Academic Senate All Faculty Meeting
Minutes for Thursday, October 13, 2011
Cravens Multi-Purpose Room
3:00 P.M.
Present:
Zerryl Becker, PresidentStan Dupree, Adjunct Representative
Felix Marhuenda-Donate, Chair, Educational Tech.Joel Murphy, Adjunct Representative
Darlene Romano-Sparks, Chair, ProfStandards & EthicsAmy DiBello, Chair, Curriculum
Douglas Redman, Chair, Ed Policies & PracticesEdwin Reed, Chair, Faculty Development
Academic Unit Reps: Jeff Place, Business/Tech./WE; Alex Jazan, Communication; Denise Diamond, English; Basil Augustine, General Counseling; Melissa Flora, Math; Fred Vescial, Non-Credit/PE/Athletics; Donna Greene, Health Sciences/ECE; Chris Totten, Greg Fox, Science; Ellen Hardy, Social Sciences; Lisa Wilander, Student Services/Spec. Programs; Tres Dean, Arts & Media; Geoff Hagopian, Math; CD Jackson, communication;
In attendance: Leslie Young, Adrian Gonzales, Kim Dozier, Craig Hays, Irene Larsen, Leif Jordan, Lee Ann Weaver (recorder)
I.Call to Order – Presence of a Quorum
The meeting was called to order by Ms. Becker at 3:04 p.m., a quorum was present.
II. Public Comments – none
III. Confirmation of the Agenda
Motionby Jeff Place, second by Geoff Hagopian, to approve the agenda of October 13, 2011. Motion carried.
IV.Approval of Minutesof September 22, 2011
Motion by Amy DiBello, second by Jeff Place, to approve the minutes of September 22, 2011. Motion carried.
V.Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Curriculum
Motion by Geoff Hagopian, second by Jeff Place. Motion carried unanimously
VI.Announcements
1.Presidential Search - Zerryl reported the Board of Trustees held a special board meeting on October 3 to discuss this search. RobertBlizinski will bring a list of potential consultants to the next meeting. He will also provide a sample survey for the community’s input. The advisory selection committee will be 10-12 members but the makeup of that committee has not been decided.
2.Constitution Change – Gary Bergstrom and the Association are negotiating for the Senate. The District would like the Senate to pick up outcomes as a Senate Chair position. We tried to re-do the constitution last year but didn’t get 2/3 of the faculty to vote. We are looking at it again and have suggested that if we are to pick up this additional responsibility that all of the chairs, not just some, should get reassign time. The MOU is still not signed. We won’t bring a constitution change to the Senate until we have the approval from the District.
3.Task Force on Student Success –Zerryl mailed a summary to everyone and invited comments. Zerryl explained the state will narrowly define community college missions and they will take a more active role. Outcome based funding was turned down. There was also discussion as to whether the state is basing this on evidence that shows “wandering” restricts student success. Zerryl said the state is basing it on numbers. We have 10,000 students and we graduate 350, transfer 350, and we have 200 certificates – what are those other 9000 doing? They are looking at the large number of students in the system that are not moving toward a goal. Questions/comments included:
- students wandering through the curriculum is a good thing
- students should not have to select a major in the second semester – maybe the third
- students don’t know what they want to study and should be able to try different areas.
- is there any evidence that shows the student that declares moves through more quickly?
- what does this do to those in the community that want to take one or two classes?
- we are no longer a “community” college
- you have to be a student to be in a play
- what happens with CTE classes where a student might take an irrigation design class for furthering job skills or those just updating their skills
- what we are trying to do is define “wandering” through the curriculum
- it is a compelling argument what happens to those 9000 people - it is a significant enough number to find out
- what percentage are continuing learning
- we need a really good analysis
Zerryl said the State Academic Senate is trying to stop the issues they see as most destructive and ask for time to come back and do some studies. They cannot stop all of it.
There was additional discussion on collecting internal data and repeatability. Data is available on student success but what is not available is what the student’s goals are when they are other than transfer, certificate or A.A. We have hard data and need soft data, which can be gathered via surveys on Blackboard.
A student cannot repeat a course with the same content just for practice. Repeatability (taking the same class several times for practice) and repeating a class because you got a deficient grade are 2 different things. You cannot repeat a class if you received a grade of C or better. Students can petition to repeat for currency. There is a common theme to the legislation coming down the pipeline: get them in and get them out.
