CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
Board Room, Building 200
Thursday, September 14, 2006– 2:20 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Diane Zuliani
Senator Attendance: Applied Technology & Business (Michael Absher); Counseling (Sally
Stickney & Vacant); Health, Physical Education, & Athletics (Nancy
Cowan & Vacant); Arts & Humanities (Diane Zuliani); Language Arts
(Francisco Zermeño & Vacant); Library (Norman Buchwald); Science
& Mathematics (Dave Fouquet & Ming Ho); and Social Sciences
(Barbara Ogman & Michael Thompson); Adjunct Faculty (Anne
Brichacek).
Guests:
Dr. Robert Carlson (College President), Dr. Ron Taylor (Vice
President, Academic Services), Shari Jacobsen (CLPFA), Norberto
Ruiz (Curriculum Chair), and Dr. Carolyn Arnold (Institutional
Researcher and Grants Coordinator), Tom Dewit (Program Review
Chair), Robert Lu (Vice President ASCC).
Presiding Officers:
President Chad Mark Glen, Vice President Michael Absher.
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call to Order: President Glen called the meeting to order at 2:20.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the
August 31, 2006 minutes and Michael Thompson seconded, with the
proviso that Chad’s President’s Report be inserted. The motion carried.
2.0 REPORT S
2.1 College President: Dr. Carlson opened the field for questions. Shari
Jacobsen asked where we stand with respect to enrollments. Dr.
Carlson said we’re “basically breaking even compared to last year,”
thought we may be up a bit by the end of spring. Shari also mentioned
that the mass drop for non-payment is affecting our enrollment numbers,
and asked if this is something we are legally obliged to do. Dr. Carlson
answered no, but that since the majority of non-payers tend to be noshows, this is something the college does to generate more realistic
numbers at the beginning of term. This year for the first time the college
called 2000 students who had been admitted but who had not enrolled to
encourage them to enroll for classes. He said the college is also
considering charging a small fee payable upon registering to further
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
motivate students to complete the process. This fee would be put toward their
payment, and would prevent students from being dropped for non-payment. It
would, as Shari suggested, “guarantee their seat.” Dr. Carlson asked for other
suggestions and the following were offered:
Mike Absher and Shari asked that it be publicized more widely that full payment
up front is not expected or required. Dr. Carlson agreed and responded that this
year, for the first time, we offered students a payment plan, though it came “on
board” rather late.
Robert Lu mentioned that he himself was dropped for non-payment after forgetting
to pay for the classes he’d registered for on time. He was only able to retrieve 15
of the 18 units he’d originally signed up for. This prompted the group to suggest
that sending a reminder out to students prior to the drop would be the best idea.
Dr. Carlson agreed.
Francisco Zermeño asked what instructors would be expected to do once
buildings 800 and 900 were taken “offline” for construction, if there were to be no
temporary classrooms. Dr. Carlson responded that “we will become an afternoon
college” and “we will use Friday more fully.” Currently we are considered by the
State to be under-enrolled because our classrooms aren’t being used in the
afternoons or on Fridays. When asked if this was more a factor of our student’s
work schedules, Dr. Carlson responded that data collected by Dr. Carolyn Arnold
and the office of Institutional Research doesn’t always bear that out. Carolyn
provided hard copies of this data at the end of the meeting. Michael Thompson
suggested we poll students about their work schedules anyway. Chad Mark Glen
asked if portables would be used for faculty and staff offices. Dr. Carlson
responded that yes, some folks in buildings 400 and 700 would be moved to
existing offices, while others would use portables set up in the vicinity of the Butler
building. Shari asked where adjunct faculty would be expected to go. She was
concerned that they have a place to go for information and to work. Dr. Carlson
said that there will be a centralized location for information but that finding offices
for adjuncts will be a “struggle.” We’ll have to find solutions, he said, one of which
was to increase the number of adjuncts in the existing adjunct offices, or that fulltime faculty could share their offices with adjuncts.
2.2 Robert Lu, ASCC Report: Robert announced that the ASCC was happy to be
receiving numerous applications for memberships, and thanked members of the
Senate for talking to our students about becoming involved in ASCC. He said the
ASCC was busy planning for next month’s Homecoming event on Saturday,
October 21, as well as the upcoming Job Fair.
2.3 Chad Mark Glen, Senate President’s Report:
Chancellor’s Council
¾ District Strategic Plan for review and input.
¾ Departments filled out a Strategic Plan Work Sheet. Now both colleges will
be filling them out on the district department services.
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
¾ I will send you a copy for you to review and share with your divisions.
