Thursday, January 16, 2014

• January 16, 2014


Meeting of the Academic Senate, General Assembly
January 16

(In truth, it wasn’t much of a meeting. Essentially, shared-governance-wise, things suck, and we’re not tackling that problem head on. I tried to rattle Kathy’s cage a bit by bringing up Early College, a real sore point between Admin and Ac. Senate. Kathy knows that there’s a real problem with EC, but she just isn’t the sort to draw lines in the sand--or even to issue hearty squawks. She’s smart, but she’s essentially a “let’s get along” kind of gal.)

Academic Senate Prez Kathy Schmeidler reminded the group that the senate has no actual business today. This is a meeting of the general assembly; we’re here to provide updates about issues and events, to explain what the senate does, etc.

Listed on the syllabus is our “reason for being.” Kathy briefly explained the “10+1,” etc.—i.e., areas in which faculty are responsible—areas where other entities should be taking our lead. Essentially, it boils down to curriculum and programs. Administration is in charge of making things work. We’re in charge of curriculum and programs.

I mentioned IVC’s “Early College Program,” which came into being over the objections of the Academic Senate. Kathy provided some half-hearted mumblings about the difficulty defining a “program.” VPI Justice was in the room.

Two new full-time faculty members introduced themselves: a physicist and a Librarian.

We’ll be pursuing sixteen or seventeen hires this Spring.

The Planning and Decision Making Manual has undergone revision, and the draft is available for perusal online (in Inside IVC). (In my view, it defines a byzantine process that discourages participation.)

Cheryl D, our SLO maven, briefly commented on SLOs. There’s some sort of deadline on Feb. 24. “I’ve got nothing else,” she said.

Kathy reminded us that SLOs are supposed to be listed on our syllabi. “I do believe that that is evil; but we have to do it,” she said, half jokingly.

There was a report on “CTE.” Nobody bothered to explain what CTE stands for. (Career Technical Education.) The CTE people are looking to hire a coordinator.

Our own Anca reported on the activities of the “Bookstore Task Force.” Sales have increased at the bookstore, especially online sales. The committee has been working with the bookstore to decrease book prices. They’ve got the math text book price down to the price offered at Saddleback.
The bookstore is very busy during the break.

Kathy briefly discussed committee assignments. There are still some openings on the Strategic Planning Committee.


SCHOLARSHIP TASK FORCE:

This led to a discussion of the Scholarship “task force,” of which I am a member. (Not sure how that happened.) Kathy explained the charge of the committee. It is an oversight committee. The application reading or appraisal committee is another animal entirely. (In the past, just about anybody could end up in this group that actually assessed student applications. I think one or two dogs were involved.)

Steve explained the Scholarship program’s stormy past: Ad hoc aspects, all manner of hinkiness. One problem: getting people to join the crew that reads all the student applications for scholarships. Hinkiness breeds skepticism breeds noninvolvement. There has been no process or training. Until now.

We now have a policy defining the crew that reads the applications. Upshot: the senate has to step up and forward volunteers to serve on the various reading/application groups. If you want to participate (i.e., be a reader), communicate that to one of your senators or the Academic Senate (via email). Your name will be put up for approval by the senate. You’ll likely be approved.

I mentioned that the Workgroup makes important policy decisions (recommendations), and, among the issues yet to be decided is whether to require letters of rec. Non-faculty on the committee seem disposed to dispense with letters. Know that. (I was implying that faculty have a reason to join this workgroup; faculty are presently outnumbered. Those dogs are now running the committee and they want red meat, no stinkin’ letters.)

Faculty Association: about to sunshine contract to be negotiated for.

Reports:

Curriculum, Diana Hurlbut:

The committee can no longer approve stand-alone courses. A course has to be part of a program. We don’t want to send up courses to the state not affiliated with a program, because generic reviewers will misunderstand and misjudge such outlines.

As usual, Diana seemed to step directly off the peevitude train (or exasperation express), with lips still moving, arms still waving, gestures still slicing the air and jostling the imagined enemy.
We have to review our “degrees with emphasis,” she said. We have two months to clean that up.
We had submitted various degrees to the state, and they were kicked back. We have to fix them.

We’ve been working hard.

Next Tech Review day, Jan 31.

VP Bob Urell:

He’s on the Budget Development Resource P Committee. Bob cochairs that committee with Davit, Glenn’s budget dude. (Glenn and company are not know for their “planning” or organizational abilities. That’s the subtext here. Bob knows something about money, budgets.) (Subtext: we’re trying to inject common sense into the budget process. We want things planned for once.)

There’s a new resource request form.

Academic planning and Technology Committee: blah blah blah

Bob is also on DRAC (the District Resource Allocation Committee—that dithers over distribution of Basic Aid funds, etc.) as an alternate for Mark M.

“So, basically, I look at budgets,” said Bob.

