Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved Minutes

Thursday, February 21, 2002

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by President Jane Patton at 2:08 p.m.

Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
Bell-Cheung (Ext.5385) AAS		X	Martin (Ext. 5349) Tech		X
Brennan (Ext. 5313) Comm		X	McGee (Ext. 5042) Stud Dev	X
Cochran (Ext. 5176) Stud Dev		X	Moore (Ext. 5382) AAS		X
Estrada (Ext.5164) CommSvc		X	Musat (Ext. 5331) Math		X
Jackins (Ext.5322 ) Math	X		Patton (Ext. 5296) Comm Stud		X
Johnson (Ext.5277) CATA		X	Rosner (Ext. 5317) ESL		X
Light (Ext. 5717) AF/CIT		X	Sippel (Ext. 5118) Comm		X
Lynne (Ext. 5248) CommSvc		X	VanTassel (Ext. 5334) Tech		X
Mancini (Ext. 5855) AF/HM		X	Xu (Ext. 5273) SocSci		X
Guests: A.Akers-Martin,		X	Guests: I.Gard, J. Hacker,		X
C.Brown, A. Harding, P. Hudak,		X	D. McKay, P. Messerschmidt,
S. Kashima		X	A. Roberts		X

CRC Member	A	P	CRC Member	A	P
Alex Braun (Chair)		X	Jason Halasa (CIT)		X
Lee Callaway (VP Instruction)		X	Rachel Lowenberg (ESL)		X
Ray Charland (Student Serv)		X	Chris Moyers	X
Yolanda Coleman (Student Serv)		X	Chris Olson (Research)		X
Don Cordero (Articulation Offcr)		X	Jean Replicon	X
Moira Davis (Math)	X		Anna Szabados		X
Betty Ensminger (Comm Studies)		X	Lynn Zummo		X

II. Order of the Agenda

The Senators agreed to reverse Item 5 and 6 under Item V.A (M/S/U – VanTassel/Moore). No other changes were made to the agenda.

III. Oral Communication from the Public

There was no oral communication from the public at today’s meeting.

IV. Information & Announcements

No items were presented.

V. New Business

A. Joint Meeting of Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) and MC Academic Senate (MCAS) to Discuss Issues Common to Academic Senate and CRC

1) Introduction and Overview of Issues

After introductions, Jane advised that today’s discussion is spurred primarily by the Accreditation Report, as well as a number of collegial and legal issues pertaining to curriculum. The primary areas set for discussion today fall into three categories of issues:

a. the Curriculum Review Committee’s process,

b. the need for an overall review of curriculum as mandated by law and as recommended by the accreditation team’s report, and

c. the college’s academic direction.

Those present received a handout listing factual information pertinent to the discussion regarding our student population, and questions intending to provoke discussion on topics such as student success, the CRC’s approval process, and the academic direction of the college.

2) Roles and Responsibilities of the Academic Senate

In accordance with Section 53200 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, the primary function of the Academic Senate is to make recommendations with respect to academic and professional matters. Academic and Professional matters means the following policy development matters:

1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites.

2. Degree and certificate requirements.

3. Grading policies.

4. Educational program development.

5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success.

6. College governance structures, as related to faculty roles.

7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes.

8. Policies for faculty professional development activities.

9. Processes for program review.

10. Processes for instructional planning and budget development.

11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon.

The Academic Senate represents faculty, through its division representatives, and serves as the voice of faculty to the Board of Trustees, and this District’s Board of Trustees has agreed to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate.

3) Roles and Responsibilities of the Curriculum Review Committee

Alex explained that the Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) is a standing subcommittee of the Academic Senate, with the authority from the Academic Senate to review and process all new curriculum proposals, including revisions. At this time the committee operates in a reactive manner, not proactive. Alex explained that the CRC is uncertain as to its proper role. The question is whether the primary purpose of the committee is to approve submitted course proposals or is it to be more proactive in determining what courses should be offered at the college? If the CRC is not defining the direction of the college, where and how is that decision being made and by whom – how should the decision be made? Alex noted that the CRC is constantly bombarded with new courses, and there isn’t enough time to consider the “big picture.”