Zerrylwill take these comments to the curriculum think tank to see if that is a good place to gather the information.
4.New Faculty: we are hiring 3 new faculty this year. The deans and department chairs are working together tostart the process of determining priorities.
5.Accreditation: we need to respond to 8 accreditation recommendations with a report due October 2012. We are getting a head start and Zerryl thanked the 9 people that volunteered to assist; Melissa Flora, Felix Marhuende-Donate, Gary Bergstrom, Herb Fessinger, Kathlyn Enciso, Chris Nelson, Carl Farmer, Doug MacIntyre & Rick Rawnsley. Each will take an area and work on a report. Rick will work on the final edit.
6.Planning Council:still working on coming up with a smaller and more effective planning council. The current recommendation is for 3 members of the Senate Exec and 2 representatives from Department Chairs. This won't happen before next fall.
7.FTES: we are in the middle of a recalculation from 5 years ago. It has been completed and the worst case is$1.8M worse case and best case is $600,000. We have brought in an independent auditor to look at the numbers.
8.November 1 is the deadline for Spring Flex Proposals. The form is electronic.
9.Copy Center is installing new software , which will allow copy projects to be sent via your computer at home.
10.Ed Reed announced that Title V coop and Faculty Development are proud to announce that Dr.Michael DiPietro, author of a textbook “Understanding Learning Process as a Gateway to Better Learning”, is coming on November 4 at the PSA, room 18. Food will be provided. RSVP’s are required.
VII.Action Agenda
1.Course Categories – Resolution 3.48
Explanation:
Felix explained the purpose was to avoid confusion when students enroll in what was being called an online class. It was either make distinction what an online class was, meaning they never had to come to campus, or they have to come to campus to take exams. There had been discussion as to whether to call these classes hybrid or proctor online and the committee voted to create a new category; proctor online. There will be 4 categories now; fully online class, proctored online, web-enhanced, hybrid. The committee made a clear distinction between fully online and proctored online.
Motion by Amy DiBello, second by Jeff Place, to accept Resolution 3.48 for a first reading.
Discussion:
These are for every course. Anything not online will be web-enhanced. The committee plans to come up with an icon for each category. The legend and definition of each will be placed in the catalog, on WebAdvisor and in CurricUNET. Basil asked for some definition for counselors so they are able to explain it correctly.
Felix read the hybrid definition, which will be placed in the catalog: “Hybrid courses meet both on campus and online. Over half of traditional face-to-faceon-campus meetings are replaced with online activities. The schedule of classes will indicate the times of dates of the meetings you are required to attend. Access to a computer with internet access is required.”
There was a question about classes that don’t use a computer at all and should there be a category that said “nothing”. Felix said they would indicate “web-enhanced”, which some felt didn’t make sense. Students may not want to take a class that says “web-enhanced” if they think a computer is needed. Felix said the committee thought we might be creating a category that will be dead in a certain number of years if we put “nothing”.
Motion approved unanimously. Zerryl reminded the members that a First Reading must go back to all the faculty in each area and make sure they understand.
2.Program Discontinuance (second reading)
Motion by Denise Diamond, second by To approve Program Discontinuance was moved by denise, seconded by CD Jackson.
Zerryl explained the document has some very small changes from the one that went through. It is on a resolution form in order for the Senate to track it but it will be placed on an administrative procedure form. On the procedure a couple of things have been moved; the one in italics was moved, crossed out FTES and corrected a few typos.
Geoff Hagopian suggested “a program discontinuance study “should” be initiated...... ” be replaced with “may be” or “will be”. The consensus was to use “will be”. He also asked for instanced to explain the item “a program duplicates a similar program offered in the community when duplication is not fiscally justified”. Zerryl said Public Safety/Riverside and Nursing. Melissa said to keep in mind these are not necessarily saying that’s why a program should be discontinued, it’s this policy should come into place if that’s the reason it is being discontinued. And therefore, if that reason is given then the program being discontinued knows what they are responding to.
Whoever is proposing to discontinue a course is the one to initiate the process. Zerryl thanked Melissa and Denise.
Motion carriedunanimously as amended.