Academic Affairs, Roopa Mathur:

Professional Development: how to go onto website, etc. Make sure you log your PD hours this week. It’s easy to do. Go to Inside IVC. Press keys.

Planning to go to conferences? We encourage you to apply for money. Be sure to put in PD hours in total, not just the required 39. It’s good to have evidence of our work, our need.

Lecture series: two wonderful DALs (distinguished academic lectures) presentations coming up. A Jonestown survivor. A music composer. (I think that Oprah Winfrey is involved in booking for DAL.)

IVC2IVC events also listed. Be sure to attend. Interested in doing one of these? Wanna lecture at everybody and show us how smart you are? Please contact us.

Student success summit. Have a strategy for increasing student success? Let us know. We’ll just assume your confidence is justified and we’ll set you up as a model of success and perfection.
We’re working on the Wait List.

Lots of revision going on. An AR on field trips coming up for approval soon. Program Review: Feb 28 is deadline for final version.

President Kathy Schmeidler:

Institutional Effectiveness Committee: we’ve been working on the manual.

SPAC (Strategic Planning and Accredit Council): used to be “college council.” Big change: many more faculty members compared to the old college council.

Accreditation: blah blah blah.

ACCJC/BENO:

I raised questions about the ACCJC, Babs Beno. Any chance all this Sturm und Drang over City College of San Francisco and Beno/ACCJC will shake loose some action regarding larger issues with Accreditation? (Nationwide tensions over accreditation.)

Not clear. It seems likely that Beno will step down. The word on the street is that she’ll do that, but it won’t help.

Tales told re ACCJC sturm und drang. At the big state Ac. Senate meeting, two ACCJC people showed up and gave everybody just ten minutes to write down any problems/issues/feedback.

Response: WTF!

Early College: We agreed to stop squealing about EC in the spring to get Accred done. Now that Accred is in the can, the EC issue is back on the front burner. (That’s the story, anyway.)

We’re going to put out a survey. It will solicit views re (1) the history of the program and (2) it’s recent incarnation. The Admin likes to say that they have heard the criticisms and they’ve all been addressed. Many of us don’t thinks so.

Early College:

Robert M of Counseling evidently was tasked with explaining where things are at re EC. As usual, the counselors are in charge, and I just don’t know why. I wouldn’t put them in charge of an Easter egg hunt.

Robert started by noting that he was not around for the birth of the program. (He looked pretty sheepish. He saw me and stepped back a foot or two. I hissed.  He squealed.)

He only knows about the last three years, he says. (His message was clear: don’t blame me for this shit.)

He’s just here to tell us the facts about EC. There have been changes, he says.

It’s a 4 year program. Students come in from middle school. First three years at high school. The last year is at IVC.

The focus of program has changed. We started with Tustin HS, Beckmann High, and then El Toro was brought on. Not feasible. We didn’t get the strongest students. We lost Tustin HS because of the unpreparedness (or whatever) of the students. They struggled. Beckman is now on its fourth cohort. El Toro is on its 2 nd. We’re down to those two. Tustin HS had to back out.
In the beginning, the idea was that, in the four years, students would get 60 units—enough for their AA—and they would be awarded by IVC. But it’s just not feasible to do that number of units in 4 years. Scrapped that vision after year 1.

No longer focused n 60 units. Need to be realistic. Switched to IGETC certification.

Now 51 units over four years. Yes, they get full IGETC and SU certification. Gives them advantages.

Their first semester, take college 10, college prep (counseling). (Counselors explain where students can buy good pencil cases.) The biggest problem: The cohorts from Beckman and Tustin weren’t strong. Those high schools approached the program by finding bodies to put into it rather than looking for those who would be a good fit.

The upshot: lots of those students did very poorly. 2 nd cohort of Beckman only graduated with 12 students. We weren’t clear enough about who we wanted, who we did not want, to participate.

Now looking for students with high GPA. About 3.85. (I do believe that, these days, high schools give Bs to students as long as they’re breathing. Even dogs get Cs.)

Must have two letters of rec. from middle school instructors. Strong ones. They’ve come in handy, boy.

Must score into Math 353 or higher. (Algebra 1 at HS level.) Need to be able to get into geometry in 9 th grade year. (Most students are only at 253.)

Writing sample. Two questions: 1 st, why you want to get into program; true desire. 50 minutes to write. Then long-term education goals. We can find out if they want to get in for right reason.

There’s a screening process. We mean business.

We’ve made clear that parents need to stay out of instructors’ hair. We reinforce this.

Counselors’ role: review transcripts every semester. Looking for students who are struggling. 9 th grade is “provisional year.” Always looking at GPA.

Steve R (who has doggedly pursued the anti-EC position) asked a series of trenchant questions. Especially: any evidence that this has helped IVC? “No,” said Robert.

Oh good.

Kathy: the acting dean of the program was “adamant” that there should be no survey. But Kathy said there certainly will be a survey. So there.

That was about it. 


--ROY

No comments:

Post a Comment