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
No comments:
Post a Comment