Discussion on Chancellor’s Council: no discussion.
Increased English and Math AA Degree competency regiments will go into
effect in 2009. The effect will raise the statewide minimum graduation
competency requirements by one course level from existing statewide minimum
standards.
¾ English 1A or another English course at the same level and rigor.
¾ Intermediate Algebra or another math course at the same level and rigor and
with Elementary Algebra as a prerequisite.
¾ Students may demonstrate competency by completing an assessment
conducted pursuant to Ed Code standards and achieving a score comparable
to satisfactory completion of English 1A and intermediate algebra.
¾ Courses may be met though courses taught in on behalf of other departments
and that require entrance skills equivalent to those for English 1A &
intermediate algebra.
Discussion on Increased Degree Requirements:
Shari asked if the new math requirements would affect business math and other
requirements? The consensus of the Senate was that yes, it would.
Dr. Ron Taylor said that it was his belief that any non-math course that meets
the new requirement must have the same pre-requisite as the required course.
Thus he thinks that Beginning Algebra will be the pre-requisite for all courses,
even non-math courses (like applied math) that are determined to be the
equivalent of Intermediate Algebra. This issue is not entirely resolved.
Shari predicted that this change would result in the creation of “more and more
undergraduate math classes” in the future.
Chad cautioned that while transferring students would get their AA or AS degree
either way, these additional requirements are likely to dissuade non-transferring
students from obtaining their degrees, thus we may see a decline in the number
of degrees we award.
Mike Absher said the problem he sees is that the current method of assessing
math skills doesn’t actually match what is needed in the classroom. For
example, pure-math skills (algebra) are currently the only skills being assessed,
but Industrial/Machine Tool assessment should encompass different types of
math skills.
Norberto (Nolly) Ruiz offered that hopefully students would be allowed to “testout.”
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
Michael Thompson asked for clarification w/r/t English 1A: are the English 1A
pre-requisites (101B, 102 or assessment) going to be pre-requisites for courses
equivalent to 1A? Dr. Ron Taylor said that English has met this requirement
already, so the question left to deal with involves the change to math.
Ming Ho asked who passed these new requirements? Chad answered that it
was the State (Chancellor’s) System Office and the CCC Board of Governors.
This change to Title V requirements has already been approved and the
legislature is not involved.
Shari Jacobsen addressed Nolly saying that she finds it insulting that we are
allowing a concept we call “college level courses” to be defined by just these two
courses (English 1A and Intermediate Algebra), when all the courses we teach at
Chabot are college-level. Nolly agreed that this is a wording problem.
Senate President’s Report Continued: Faculty Hiring
Level one faculty prioritization committee has met twice. Recent retirements or
resignations include: Diana Immisch (Spring 06 recruitment not completed), Bob
Collins (Microbiology), Helene Looze (History), Dale Wagoner (Health), Terry
Peterson (Speech/Forensics), Lois Machado (PE), Russ Natson (Tutorials), Gaila
Moore (CAS), Soe Win (Electronics/Math). Two of these are currently occupied
by temporary fulltime faculty in English and Microbiology. Also it was noted that
Russ Natson had been replaced in the Spring 06 recruitments. The upshot is
eight faculty positions to be filled overall, with four that need to be filled by
January.
Level two and three committees will meet tomorrow (9/15/06) to finalize the
faculty positions to hire.
Discussion on Faculty Hiring: no discussion.
2.4 Public Comments: None.
3.0
ACTION ITEMS
3.1 Board Policy 2260— Political Activity: This item was moved to later in the
agenda.
4.0
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Associate in Science Degree: This item was move to later in the agenda.
4.2 Tom DeWit, Accreditation Student Learning Outcomes:
As part of his sabbatical, Tom studied how schools are working with the new
accreditation standards. He says he is not an “apologist” for it, and that in fact
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
there is no “it,” since even the Accrediting committees don’t know exactly how
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) should be defined.
Tom has compiled two large binders full of resource materials on the topics, and
he passed out the binders’ table of contents, showing many articles on assessment
and SLOs.
Tom said that he looked into SLOs on sabbatical because he “worries that these
things can undermine morale” and wondered if there was a way to make them
work for us. He investigated the strategies put in place at six different colleges:
Los Medanos College, Modesto Junior College, Las Positas College, and, less
extensively, Bakersfield Community College, Cosumnes River College, and
American River College. He said he’d talked to many who said these new
standards have been a good thing for their college.
