• March 5, 2015: the Early College program, admin reorg

Just funnin': before 2015 Commencement

March 5 meeting of the IVC Academic Senate – Notes

     Let me get these controversial issues out of the way:

     On a 17 – 4 - 1 vote, the senate approved the proposal to “return to a ‘final exams week’ schedule.” (I.e., we’re returning to the old status quo with a special finals week schedule. Some of our colleagues are headed for the land of disgruntlement.)

Also:

     The senate, on a 17 – 4 - 0 vote, approved changes to the Academic Renewal policy (i.e., the policy whereby students can delete course grades of some disastrous earlier semester, etc.—the proposal was to allow students to “pick and choose” the course grades from that semester that they wanted deleted).

     Our School had generally rejected this proposal.

     On a 19 - 2 - 0 vote, the Senate approved the change to the “Repeating classes” policy. Students will be allowed to replace a failing grade upon having passed the course—not necessarily in our district (that was the proposed change).

     Our school had expressed no strong disapproval of this proposed change.

     NB: During “public comments,” Cheryl D announced that the Library is presently buying books and we are invited to send RECOMMENDATIONS.

     During School reports I offered little more than a shrug, whereupon several people expressed amazement, and perhaps disappointment, that I had not offered our signature “we remain disgruntled” report.

      “Tacit disgruntlement,” I said.

     Our Accreditation efforts (i.e., composing the self-study report) is proceeding apace. We should have a draft by the Summer of 2016. Those running this effort seek to get as many of us involved in the process as is possible. (Don’t volunteer. It will rot your brain.)

     The Senate still needs to forward the name of someone to represent us on the search committee for the Foundation Director. The Faculty Association (union) has put forth the name of Bill Hewitt as its representative. ANY VOLUNTEERS?

     The Senate President, Kathy Schmeidler, discussed elements of her proposed changes to the controversial Early College Program. As I understand it, according to her proposal, which is currently being reviewed by the ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (a fact that does not inspire as much confidence as it should), high school juniors and seniors would come to IVC to take the courses and they would take the courses in regular IVC classes (not groups of high school students).

     I was very relieved to hear that.

     Kathy is aware that some of us hope to end the EC program, but she noted that we have a “contractual obligation” with two high schools to provide this instruction. As Tracy noted, however, we can choose to let that contract “run out.” (“Grandfather out” the program.)

     There seemed to be agreement that, at long last, a comprehensive report on our EC program should be produced so that we may see just what the program has accomplished and whether it benefits anyone, including our college. Kathy noted the many “invisible costs” of the program, which are likely substantial.

     President Glenn Roquemore was on hand to defend the program, suggesting, I think, that the program didn’t really introduce anything that didn’t already exist. We were teaching classes at high schools, he said, long before the EC program. (Later, Steve R responded by noting that the comparison is invalid, since, in those dark old days, we taught at high schools only because we had no space at the college.)

     Brittany had an opportunity to mention the English Dept’s recent difficulty finding an instructor to accept an EC course assignment. (Not one agreed to teach it.) Steve chimed in to agree that such difficulties go on all the time re EC, and we occasionally complain, but administration doesn’t seem to listen to our complaints.

     Dianne H referred to recent Cal legislation that seems designed to encourage young people who, in the past, have not gone to college to finally go. This seemed to concern technical instruction especially, although early college programs, too, are being discussed in this context.

     Glenn seemed to suggest that it would be odd for us to end our EC program while the general trend in the state is to support it, but I think that most in the room took that to be the crude Roquemorian sophistry that it was.

     At one point, I do believe Glenn said “it’s Obama’s fault” re the push for more EC programs. I almost snorted aloud.

     Steve noted the curious fact that, over the years, the explanation or justification for the EC program has shifted from one thing to another. Early on, the EC program was sold with promises of a “pied piper” effect, a mythic windfall that has never materialized. The latest justifications are similarly uncompelling.

     Brittany asked: what do other colleges do? The answer: they’re “all over the map”—i.e., there is no one thing being done out there under the flag of “early college.” I do believe they just pass out VHS tapes of Animal House in some programs.

     As always, we discussed the list of Board Policies and Administrative Regs going through the review process. The all-important BP 4011.1—faculty hiring—is coming through. The current draft much resembles the proposals our Senate produced nearly two years ago. Kathy seemed to say that we’ll likely find this proposed new policy to our liking. (But that’s for a future Senate meeting.)

     Roopa Mathur (with sidekick Bruce Hagan wearing an oversized coat) walked us through the list of Basic Aid expenditures that have been given high ranking by some committee or other. The litany of projects generally sounded pretty good, although I’m still not sure why we’re going to buy a K-Mart “Blue light special” cart for the college. That’s gotta be Glenn’s idea.

     At one point, we were told: “let us know if you want other things recommended.” But then we voted on the proposed list and it passed handily. I dunno.

     There was a fair amount of discussion about the “administrative reorganization” of the college. Some of the Social Science faculty moaned about the loss of Karima as their dean. On the other hand, they said, if we have to do this reorg thing, it would be great if Social Sciences could get their own dean.

     Kathy’s initial—and abiding—response to the proposed reorg is “We don’t need any more damn administrators.” On the other hand, if we’re going to spend this money on a reorg, this proposal wouldn’t be the worst way to do it.

     Tracy and her anti-Social crowd proposed that we slow things down: perhaps simply operate for a while with an interim dean. This has some advantages: possibly some faculty seek to step up to serve in this role (as a way to prepare them for a career in administration). Also, if we drag our feet enough, perhaps we’ll be able to hire a dean after the abysmal administrative hiring policy can be reworked. As things stand, it is not “well structured,” said Tracy. Everyone seemed to agree.

     Kathy noted that Craig was in the room and was noting our comments. No doubt he’ll purchase Voodoo Dolls over at the Spectrum later tonight. I know just the place.

     The Senate voted 20 – 0 – 2 in support of the slightly modified reorg proposal, with Mr. and Mrs. Chemistry voting agin it.

     We continued until next time the discussion of the Foundation Director [?] and Commencement Speaker committees.

     Kathy drew our attention to the SOCCCD Technology Master Plan, which can be viewed here:

http://inside.ivc.edu/committees/asenate/Meetings/2014-15/15-02-19/SOCCCD%20Technology%20Master%20Plan_DRAFT%20to%20forward%20to%20DTC_February%202015.pdf

     The “goals” mentioned in this document include maintaining our national leadership in all things technical. Kathy didn’t see the need for that.

     Also, there are elements of the Plan that seem to push a “top down” approach to running technology in the district and colleges, and Senators agreed that that was not to our liking.

      “It is unclear and scary what they plan to do,” said Kathy, referring to the district’s technology plan.

     We’d better take a look at it.

     We had a wild and crazy discussion of “Minimum Qualifications for the Laser Technology Faculty Position.” It appears that administrators came up with this proposed Min Qual without consulting the relevant areas on campus (engineering). In the end, we decided that the powers that be need to go back and do a better job with the recommended minimal requirements, which seemed very problematic.

     Brittany and I agree that there’s something hinky about this whole business. Administration is up to something. We’ll try to stay on top of this Laser thing.

--Roy

A correction: 

Brooke reminds me that: the Laser min quals passed (Master’s degree); the Robotics one (Bachelor’s or Associate’s) was tabled. Let’s not forget they are hiring two positions (via Tier 3), one for lasers and one for robots. --As always, Brooke is on top of things. Gosh, she should be in leadership!