APRIL
4, 2002
The
meeting started at 2:14. Guests included Donna
Sneed and Admissions’ bigwig John
Edwards (and one other person, whose name I didn’t catch).
Edwards
addressed the group, explaining planned changes in how instructors turn in
grades. The familiar practice of submitting two grade sheets—declared
“ludicrous” by Edwards—will be abandoned, but not immediately. “I would ask
your indulgence in the Spring term,” he said.
(Just then, inexplicably,
an odd, ghostly figure—a single letter—started to appear on the whiteboard,
though few seemed to notice it.)
Dan,
referring to an Edwards’ factoid according to which a substantial amount of
enrollment (30%) occurs during the window
of the first two weeks of class plus the preceding week, expressed concerns
regarding one dean practice. According to Dan, despite this enrollment
“window,” “some deans” sometimes cancel relatively low-enrolled courses early
on, even during the week prior to
classes. Dan was suggesting that these deans were jumping the gun, canceling
courses unwisely.
Edwards seemed surprised
to learn of this practice; he shared Dan’s concern. “You’re right, absolutely
right,” he said.
Dan
asked Edwards to let deans know that, by engaging in this practice, they may
well be canceling courses that, if given a chance, would “make.”
By
then, the whiteboard phantom had become quite legible: it was a lurid and
deformed “H.”
Item
#10 concerned revision of the “Tech Prep
Pathways Articulation Process.” (Who comes up with this stuff?) Donna S
explained. We approved the revision, despite the ugliness of the language.
Item
#11 was a recommendation, from the GE Committee, regarding a list of courses
approved for Tech Prep articulation.
Donna distributed an enormous packet—maybe 200 pages—which Senators regarded
with bewilderment and dread.
Among the listed courses were the
notorious “keyboarding” classes, the revisions of which Senators failed to
approve at the last meeting. Accordingly, Miriam, climbing atop one of the
packets, asked, “are we jumping the gun by approving these?”
As it turns out, the
keyboarding courses can still be offered, but only under the “existing
curriculum” (i.e., the old outlines). So, no, we were not jumping any guns. Miriam
hopped down from her packet.
The
list was approved. Donna asked if she could get back her packets, cuz she
routinely wheels them out to various schools. Most of us were glad for her to
take ‘em off o’ our hands, and so Donna got a round of applause. I think she
turned red.
Hey!
What about reports from standing committees!
Miriam,
Chair of the Academic Affairs committee, said that there’s still about $1,000
left—chump change—for staff development activities.
Jan
reminded us to keep track of when our courses are up for review by the Courses
Committee.
Item
#4 concerned that messy business about AA/AS degree qualifications that we
discussed at length last meeting. Our “agenda” described the issue thus (don’t
expect to understand it!):
Currently,
students seeking an Associate in Arts degree with a major in General Studies
can satisfy major and general education requirements by completing a minimum of
60 units of coursework, including the coursework necessary to obtain either CSU
certification or IGETC certification. The General Education Committee
recommends that the Senate expand this ability to substitute IGETC or CSU
certification for the IVC General Education requirements for other majors…Question:
Should IVC allow students to obtain an AA degree in a major other than General
Studies by satisfying IGETC or CSU certification instead of the IVC General
Education requirements?
Lewis
explained that the new Accreditation Standards focus on “success” and
“outcomes” and such. But, in truth, year after year, many of our
programs/majors have no students.
“This is not success,” he said. The proposal might ameliorate the situation.
On
the other hand, the proposal will allow students to “circumvent” courses of
study established (for majors) by area experts to certify competence. That
don’t seem right nohow, pardner.
Gary
R and Lewis discussed how best to deal with this hot potato. Somehow, the
steamin’ spud kinda disappeared, don’t ask me how.
Item
#6—the faculty referendum regarding adoption of “plus/minus grading”—emerged
with a bang, awakening a certain snoozing biologist from his dogmatic slumbers.
We all pointed and laughed.
The question was, not
whether we should conduct the referendum—that’s already been decided—but how we
should revise “the position statements regarding plus/minus grading for the
ballot.” That is, we’ve got to square away the statement of pros and cons.
Ray
C, who needed a haircut, asked if, should plus/minus be adopted, instructors
would then be obliged to embrace the dastardly innovation. (Most schools,
including most transfer institutions, have plus/minus grading.)