That said, Tom cautioned that “my sense of SLOs is that if the process of
complying gets in the way of teaching then we’ll hate it. There will definitely be
some baloney, but there are potentially useful parts to this process.” He said
meeting these assessment standards does help shape and define what we do in
the classroom, and thus helps us refine it. He mentioned that Jeanine Paz and her
adjunct faculty, for example, have found it an effective method to improve their
teaching, and said that he would like to see Chabot successful with it, and not
make a “mountain out of a molehill.” Still, he said, he worries that we will fail.
One suggestion for making this work, Tom said, is to take the focus away from the
“O,” the outcome, and put it on the assessment. Another suggestion he made is to
follow the lead of a few other colleges who have tied these new requirements to
professional development.
Discussion:
Norman Buchwald asked how, since we’re on the downhill side of our own
accreditation cycle, do we meet these requirements? What exactly will WASC be
looking for, and since these are new, will there be some leniency? Tom responded
by saying they don’t know exactly what they want, but are looking for “a complete
circle” of assessment and outcome. Dr. Carolyn Arnold mentioned that 42
colleges have gone through the accreditation process under the new standards,
and while at an earlier time WASC allowed some looseness, she suspects they’re
tightening up their expectations for feedback.
Francisco and Michael Thompson approved of Tom’s point about tying this
process to professional development.
Carolyn said she’s enthusiastic about the data aspect of this new process, and let
us know that she and the IR office are preparing to support us. She said “teaching
miracles” happen all the time, and she wants to get them down on paper.
5
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
Mike Absher is aware of a college that had decided to apply assessments only to
core classes, because peripheral courses are often part of single-instructor
disciplines, preventing the “dialog” required of the SLO method. He expressed
concern that the same thing could happen at Chabot. He advised that we take
care not to miss parts of the college, such as welding, which has only one
instructor. Tom says to solve this we need to work in groups.
Chad reminded us that there might be a silver lining here—better communication
with one another, with better teaching the result.
Dr. Ron Taylor was sympathetic to the one-person discipline, and said it might be
beneficial if these stand-alone instructors asked themselves questions that
identified the interdisciplinary issues in their field, thus linking them with other
instructors and generating dialog outside themselves.
Diane Zuliani took issue with Tom’s silence on the politics that underscore the
2002 accreditation standards. The outcomes movement undermines the authority
of the individual faculty member to determine the proper method of assessment in
his or her own classroom, and as such as been officially opposed by the American
Association of University Professors, the National Education Association, and a
majority of local and statewide senates, including California’s. Asking faculty to
participate in this process without providing them a full vetting the politics involved
is to ask them to serve from a disempowered position. She wants the partisan,
political side of the story to be known so that faculty can comply with these new
standards with the dignity that comes from knowledge. By way of suggestion she
offered the idea that there is “power in naming,” and thought we could call SLOs
something of our own design. She said it was “time to get creative.”
Carolyn encouraged this call for creativity and said “there’s lots of wiggle room to
define this for yourself, lots of opportunities to learn.” Nolly agreed that naming is
empowering and suggested SLOs become “Student Learning Cycle.”
Francisco pointed out the problem of non-ownership in this process, in that it
seems to be a top-down force, not bottom-up. He said we should work on
empowerment and put students first in this. Chad agreed, saying we can create
something bottom-up.
Shari changed topics, asking Tom (since he was present) for an update on the
CLPFA negotiations. Tom mentioned that the language of SLOs had been
dropped from our faculty contract, but only with difficulty and only at the eleventh
hour.
Anne Brichacek asked what the role of the adjunct would be in meeting the new
standards. Many Senators spoke up to say adjuncts will be crucial to the “dialog”
that we’re being asked to have in our disciplines.
Chad explained that there are three levels where we are expected to demonstrate
compliance. One, the course level, two, the program level, and three, the college
6
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
level. Chad suggests that if we tie our assessment work to existing systems, we’ll
be ahead of the game. It might look like this: the curriculum committee can
determine how best to implement change at the course level; the program review
committee can determine how best to implement change at the program level; the
Intuitional Researcher, who is a faculty member, can help determine how best to
implement change at the college level. This way we “find a way to fold tasks
together in an integrated way so faculty don’t duplicate their work.”
Chad asks Senators to be thinking about what statement we want to direct to
faculty with respect to these new standards.
Shari came up with a new name for SLOs: CREATE, an acronym for “Creative
Research Engaging Active Teaching Endeavors (or Excellence).
Ming says we all have teaching problems we are trying to solve, and that’s the
best first step. Focus on what we’re already doing, and we’ll invariably find a way
to link our findings up with college-wide and course goals. Start with what you’re
doing now, and then recast it into the language expected of us.
