• April 16, 2015

Senate report, Meeting of the Rep Council, April 16, 2015

Senator Roy

     During public comments, of which there were few, VP Linda F got up to yammer and murmur like she does. The topic was our planned effort with regard to the LGBTQ community. Kathy S, Ac Sen Prez, opined that there are those who think they’re safe when in fact they ain’t, so maybe we should be careful where we allow this “safe space” designation. (Evidently, people were alluding to some dean or manager who is notoriously less-than-safe and who imagines otherwise.) Linda F got pretty defensive and explained that she is in fact the Title 9 person plus she’s certified in this way and that, and blah blah blah. I dunno.

     The gal in charge of CTE—some kind of dean, I guess—had real big hair (not that I’m complaining) and so I was unable to pay attention to what she actually said, which sounded a lot like “blah blah blah.” Not sure. Evidently, her task force is wrestling with the difficult issue of whether they should be a task force or a committee. That’s what I got out of it anyway.

     Steve R and others provided an account of the Foundation Awards Gala, and everyone seemed convinced that it was just about the best thing ever. I interrupted to ask, “To what do you attribute this improved state of affairs?” Kathy opined that it was a doubly kind of causation: someone who needed to leave, left, and somebody who needed to enter, entered. Later, the set of persons to whom thanks is owed (for this great success) expanded beyond Dennis Gordon to include Karen Orlando and various other persons. It looks like the Foundation raised possibly $38k that night.

     Senate VP Bob U reminded the group that it had decided to return the college to the old “finals week” schedule (i.e., providing special two-hour blocks for exams during the final week of the semester), and he explained that VP Craig J is working on various proposals for how to do that, including “what we used to do.” If you have anything to add about what worked and what did not (in that old system), now’s the time to speak up. Implementation of the new approach starts in Fall 2015!

     The seating arrangement of members of the cabinet seemed strange: they were spread out across the room, lengthwise, like there was some kind of BO problem. Not sure what that was about, if anything, but when it was time to discuss the Curriculum Committee, there was a peculiar tension in the air, it seemed (not sure), and maybe that’s why Diana H, chair of Curriculum, was sitting in the far corner of the room, in another time zone and thinner atmosphere.

     Roopa M inquired into the progress Diana was making in going through the backlog of curriculum work (there’s a horrible backlog, bottleneck), etc. Diana acted as though she had it all under control, but I’m not sure, since she was so far away and her voice was faint.

     Kathy made mention of the notorious faculty hiring policy (BP4011.1). You’ll recall that, fifteen or so years ago, Mean Mathur and the Board made their move to muzzle faculty by unilaterally changing the hiring policy so’s to reduce faculty’s role and increase administration’s role, despite a state statute according to which this policy is supposed to be arrived at mutually between the Academic Senates (on the one hand) and the district (Chancellor and Board) (on the other). In an unprecedented move, with IVC taking the lead (Wendy Gabriella was Prez), faculty sued the district and (to make a long story short) we won, forcing the district to enter into negotiations with the senate to arrive at an agreeable BP. Hence the rather legalistic and cumbersome policy with which we are now saddled. To hear Kathy tell it, the situation is now favorable for replacing the old BP with an AR and defanging it in some ways.

     Someone brought up the much-maligned administrative hiring policy—that policy gives to administration too much power and demands little faculty representation. Steve R opined that we should make clear that we don’t like that policy and think that it should be changed soon. So Steve moved that we recommend that the policy be changed by the end of 2015; that passed.

     You’ll recall that one of our new hirings—the third tier choice of administration; something about robotics—has been fiaso-esque and worse. The faculty of the Schools involved carped loudly that they had not been properly consulted, and so on. And so, to this day, there is no clear answer to the question, “So, what kind of instructor are the administrators hiring again?”

     Kathy opined that the position has evolved into an “Engineering Technician person,” it seems. We’ll see. Kathy’s advice to Glenn is to bring all affected parties together and solicit their input before going forward. Have an “open conversation.” We’ll see what happens. Glenn is, as you know, resistant to any advice that is, well, good.

     Cheryl D came up to talk about the mandated SLO website, to be made available to the public. There are two ways of displaying the SLOs for programs, and we opted for the simpler one.

     There was more blathering about “CTE [career technical ed] coursework.” My eyes glazed over; I failed to listen.

     Evidently, someone hammered out a “workplace mediation and conciliation process.” It’s supposed to deal with disgruntlement between folks so that that doesn’t develop into something serious—gunplay, etc. I think it’s full of the usual truisms and “warm and fuzzies”: listen, consider the other person’s POV, count to 10. I asked what that was about and so Kathy launched into it and I couldn’t take anymore and so I moved that we pass the dang thing and we did.

