is the same document endorsed by the Academic Senate on March 21.
AAAG discussed a first draft of a tech plan. Please expect this to be on the Academic Senate agenda soon.
Public Safety Training Center Interim Director Screening Committee
Vice President of Student Services, interim and permanent Screening Committee (Academic Senate only appoints faculty members)
The Executive Committee, through Fred, have worked collaboratively with Walt on faculty member representation for this search.
Kim Mansfield (not sure if she has been asked yet)
Barbara Lee (Chair)
Community Member whose name escapes me right now
Student Success Planning Group
e-mail from Larry Walker:
Goal Groups -- Instruction/Student Services
Update from Mike Torres:
Contextualizing Date with Rosaleen
The Scorecard with Numbers
The age demographics surprise Fred. How different is this from state averages or similar colleges? What does this imply for MPC course offerings?
Visited Gavilan College to see their homegrown e-system for recording and managing SLO assessment results. Ours is currently taking too much time on the behalf of Academic Affairs. MPC is looking at electronic systems as a way to make this process more efficient for both faculty members and the office of Academic Affairs.
Area B Meeting was Friday March 29 at the College of San Mateo. Fred attended. Nothing Earth shattering to report. Lots of hand-wringing about MOOCs. Lots of controversy about the new
Spring Plenary is April 18-20 at the SFO Westin. Fred is involved in two of the breakouts, and will attend on Thursday. A previous commitment to an Earth Science colleague brings him back to MPC on Friday. Catherine will be MPC delegate to the resolution voting on Saturday.
Resolution 9.04. "Resolved that the ASCCC research and investigate massive open online courses (MOOCs) through an evaluation based on formative and summative criteria to determine the appropriateness of this new form of instruction for community college students."
There seems to be controversy on some of the additions to the discipline list.
Resolution 10.01 and 10.02. These involve a proposal to add Kinesiology to the discipline list. There seems to be disagreement between two very well respected groups. Fred has e-mailed Lyndon Schutzler and Mark Clements for advice.
Resolution 10.04. Teacher Education. There is a conflict with Child Development instructors. Upon the advice of Mary Johnson, we plan to vote against this proposal.
Resolutions 10.09 and 10.10. These two indicate that people are frustrated and upset about the disciplines list process and want improvements.
Resolution 19.03. Following on the soon-to-be-published ASCCC paper "Sound Principles for Faculty Evaluations" (19.01), this resolution empowers the ASCCC Executive Committee to work collaboratively "with statewide bargaining organizations and other relevant constituencies to develop training materials and/or other guidance to help local colleges and districts establish effective training processes for faculty engaged in peer evaluation." Fred thinks this resolution jives nicely with the intent of our mentoring group, as well as some of the things the SLO group has been talking about.
Resolution 19.07. Another interesting resolution is one that asks the ASCCC to investigate certification for instructors to teach DE courses This resolution merely empowers the Executive Committee to gather information.
Board Policy Background
E-mail from Anita Johnson:
Continuing Education Background
At the March 21 Academic Senate meeting, we agreed upon a set of questions we'd like to ask Laura. Here's the e-mail Fred sent to Laura:
Laura, At our March 21 Academic Senate meeting, we had a brief discussion about Continuing Education and the topics that concerned us most. At your request, here is a summary of those issues. You may also wish to consult our minutes from the meeting, which are on the Academic Senate website.
We are concerned that there is not a clear, outlined process for CE course approval, so that everybody knows what the process is.
We wonder whether the approval process, which apparently currently goes to one person, is consistent with MPC standard practices and culture, in which committees usually review issues such as these.
We'd like to know how the MPC community could be informed about what potential courses are in the pipeline, and how faculty can participate in the process of ensuring that these courses meet the standards of quality that we want people to associate with MPC.
We're concerned about facilities and equipment use. If a piece of equipment is broken during a CE course, how will this equipment be replaced for use in our credit courses?
We'd like to know how faculty will have input into which CE course proposals might be redundant with existing offerings. On a related note, as this process is being developed, how can faculty members be involved in its development?
Finally, we wonder how the institution will prevent abuse of the system, e.g., an instructor teaching a CE course might imply that the CE course is a pre-requisite to a for-credit course, i.e., "Hey, you'll do a lot better in my regular class if you take the CE course first, and by the way, here's the book that I wrote on the topic that is required for the CE course."
Laura, we'd like to invite you back to the Academic Senate on April 18th for continued discussion on these topics. I hope you can reserve the time in your calendar.