PRBC
Minutes 4/24/13
Attendees: Jan Novak, Tom Clark, Tom deWit, Carolyn Arnold, Jennifer Lange,
Patricia Shannon, Tram VoKumamoto, Dale Wagoner, Eric Schultz, Susan Sperling,
Jane Vallely, Kathy Kelley, Becky Plaza, Felicia Tripp, Sandra Genera, Deonne Kunkel,
Shoshanna Tenn, Gordon Watt, Carey Kopay, Laura Alarcon, Skye Ontiveros, Andrea
Preciado
Members Absent: Gerald Shimada, Matt Kritscher, Connie Willis, Jane Church, Tim
Dave, Yvonne Wu-Craig, Stacey Moore, Catherine Powell
Called to order at 3:10 by Jan Novak
Jan: We’ll begin today with a summary of program review that we will be offering at
Flex Day. This is a draft of what I would like to present, based on the discussion of
the Program Review Reading Group last week. It has some controversial things, but
please just consider this. We had a large group of readers, including a student.
Some discussion of who submitted. The weakest area was Administrative Services
Program Reviews, and what we want to say about that. There was a list of Admin
services, which included each division’s and v.p.’s office. How do we better
communicate the process as it applies to the administrators? And, by extension how
does accountability in program review work?
Jane: We’re trying to build collegiality during Flex Day, is this a message that builds
collegiality?
Jan N: The key message has to be that we have some gaps in our information, gaps in
requests not submitted. Continuing to the next slide? Which groups get which
information?
Questions asked about classified and faculty hiring, classified will come to VPs and
PRBC, faculty would go to faculty prioritization, but we are not hiring due to the
imbalance in FON between the two colleges (Chabot has a larger percentage of fulltime faculty than Las Positas). The DSBG made the decision to slowly adjust this by
moving full-time positions as they come up to LPC. It’s a little more complex than
that, but that’s the essential stance, which was folded into the new allocation model
decision. Will the decision be reviewed in the future? Yes, but it has long-term
implications.
Shoshanna: Asked a question about the “older” population and related costs at CC
versus LPC.
Tram: Part of our issue is that when we had the SERP, we replaced many, and LPC
did not. That decision was part of the picture.
1
Jan: Back to the slide, which shows where information is going. Last week, the small
group talked about what was cool or interesting, which was reflective of the people
who were in the room. There’s a lot of cool stuff going on. There are also issues:
some reviews don’t connect FTEF with bottleneck data, others are focused on the
goals of our expired strategic plan vs. the new plan.
Deonne: Some of us are hesitant to ask for more in this environment.
Jan: Some people asked for everything: some people were hesitant to ask for
anything.
Kathy: Someone at State Senate said that she asked for a tiara and a pony, just to see
if anyone was reading. Her dean gave her a tiara.
Felicia: This difference is an opportunity for us to more effectively coach about
expectations—should people be encouraged to ask for what they want or need.
Jan: We need to "level" the resource requests more.
Becky: We put in what we thought was the minimum we needed, so but our
division’s requests were large. We went back to the “if you don’t ask, it won’t be
considered.”
Jennifer: At one of the conferences I went to, program review “writers” were given
additional training.
Kathy: I sent out the links from the Plenary Senate, which include some interesting
approaches to program review.
Jan: One conclusion that is problematic is the tension between the need for new
courses to meet the TMC as opposed to need for more GE courses to ease
bottlenecks.
Discussion about orphan programs, and how a decision to not make a decision, is a
decision. The complexity of the situation involves course areas, disciplines, and
various campus endeavors/initiatives.
Jan: Continued with the early conclusions, CLOs vs PLOs, soft money. Difficulty with
controlling our destiny with district and committee decisions that don’t “move.”
Huge demand for full-time and classified staff. 29-51 FTEF. $$ is still being
tabulated. Conclusion: we can’t maintain quality programs without more money,
increase in focus or narrowing our scope, or very innovative or radical solutions (or
some kind of combination). Does anyone else from the meeting want to say
anything?
2
Carey: What about online learning?
Jane: In the small group, we talked about the relative success of online learning.
Jan: What is it that radical solutions might look like?
Becky: There are some indications that they are going to delay the implementation
of the mandate for matriculation but that computer based programs (DegreeWorks)
does not meet the need for matriculation.
Kathy: We have a new state chancellor, and that individual appears to be willing to
work with the senate around allocation models and other aspects. We should
continue to advocate.
Jan: Moving back to the slides. The last slide.
Tom C: I would really like to point to the third bullet. We really need to do this--to
move program review to Fall.
Discussion: Tom C, Tom D, Dale W, etc. around how moving program review would
really help in our planning. Were we to do this, it would encourage a dialog with an
organizational culture in which we would do this as a sequence that makes sense for
each group.
Discussion: How to end the presentation. Based on our process—we’re going to not
be able to give people what they’ve asked for. But, how do we move forward on the
radical solutions? Jennifer suggested having the "radical solutions" discuss as a
focus for Convocation.
Consensus decision around moving program review to fall, as an addendum
for 2014-15, with full program review thereafter.
Jan: I am going to revise the PowerPoint and send it back to all of you for further
input.
Deonne and Sandra: presenting on “Beyond Pathways Models.” History and
presentation. (see slides). Large discussion about the content and the message, and
how to focus the message so that there are clearer “take-away” messages.
Jan: Tom and I don’t have a PowerPoint, but Tom and I have a quick summary. Tom
is going to talk about equity and I am going to talk about the passion project.
(negotiated on the spot). The passion project is about figuring out (if you want to
see it this way) what “house” you belong in. We face similar challenges in our
meetings (different people every time) in planning and discussing. Student Voices
are developing a video for flex day to connect passion and education.
3
Tom d: We’ll share the course and the film (at our session). It’s a process and how
do the projects dovetail. One of the foci of the class (at this point) is about identity
and citizenship, and the existential question of who you are in terms of your passion
and how to use it (intervening inside passivity). We’re imagining that it might be
completely student voice driven (it is not faculty driven).
Equity and Poverty project: four big outcomes are that we want to have an impact
(18 month timeline) and make recommendations for policy and action from the top
of the organization all the through the institution. Want to really affect the campus.
1 Impact institutional practices and policy
2 Percolate faculty consciousness about our student lives, how to talk about it, and
translate into pedagogy and curriculum.
3 Make the work sustainable and inform all areas of the campus, and encourage
student agency around the issues of equity and poverty
4 Build sustaining and lasting relationships with CBOs and faith based community
groups and city agencies, ongoing partnerships
Deonne: All of these projects need to be integrated with academic and counseling
input so we are all on the same page when we implement, and write into the Title V
grant, which needs to be written by the Fall.
Kathy: And make sure to involve ASCC students.
Tom: They are involved in both of these groups.
Carolyn: Will these be presented at flex day?
Jan and Tom d: Yes, and they will be experiential and then provide feedback.
Adjourned 5:05 pm….most people had left…
4