     The senate now has an elections committee, and so we approved that. There’s still time to nominate somebody for Prez of VP—one week extension.

     Somebody said something about the “Perkins Budget Steering Committee,” and, again, my eyes glazed over and I fell into a coma. “Send in nominations,” we were told.

     We still need volunteers to read the names of students for the upcoming Scholarship Awards event. I do believe that Roopa M and Steve volunteered. We’re still looking for faculty speakers.

     We are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to read the DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLAN. We’ll be acting on that soon. (Some have expressed strong reservations about some or its elements. See earlier notes.)

     We briefly discussed my ill-fated RESOLUTION re SLOs. It was voted down at the State Senate Plenary over the weekend. Before the vote, Kathy had heard only positive feedback about it in the hallways and elsewhere. Possibly, the rejection reflected niggling over details. For instance, evidently there has been some attempt to do a meta-analysis of studies and that has essentially determined that the existing research indicates that the “measurable outcomes” approach flat doesn’t work. That factoid can be included in any future version of this resolution. The resolution is going to Academic Affairs where it will be spruced up accordingly. Possibly, we’ll be able to put it forward at a future plenary. (Kathy implied that a surprising range of officials seemed positively disposed re the resolution.)

     Davit K, the VP of budgets (or something) was invited to present, well, the budget. He displayed a SPREADSHEET, which, we were repeatedly told, will be available at the senate website (asenate@ivc.edu). It isn’t the usual non-interactive spreadsheet; this one allows entering different numbers, seeing what difference that makes to the bottom line. And so, owing to all the yammering faculty have been doing about the budget process in recent years, we now have a very transparent instrument for determining the budget, namely, this spreadsheet (if not “the process” that determines its elements).

     I and others asked probing questions, some of which concerned the decision to hire so few instructors. It became clear that, as Dan recently suggested, given the existing budget, prospects look grim for future full-time faculty hires. We looked at Davit’s projections, and they were truly dismal.

     Obviously, the existing spreadsheet reflects philosophical/value decisions about what the college cares about (e.g., hiring new faculty), and so we should study this spreadsheet and come prepared to challenge the Roquemore-planned direction of the college, which does not seem to include much hiring, despite an uptick in the economy.

     We were encouraged to attend the upcoming Trustees “LISTENING SESSION.” Next week.

     Evidently, right after that event, there’ll be a shindig for newly tenured faculty. We were strongly encouraged to attend that too.

     Item 26 concerned the hiring of full time faculty using student success and support program (SSSP) categorical funds. Evidently, there is some document that is associated with the proposal, and we should read that by next meeting. (I’ll try to find it.) The Learning Disabilities hire comes up here.

     Also, please read the EARLY COLLEGE PROPOSAL. It entails very significant changes and improvements. Glenn has made every indication of being displeased with this document and its innovations. And so please read the proposal and give us feedback so that we may represent you properly at the next meeting. (I’ll dig it up again.)

--Senator Roy

Your senators:

Brittany Adams: badams26@ivc.edu

Roy Bauer: rbauer@ivc.edu

April 9, 2015: challenging the Accreds on SLOs (First Effort)

     At a senate meeting in early April or late February, I noted that we (faculty in the Cal CC system) spend much time and energy on SLOs; I further asserted that the "outcomes based education" (OBE) philosophy, upon which SLOs are based, and which is central to the Accrediting agency's standards, is essentially pseudoscientific claptrap, and that, in any case, there is no evidence that it works and that there are indications that it does not. Senate Prez Schmeidler then suggested that I fashion a resolution that we could take up to the next State Senate meeting. Ultimately, I did fashion a resolution, which Kathy modified. There were early indications that it had support at the Plenary, but, in the end, it was voted down. Later, it become clear that the resolution would have had a better chance if certain changes had been made. And so we resolved to try it again in coming months.  As it turns out, there are meta analyses that suggest that the OBE approach is essentially ineffacious. That factoid should be included in any future proposed resolutions at the State Senate. --RB

APRIL 9:

From: Roy Bauer
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:07 PM
To: IVC ASENATE
Subject: agenda item

I ask that we agendize an item concerning a resolution about the ACCJC's continued embrace of the "learning" philosophy behind SLOs (the OBE movement, I suppose).

Roy Bauer
Humanities

* * *

From: Kathy Schmeidler
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Roy Bauer; IVC ASENATE
Subject: RE: agenda item

Hi Roy, 

Our emails crossed. Thank you.

Kathy

* * *

From: Brooke Choo [on Senate Cabinet]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 1:17 PM
To: Roy Bauer; IVC ASENATE
Subject: RE: agenda item

Roy,

I added it to our draft agenda for next week.

