Chabot College Basic Skills Committee
February 10, 2015
Minutes - Approved Attendees:
Jeremy Wilson, Hisako Hintz, Katie Hern, Kate Dolorito, Michael Thompson, Deonne
Kunkel, Jane Wolford, Mike Hodsdon, Carolyn Arnold, Patricia Shannon, Michael
Robinson
Meeting called to order at 12:05 PM.
1. Minutes from the previous meeting were reviewed and approved. Motion by
Jeremy, seconded by Hisako.
2. Discussion of question of handling future dialogue about censorship around
pedagogical philosophy and work engaged in by faculty. We may need to consider
putting this topic on the agenda and what kind of position we, as a committee, may
want to publicly take. There is evidence that more than one person has been
affected in this way.
3. Infusing and dissemination discussion. Carolyn reviewed aspects of the BSC
Strategic Plan that call for helping students assess and complete basic skills courses.
There are also broad concepts embedded in the plan, and we need to communicate
the plan to PRBC and Faculty Senate.
How do we get the “plan” out to the college? A student asked if 101A/B would be
replaced by 102 under this plan. The answer was that English faculty are in charge
of their course offerings, and that the subdivision has engaged, on several occasions,
with careful discussion about the ratio of 101A/B to 102 sections, which two people
present thought was currently at 25%/75%. While the English faculty are evaluated
the current scores for assessment, the ratio of offerings is likely to remain where it
is. The student asserted that for her, 101A/B was the right option, and that she felt
we should continue to offer the two semester option for students, particularly ESL
students. She was attracted to the faster 102, but she was advised, and she thinks
rightly so, to do the two semesters.
Hisako stated that in her experience, some students who were placed in 102 and
attended it reported that 102 was too difficult for them, and asked Carolyn if the
data supports that? Carolyn did not think so, that that she would have noticed that.
We are currently evaluating assessment scores with ESL as a factor, and she asked
Katie what she thought. Katie said that this is a very difficult thing. We have to
balance how long students take to get through the sequence versus individual
learning situations. Carolyn wondered if this discussion, assessment scores,
provides inspiration for communicating the larger picture.
Michael: 101/102 is a conversation best had by English. I was thinking about the
infusing challenge. We might be willing to consider a “place,” for example, FYE, for
having conversation about these questions. Jane: one of the problems is
sustainability, both institutionally and pedagogically. We ran into this problem with
Reading Apprenticeship. Carolyn offered that participation, both new and trained
faculty, did dwindle even though some people, for example Patricia Wu and Jane,
continue to actively use it. Trish: What does that mean in terms of infuse and
communicate? Michael: maybe we could be clearer about what infuse means, and
use the FIGs themselves. Prioritizing our goals might be helpful.
A discussion of FIGs, what they are and how they operate ensured. There was
agreement that clarity about terms and what they would look like “integrated” would
be good. The challenge is in connecting what FIGs do with larger communities.
Michael: There’s no real professional development opportunity. Katie: Aren’t FIGs
doing that? Michael: Yes, but where does it go from there? Where is the Flex Day
session on that? Where’s the training and support? Katie: Report out/hold Flex
Day? Jane: There are real structural problems with Flex Day. Michael: Every Flex
Day gets like this, administration and “tasks” sucks up all the time.
Deonne: Interjecting and shifting the topic, as PRBC Chair. Susan will be sharing
new shared governance approach, and the BSC will have the opportunity to provide
feedback. BSC should review and provide feedback on these new documents, which
make some concrete suggestions for BSC (work with Equity and SSSP) and the
Budget committee.
Carolyn: Thanks Deonne. I wonder whether having a Teaching and Learning Center
(Bldg 100) with a commitment to staffing will help. I am wondering whether the
where and who matters.
Discussion: What are our priorities? Staffing, tutoring, and conferences (what we
paid for this year)? While we want to be careful about conferences, the answer to
that was yes. We want the college to pick up the costs for staffing and tutoring, so
that more funding can go to FIG efforts that do not fall under the Equity criteria.
Michael noted that BSC funds have been used to fund things (activities, personnel,
college needs) versus actually serving concrete needs in BSC, it is clear we need to
set our priorities and communicate with administration (get the college to pay for
tutoring and staffing).
NOTE: One of the things that came up during the discussion was that ESL did not
get all the funding they need. It is unclear whether they need FTEF, which they
would go to CEMC for (a one time allocation for the shift of curriculum) or other
support. I think they may need support in getting their question about this
answered (Marcia should be helping with this, I think but maybe not). Some followup with Kent would probably be a good idea.