Sally Stickney questioned the wisdom of Diane’s idea of renaming SLOs since
that’s what WASC will be looking for, but likes the ideas of creativity and
empowerment.
Mike Absher asked where we could find the binders. Tom said he’d let us know.
Tom’s final statement: “If Senate decides to take this on, it must come out with a
statement including the political content. We shouldn’t go down the middle road,
we should subvert it. Take a position. Read up on it. If we do the good soldier
thing we’re dead.”
At 4:17 Chad requested a vote to extend the meeting. Senators voted to stay on
ten more minutes.
3.0
ACTION ITEMS
3.1
Board Policy 2260: Political Activity
Chad directed our attention to the item 2260 from the Board of Trustees Board
Policies, which is the revised policy code regarding Political Activity, which he
provided to us by way of handout. The original Board Policy is below with
underlined words to be added and strikeout words to be deleted.
It is the Policy of this District that no College, District, State and
or Federal funds, services, supplies, and equipment cannot shall
be used for the purpose of partisan political activity of any kind
by any person or organization, or for urging the support or defeat
of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to,
any candidate for election to the Governing Board of the District.
7
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
This policy prohibits political activity during an employee’s working
hours, but shall not be construed to prohibit an employee from
urging the support or defeat of a ballot measure or candidate
during nonworking hours. The use of District equipment and / or
supplies is prohibited during working and non-working hours.
This does not prohibit the provision of information to the public
concerning effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure so
long as the informational activities provided constitute a fair and
impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in
reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot
measure.
This policy is not intended to impinge upon academic freedom or
free speech.
California Education Code Reference:
Political Activities of School Officers
and Employees - Sections 7050 - 7057
Federal Code Reference:
Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508) and
Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970
as amended by Title VI of the Civil Service
Reform Act (P.L. 95-454 Section 4728)
Comments regarding this item: Mike Absher said he agrees with the letter of the
code if not its spirit. Ming and Shari were concerned that this prevented us from
having political candidates speak on campus at college hour, or participate in
events like the recent “March on Sacramento.” Chad and others felt that such
activity was protected by the phrase “so long as the informational activities
provided constitute a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts…”.
Chad asked for a motion from the Senate to vote on this revised language. Mike
Absher moved and Ming Ho seconded. The motion carried. Approved: 6.
Opposed: 0. Abstain: 1.
4.1 AS Degree
District Curriculum Council information regarding the AS degree is on the District
website, including material compiled from our Convocation Day breakout session
activity regarding the AS degree. A 20-page document entitled “Convocation 2006
Faculty Breakout Session Notes” has been distilled by the Council into a one-page
summary called “Common Themes and Responses about the Associate in Science
Degree,” which Chad provided as a handout and directed our attention to. There
are nine numbered points in the summary, which the Senate addressed one by
one.
8
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
September 14th, 2006
Discussion on point #8: Ming asked what “looking at the AS from an outcomes
perspective” means. Response was that it could mean that the awarding of
degrees is a positive outcome; others added that other positive outcomes could be
the good learning happening along the way to the degree.
Chad noted that during the breakout session, the responses to questions # 3, 5,
and 6 were “all over the board.” #3 Should the AS only encompass the
sciences, business, technology, and/or occupational/vocational education?
#5 What is the appropriate number of GE units for the AS degree? The
current 19 or 25 like the AA? Anything in between? #6 Should we attempt to
change the AS or leave it as is? To help us get to firmer territory, Chad asks
that we take these questions to our divisions and find out what our faculty
colleagues think.
5.0
REPORTS II
5.1 CLPFA: No report.
5.2 Senate Committees: No report.
5.3 Senators: None.
6.0
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
At-Large Faculty Vote on Senate Constitution Changes— Chad Mark Glen;
District Faculty Hire Procedures— Chad Mark Glen;
Administrator Evaluations— Stephanie Zappa;
Program Introduction Process — Ron Taylor;
Minimum Qualifications Equivalencies for Faculty— Chad Mark Glen;
General Education Reciprocity Program Certification— Jane Church;
Counselors Assigned to Divisions— Mike Absher;
2006-07 Draft Strategic Plan— Laurie Dockter;
Online Instruction— Jan Novak.
2006-07 Draft Strategic Plan— Laurie Dockter;
Meeting adjourned at 4:37
Next Meeting— September 28, 2006
Fall Meetings— 2nd & 4th Thursdays: 10/12, 10/19* 11/9, and 11/30*.
(*Special Meetings— not on 2nd or 4th Thursday).
Minutes respectfully submitted by Diane Zuliani
DZ/C MG
9