Brooke

Brooke Choo, PhD

APRIL 13:

Email exchange, post Plenary (re resolutuion to challenge Accreds' embrace of "outcomes based education" approach, i.e., SLOs):

From: Roy Bauer 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 5:27 PM
To: Kathy Schmeidler
Subject: resolution?

     Kathy, so what happened?

Roy Bauer
Teacher, philosopher, blogger, bon vivant

* * *

From: Kathy Schmeidler

Hi Roy, 

     I’m still trying to figure it out (in terms of bigger picture): In Area D it was accepted, someone from another Area “improved” it by adding a due date; Area D left it on the consent calendar. People from Area D & other regions came up to me in the hall to praise it.

     And then, somehow, it failed at the vote. I didn’t understand the opposition. The arguments against it seemed to be small detail stuff.

      So, from what other disappointed people said after the vote, what we should do is to tighten up the language, remove specific references to “unvetted” groups (this was a complaint about a “whereas”), and bring it back early so that people in all the regions have time to amend it until it is acceptable.

     There’s a guy at Santa Ana who has been doing a concerted study of this. Maybe we can invite him to speak or hold a workshop here to engender a deeper discussion of assessing the assessment. 

     Another maybe is to generate essentially a position paper, perhaps restated in resolution format, that offers a positive alternative to address the purported goals without adopting the ACCJC’s methodology.

Kathy

Katherine T. Schmeidler, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
President, IVC Academic Senate

AUGUST 20:

At the August 20, 2015 meeting of the Academic Senate, senator Rochford reminded the group of our intention to attempt the resolution again. Senate Prez Schmeidler acknowledged that we will indeed do so in the coming months.

--RB

• April 2, 2015: campus LGBTQ liaison

Report, 4/2/15 Academic Senate meeting (REP council)

     During public comments, I said the following on behalf of Brittany and me:

     We would like to have a full-time faculty member serve as the campus LGBTQ liaison.

Once selected, we would want to publish this individual’s contact information on the IVC website on our LGBTQ Resources webpage and in any printed directories or the Student Handbook where appropriate, as well as other resources for faculty and students. A mission statement would also be desirable. There are models for campuswide LGBTQ mission statements.

     Just FYI, these will help IVC meet Ed Code requirements.

The matter will be agendized for the next meeting. [Thanks, Brooke.]

     During School reports, I reported that “we remain disgruntled, especially Brittany.”

     “I hope that’s not why she’s absent.”

     “No.”

During Reports:

     Cheryl was not present for her report on the SLO TASK FORCE, but I made essentially this remark:

     In case you’re wondering where the whole “SLO” concept comes from, you should know that

Ten or fifteen years ago, when the ACCJC (accreditors) informed colleges that they’d be incorporating the SLO concept into the accred standards, the State Senate requested some documentation of the empirical basis/support of the SLO approach. It received none.

     It received none because, near as I can tell, no such support exists; this continues to  be the case.

     The SLO approach is an outrgrowth of OBE, or Outcomes Based Education, which is one of two or three approaches that emerged in the 90s.

     You should know that the nations that seem to do best at educating their students—Singapore, Finland, et al.—never embrace the OBE approach,

     Indeed, some nations (e.g., Australia) that embraced the OBE approach have since abandoned it is unworkable.

     I also noted that it is one thing to understand that the OBE/SLO approach is rubbish (as it is), but it is quite another to proceed pretending that it is not. We as a college seem to do the latter.

     I suggested that we ought to do the former. It’s rubbish, and we should be clear on that.

     I complained that, essentially, faculty, at the state level and at our college level, have essentially allowed the SLO machine to process us without complaint. No, I said, we should complain loudly. It is wasting our time and producing crap.

     Kathy was inspired to unleash her own rants against SLOs. Though she acknowledged that some elements of the SLO approach (connecting programs with missions and such) could be made to be useful, essentially, this business of approaching instruction in terms of SLOs is nonsense.

     There was a fair amount of discussion about this among senators. No one seemed to defend our great SLO preoccupation. Everyone seemed disposed to condemn it.

     Kathy suggested that I draft a statement that could be endorsed by our senate and then sent up to the State Senate (i.e., the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges). I will certainly do that.

     Let me know what you think of this. Let me know if you have any input re this statement.

     I’m pretty excited about this. Just maybe, for once, we can say something important and say it very loudly (if not efficaciously).

     The current CTE (Career Technical Education) Coordinator, June, will be stepping down. We need a replacement. The position counts as a committee assignment.

     Accreditation: Kathy and the others are beginning to create the subcommittees for the accred “substandards” (i.e., standards under standards). Kathy noted that being a member of such a committee is a great way to learn about the college.