VIII.Forum Discussion Agenda
1.Registration Issues
Douglas said there were some things to change about registration. Some of the issues discussed by the committee were; shutting down registration for 5 days prior to the start of the semester, add-code issues, wait list size. Registration changes are a growing process. He started from scratch- let's not close registration –let’s not have wait list or add codes. During discussion earlierthe changes were not well received. There was concern that if you have a full class who cares if registration closes. If you do not, it could be the death of the class. The committeeexpressed concern that having the wait list gave students the opportunity, who have a higher priority, to exercise that priority by getting on a wait list. They discussed settingpolicy a few different ways. There are inconsistencies in how add codes are given out. It also needs to be clear to the students. We let them know we’d like to keep add code/wait list but our policy is they need to show up the first dayof classif they are on the wait list to get an add code. There was also concern about the liability in how students are taken.
Jeff Place asked can a wait list be configured showing students listed as to priority? Douglas explainedpriority is yours until you miss your date. If you are priority one and you can register on that day, you have that privilege, but on day two you’ve lost it. A lot of it comes down to money and customization of Datatel. Douglas had a correction to the custom cost of add-codes – Bina Isaac said it costs $4000.
Douglas said there was also concern about a student getting into class 3 weeks later. A number of faculty said on the first day of class if 2 students didn't show up but were on the roster, they gave out 2 add codes so they could get in.
Melissa thought the suggestion of a longer wait list should only be implemented if we have a way to drop students from the wait list. She said if her students don’t show up the first day they have lost their privilege and she would like to have a way to drop them. And similarly, if someone has been there from the first day, and they are on the wait list but lower down, she would like a way to add them.
Douglas said there was discussion about not being able to drop them before the first day of class. If we set a policy that you have to be there the first day to be added because the third and fourth person on the wait list might be there and the first and second might not.
Denise asked what would we do if we didn't have a wait list system and you called the roll and there are some people that are not there and there are 30 people to take that seat with no wait list? Douglassaid the counselors and others would communicate to the students to not show up for the classes. The first day when you drop 2 students those spots are open and someone can register. Even with the wait list there were people trying to get in.
Denise suggested calling the roll, the seats are open for anyone not there. Call the names on the wait list in front of her and those people get in. Zerryl said as soon as you drop the student who doesn’t shoe the next student on the wait list goes in, whether they have an add-code or not.
Adrian explained if you were part of the classes filled prior to us shutting registration we froze enrollment and the wait list so the only way a student could get in was with an add code, but there were classes not filled and those not filled still had an active wait list.
Denise thinks showing up is great. Joel asked is priority for veterans and DSPS part of priority 1 or a pre-priority? Douglas said there was a mix-up and it wound up being priority 0, which no one knew about. Adrian said the law is silent on it but some schools have created a 0 priority and some schools say they are priority 1. Traditionally we have put them in priority 1. For Spring the priority 1 is published and it includes all the people that by law have the first shot at classes.
Zerryl said for online classes there is no showing up for the students that couldn’t get into the class. We have a policy going into place and they have 48 hours to sign in and do something. If the class starts on Monday, at noon on Tuesday she can call those students no shows and drop students and now has a wait list. She emails people on the wait list and has to give them some time to respond but doesn’t hear from them as they have gotten into other classes. In the meantime she has a dozen other students emailing her andasking to get in. She has 6 add permit codes and gives them to the first 6 that emailed her, one registers and she still has 3 openings in her class and now it’s Friday. She gets more add permit codes and sends them to the next 6 students on the list and doesn’t hear from them either. Then hears from someone on the wait list asking for their add permit code as they thought they got in automatically. Information must be clear in the catalog that students on the wait list for an online class have 48 hours to contact the instructor and say they still want to get in.
The most vocal committee members want to leave it as is.
VIII.Reports
Basic Skills Initiative – Chris Nelson
The report went in a couple weeks ago.
College Planning Council – Zerryl Becker
Nothing new – they meet Friday.
Faculty Union – Gary Bergstrom
Gary was unable to attend but will be here representing the union when they get into negotiations in December and he has something to report.
Classified Union – Mary Lisi
Mary was unable to attend but gave Zerryl a document to hand out, but Zerryl feels it is a union document and not a Senate issue so she is forwarding to Gary Bergstrom.
IX. Good of the Order
Nothing
XII.Suggestions for Future Agendas
None
XIII. The meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
1