May 16, 2013
Future Academic Senate Meetings
One Academic Senate meeting remains: May 30.
AAAG, SSAG, and ASAG have all unanimously endorsed the
SLO Platform. Next step is the College Council.
In joint meeting with College Council, heard a
presentation from Walt Tribley about not making cap and structural deficit,
similar to the one given to Academic Senate on May 2. Focus on investments
that directly support increasing credit FTES was again emphasized. This
presentation had a notable addition: news about which faculty positions are
being considered for hire. Data was shown that supported credit FTES
The New List:
Math Instructor #1
Math Instructor #2
Administration of Justice
Math Instructor #3
Digital Services Librarian
Math Learning Center Coordinator
The College Council has produced a revision of its
bylaws, and, as a contribution from the SLO Committee, a revision of the
Planning and Resource Allocation Process. It wishes to share as information
its revised bylaws with the campus community. It would like feedback from
the advisory groups and the Academic Senate about the proposed Planning and
Resource Allocation Process (PRAP). Hey, that's a lot better than Integrated
Campus Resource Allocation and Planning Process!
The important point is that the SLO/Reflections process
has taken a more prominent role in how the College Council conducts its
business. This is a direct result of the SLO platform endorsed here at the
March 21 meeting.
The newly proposed PRAP is on today's agenda.
The first sections of the new bylaws read as follows
(note highlighted sections):
1. Scope and Function of the College Council:
The College Council is the central campus body of the shared governance
process for MPC. It confirms institutional support for recommendations to be
brought to the Board by the President/Superintendent and leads MPC’s
Planning and Resource Allocation processes. It
ensures that the institution allocates resources to improve student
learning, as supported by the Program Review and Reflections/SLO processes,
and to maintain regulatory compliance. The College Council leads the effort
to develop and periodically review the institutional mission statement and
The College Council will specifically:
- Implement and guide the Planning and Resource Allocation Process,
with input from the campus community.
- Review and potentially revise the Mission statement and long-term
goals every three years.
- Receive program review reports
and annual summaries of the Reflections/SLO process so that assessment
results on student learning can substantively inform the Planning and
Resource Allocation Process.
- Make resource allocation recommendations to the S/P based on
- revenue information from the Budget Committee
- allocation recommendations from the advisory groups,
College Council subcommittees, or members of the
- information from the
Reflections/SLO and Program Review processes.
- Review the annual component goals from Academic Affairs,
Student Services, and Administrative Services, and potentially recommend
changes in accordance with the college mission and institutional goals.
- Receive accountability reports from Academic Affairs, Student
Services, and Administrative Services based on their component goals,
and discuss their activities related to program review and/or action
plans for the planning cycle.
- Review new Board policies or Board policy changes and make
recommendations to the President for presentation to the Board.
- Review accreditation reports and recommend to the S/P their
presentation to the board.
- Organize open forums for discussion of important or
- Discuss issues important to the MPC community and make
recommendations or assign them to the appropriate advisory group or
- Review and potentially revise the shared governance process to
ensure institutional effectiveness on a regular basis.
If you're wondering about the answer, of course there
was. The SLO Committee took care of that months ago.
Awaiting information on the Student Success Guidance
Budget Committee: Heather Faust
Flex Committee: Heather Craig
ASAG Amy Chirman (STaphanie Tetter
Other needs: Tech Committee (Mary Johnson leaving)
Contextualizing Date with Rosaleen
Due to time constraints, we've tabled further discussion
on this topic until next time.
You may remember that
Mike Gilmartin came to the Academic Senate on Sept 20 to ask about
MPC transitioning from a system of “research” to a system of
“content review” to provide rationale for creating English and Math
co- or pre-requisites for non-English and non-Math courses. The
Academic Senate told Mike and the CAC to go down this road and
create a plan to do this. They have done so, and this week bring us
A little plain language
In the past, when you
wanted a English or Math co- or pre-requisite for your non-English
or non-Math class (like Economics, Geology, Art, or Philosophy) you
needed to do “research”. This was apparently very time consuming and
nobody ever did it. At the same time, we all know that strong co- or
pre-requisites would improve student success in these classes
because all of the students would have the appropriate preparation.
So we were stuck. We wanted co- and pre-requisites to ensure student
success, but they were difficult to establish because the “research”
was onerous. The background to all this has to do with lawsuits
involving open access, but I’m shaky on the details.
Now, because of efforts
of the state Academic Senate based on the basic skills research
we’ve all heard about (students do better if they’re prepared; duh),
CCC’s can establish co- and pre-requisites based on “content
review”. The “content review” is supposed to be easier than the
“research”. This is what the plan is all about. This is a plan to
create the “content review” process at MPC.
So what does the plan
and proposed process look like? Please click on the link below to
find out. I’ve taken a look and already provided feedback to Mike
and Sunshine that it needs a executive summary that summarizes the
steps that a faculty member must take to enact this “content
review”. They replied that this information is on page 10. So you
might want to go there if you tire of reading T5 language.
From the Sept 20, 2012 notes
CAC has recommended
that MPC develop content review to develop prerequisites for
o Content review is an
alternative way of establishing prerequisites that is easier
than statistical review.
o Under the statistical review process, in
order to establish a prerequisite for any non-sequential class
we must do statistical analysis comparing the success rates of
students who have not taken the proposed prerequisite with those
who have. We have to prove statistically that students who
haven’t taken the proposed prerequisite do worse than those who
have taken it.
o This is a
pain in the tuchus. Content review is an easier approach that
makes recommendations based on the actual content of the course.
Curriculum Advisory Committee (CAC) doesn’t want to
move forward with creating a content review process unless the
Academic Senate is on board.
o In FH’s opinion, this is a no-brainer.
Various Student Success studies talk about importance of
SH moved to support the CAC’s plan to develop a
content review process. KR seconded.
o MT: It’s a good idea, but I would want to
talk to Elizabeth Harrington to make sure that this does not affect
anything with SB 1440 in a negative way.
FH: I don’t think it will. If anything, it
should make it easier to get a 1440 series approved.
MT: If we are updating an advisory to a
prerequisite, do we need to go back through and reapprove it?
AJ: We’re not telling anyone that they have
to have a prerequisite, we’re just endorsing CAC’s proposal to make
the process of establishing a prerequisite easier.
o Motion carries unanimously.
Take a look
at the rubric for DE Quality linked below. We’re looking for feedback.
Because this has to do with defining DE quality, this is an important
topic for the Academic Senate. The intent of this document is to be used
as a guideline for DE course design, information for DE instructors, and
evaluation of DE courses for program review purposes.
Should the Academic Senate agendize reports from
departments that may be facing cuts?
Senate leadership was approached this week by a department that had
heard there was a management meeting where cuts to their program were
mentioned. This department wanted to come to the Academic Senate and
explain why cuts would be bad for their program. Rather than agendizing
this item, the Executive Committee decided to ask the Academic Senate as
a whole whether this kind of discussion should be agendized. The
concern is that this kind of discussion, and possible actions that could
result, start to sound a bit like prioritization, which the Academic
Senate has decided it does not want to engage in. Another concern is
that if we agendize this department, then we can look forward to many
meetings of hearing similar stories from many other departments. Your
representative from Earth Sciences, for example, can guarantee that the
Earth Sciences Department will want to talk about field trips with the
Academic Senate. Finally, it is traditional at MPC that this is the kind
of conversation that usually happens at AAAG. Having two groups trying
to do the same thing may not be beneficial for the institution. The
question for all of us is, is this the kind of agenda item we want?