     Cafeteria: there was some (unnecessary, it turns out, since nobody has mentioned salad bars) discussion about the desirability of “salad bars”—the bio people chimed in their judgment that such things are alarmingly unsanitary—but there seemed to be lots of complaints about the current vendor.

     Calendar: the proposed calendar was accepted at Monday’s board meeting, but not without the usual carping from such trustees as Jim Wright, who fretted about the uneven distribution of days between Fall and Spring.

     Melanie noted that the elimination of  Spring Break could solve some problems. She also explained that, in her experience, the break renders her students recalcitrant, AWOL, and generally useless. I have to say, that’s my experience as well, and I’d love to see a move to get rid of Spring Break (obviously, in doing so, we would not be increasing the number of work days; they’d simply be distributed differently). Think about it! It’ll come up on an agenda coming to your town soon.

     Environmental Committee: there was some blatherage, and Priscilla mentioned various steps that we can take around campus to move in the environmentally sound direction. I focused on the water crisis, and Priscilla noted that there are many things we can do to address that, including eliminating lawns! I opined that it would be great if our college could take the lead on that, since that’s where we’re headed anyway. You’ll hear more about this in future, I suspect.

     Bob U, qua VP, noted that the district is contemplating adopting a new learning management system. I think it’s called Canvas. It would replace Blackboard and would offer features that Blackboard was supposed to offer but never has. Don’t worry: we’re not gonna pull the plug on Blackboard any time soon, but Blackboard is expensive, and it could be that this new system would be a great improvement.

     The BPAR (board policy and regulations review group) has hasn’t met, so there’s little action.

     I mentioned Monday’s presentation (at the board meeting) about the process by which we hire managers and administrators in our district. We as a faculty are unhappy with the existing policy, in part because faculty have so little representation on these committees. Kathy thinks that there will be an opportunity to improve this policy, but the board (or somebody) wants to wait until we review the board policy for faculty hiring. You’ll recall that many of us have expressed misgivings (even fundamental M’s) about the way we hire faculty (too much presidential discretion, etc.), and others have complained that it is cumbersome and bureaucratic—in part because it was hammered out as a compromise after landmark litigation c. 2001. At any rate, Kathy feels that we’ll likely have an opportunity to push and have approved a recent draft of changes to that policy.

     The IVC Tech Plan is not ready to by reviewed yet.

     Item 9 concerned the minimum requirements for the “Robotics” hire. In my notes of the last meeting, I described the fiasco surrounding administration’s push for this position (Tier 3). Many faculty (and deans?) complained about confusion, bad behavior, and failures of consultation. Further, the kinds of fiscal conversations that occurred recently should have occurred back in August/September, etc. I asked Kathy if she judged administration to be “sufficiently chastened” by the massive blowback created by their Keystonian efforts. “Absolutely,” she said, I think. At any rate, at long last, the kinds of conversations (including expert/faculty consultation) that should have occurred months ago finally occurring. There’s no need to make any decision on the min. requirements yet. The position is still undergoing redefinition.

     Steve asked whether it would be a good idea to send a dictionary definition of “consultation” to administration, because they don’t seem to grasp the concept. We all agreed that that would be a good idea. I added, “While we’re at it, we might as well send a definition of college, too.”

     No action re the SLO website (which is a bit like a holistic medicine website, I guess).

     No action re CTE course work (whatever that means)

     Item 16 was the faculty hiring priority list. You’ll recall that, before the robotics snafu, we were much exercised over administration’s peculiar decision to cut three hires from the faculty hiring list. Faculty blew a cork. It was a major SNAFU.

     There’ve been developments. The needed consultations are now occurring. Further, the dean hire (a result of the so-called administrative “re-org”) was withdrawn until the proper discussions can occur. Davit will come to the senate and make his case.

     Brooke explained how money was found to save the Learning Disabilities position. This hasn’t been decided yet, but do let us know what you think of having the senate endorse the LD hire. (Obviously, yes!)

     Item 18 concerns a pilot program for a “Discipline Focused Advising Proposal.” According to the agenda, the project “will add a discipline-focused advising component to our current counseling services.” Frankly, it sounds like a good idea: adding faculty counselors who would be paid via stipend (they’d have office hours too).  Perhaps you saw Brooke’s clarification of the proposal.

      Item 19 – Program Review Process update – nothing of substance to report

      Item 20: Scholarship Event

“The scholarship awards event is planned for May 21. The Representative Council is requested to appoint a faculty member speaker and two (or so) faculty members to read names.”

 – We didn’t have time to discuss this. Let it be known, however, that we’re looking for faculty willing to do the name-reading!

     That was about it.

--Senator Roy

Your Senators:

Brittany Adams: adams26@ivc.edu

Roy Bauer: rbauer@ivc.edu