Lewis
opined that, no, an instructor would not in any simple sense be obligated to
use pluses and minuses, but, in failing to do so, he would, of course, be going
against the “institutional standard,” which in itself has drawbacks. He
elaborated.
Dotty
S listened in apparent pain and then declared Lewis’ argument to be
“nonsensical.” I do not know which argument she was referring to—none of them
seemed nonsensical to me. On the contrary.
As I recall, Dottie
maintained the position that it will make
no difference to anything or anybody whether we adopt plus/minus grading.
Harrumph.
Lewis, plunging ahead
with his “nonsense,” noted that, in fact, the adoption of plus/minus would have
“numerical consequences” for a student’s grade. For instance, a student who now
receives 3.0 points (for a class) might receive, instead, 3.3 or 2.7, and that
will affect the student’s GPA. Dottee stared.
Meanwhile,
Miriam explained how this matter came up in the Academic Affairs committee;
deliberations there reached an “impasse.” Hence, the matter was moved to the
Senate so that it might attain a still higher level of impassery.
In
the course of the subsequent discussion, while some seemed unable to see how
the proposed change would “make a difference,” others championed the
innovation, arguing that plus/minus grading allows for “greater accuracy” and
“fairness.”
Some suggested that, if
the college adopts plus/minus grading and an instructor fails to go along, he
thereby exposes himself to charges of unfairness and lawsuits from disgruntled
students: “I woulda got a B+ but got
a lousy B instead!”, they will yammer.
Suddenly,
Dotti said: “I think this is an
outrageous conversation.” She didn’t want anyone telling her how to grade,
she added.
Dale C opined that, if an instructor
specifies in his/her syllabus that he will dispense with pluses and minuses
come grade time, he thereby protects himself from litigation. “I bet it would
stand up legally,” he said.
Ray
suggested including clarification about an instructor’s options (should the
proposal pass) on the ballot. Doddee said a few more things, but I don’t know
what.
Item
#7 was the rescheduling of the Senate elections. They’ll take place during the
week of April 22.
Items
8 and 9 were nothin’ special, though Traci managed to vote both for and against one motion, owing, she explained, to raised-arm
“lingerage.”
PRESIDENT’S REPORT:
1.
During his report, Lewis explained his objection to the Chancellor’s approach
to establishing a “District Instructional
Delivery Taskforce” (see Mathur’s memo). He has established the task force
evidently owing to “Our [i.e., the colleges’ or the district’s] lack of
appropriate action” in regard to the “trend” of distance education (i.e., TV
and “online” courses). As you know, our Chancellor is a great advocate of
Distance Ed, having received his doctorate from a great distance (or,
alternatively, from a nearby box of Cracker Jack).
The problem is that,
despite the Ed Code’s specification of “Instructional Delivery” as among the
primary responsibilities of the Academic
Senates (i.e., the faculty), Mathur has alloted only two slots on the task
force to faculty members. As presently configured, the task force will be
dominated by the usual assembly of VPs, VCs, and AHs.
Accordingly, Lewis has
written Mathur a letter (dated 4/4). In it, he writes: “By formulating a [task force] and announcing it to the whole district
community without prior consultation with the Senate, the impression has been
created that the District is not willing to comply with BP 2100.1 [i.e., which
insures delegation of authority to the Academic Senates], or to recognize the
Senates’ primary responsibility for academic or professional matters.”
If the past is any
indication, we can be sure that Mathur will simply ignore Lewis’ plea.
Lewis stated that he is
“very worried” about these developments.
A secondary issue: in
the past, decisions and policies regarding instructional delivery have been
made at the college level; they have
been one way in which the colleges have defined themselves. Through this
action, however, Mathur is ending that practice.
2. Lewis also reported
that Interim President Roquemore means to extend to the entire college the
process, already planned relative to Academic Senate committees, of committee
restructuring.
OPEN FORUM:
During the “open forum”
portion of the meeting, I drew Senators’ attention to Senator Chandos’ letter
that had appeared in the Times (3/31/02).
In that letter, Ray had described “faculty-sponsored” student activities that,
he said, were “life threatening.” Further, apparently referring to my
newsletters, he implied that they have racist and homophobic (and
anti-religious) content.
Reading portions of
Ray’s letter aloud, I carefully explained how it “exhibited an appalling
disregard for the truth.” In closing, I noted that, if one is going to accuse
people of racism, homophobia, and the like, he is obliged at least to cite concrete instances. I sat down. Silence.
Well, that was about it.
--ROY
No comments:
Post a Comment