4) Discussion and Recommendations re: Operational Processes of CRC

Jane asked for feedback from the floor, and a lengthy discussion ensued. The curriculum approval process itself was discussed and some pointed out that the process often proves to be too lengthy to accommodate the urgent needs of certain disciplines that are constantly changing in order to keep up with the state of the art. In addition, although the process is particularly supportive of new faculty and helpful in terms of assisting them to prepare a course outline for approval, the process does not appear to necessarily connect the course with the direction of the college. It was noted that the master plan and the strategic plan for the college represents the collective wisdom of all areas, and the decisions of the department and division chairs relative to curriculum should encompass the long-range plan for the college. The curriculum approval process does require a “needs assessment” rationale and the intent of that requirement is to address the long-range plan and the direction of the college.

The body most likely to implement the master plan would be GAP. It was pointed out, however, that GAP isn’t necessarily representative of all departments. It was suggested that a checklist be developed for the department to review the proposed curriculum and allow for discussion within the department and with input from GAP with reference to the Master Plan for the college. A member of the CRC stated that the process exists currently, but is not necessarily being enforced. It was suggested that the existing process could be strengthened by developing and implementing mechanics that ensure that the “needs assessment” rationale addresses the master plan.

Discussion continued on issues of resources for additional curriculum; hidden continuing costs related to grants; catalog and schedule deadlines; other means of presenting courses that do not impact the total structure of the college, such as community education, where costs are borne by the students rather than the college; and maintaining a balance of resources, etc. The need for technology across the campus, as well as technology courses in the curriculum was raised. The need to approve some courses quickly in order to keep up with changes in certain fields was recognized. However, the college currently does not have all the resources necessary to properly serve the students. The college needs additional resources, such as labs, to support the students’ needs. Those resources are limited. Due to those limitations the college cannot be all things to all people. Certain curriculum may necessarily need to be postponed until the resources become available. Again, the question is, “who makes that decision?”

5) Begin Process of Overall Review of the Curriculum

This is a major issue of concern, and the accreditation team cited this review as overdue. The task is mandated by law and the college has not conducted such a review in many years. Jane proposed that a team comprised of senators, members of the CRC, department, and division chairs be put together as a steering committee for the comprehensive review of the curriculum. She asked for input from the audience.

Don Cordero indicated that his office is currently scanning every course outline and they will be available electronically in the future, facilitating the editing of course outlines. At this time, the project is centered on transfer courses and will eventually cover all other courses. He suggested that the team Jane proposed is too large and that a smaller task force be put together.

Several people spoke to the issue, and the question of pre-requisites and co-requisites was raised. This issue serves as a roadblock for the CRC, delaying approval of curriculum. It was emphasized that faculty must consider what is best for the students and what is most important for them as they leave the college. It was suggested that program review might be linked with an overall review of curriculum. The question is, “who determines course content and sequence?” It was stated that the guidelines for course content and sequence is determined within a department. All the issues being raised are related to student success, and it was suggested that the focus be placed on what appears to be the biggest challenge for our student population and start from there. Lee suggested that the problem is experienced across disciplines in different ways, and it is a larger problem than just ESL. The discussion should take place with the entire college community and she suggested that a flex day might be appropriate.

The discussion veered to the concerns of a Senate subcommittee charged by the Senate to resolve the curriculum concerns relative to the ESL, English, and Reading divisions. Those issues include movement or transfer from ESL to Reading and/or English courses, degree applicability, needs of students, alignment of exit/entrance skills, etc. There are second language students who cannot cope with classes. It was stated that the question of degree applicability of ESL classes is currently under discussion at the state chancellor’s office. In the meantime, Lee emphasized that the college is out of compliance with the existing law, and the issue has to be resolved. The committee members reported they have attempted to fulfill the Senate’s charge over the last year, and have indeed considered a number of alternatives, but cannot reach agreement. Members of the committee asked for direction, and the following motion was made (M/S – Brennan/Cochran):

“that the Mission College Academic Senate requests that the Senate’s transition subcommittee dealing with ESL, English, and Reading Division issues provide the Academic Senate with a list of the issues and possible options by March 28, 2002.”

Discussion followed on who has the responsibility and the authority to make a decision when there is a conflict of this nature. It was reiterated and emphasized that the essence of the college’s academic direction is the responsibility of the Academic Senate. It is the absolute role of the Academic Senate, in accordance with Title 5, to deal with curriculum issues (See Page 2, the Senate’s eleven areas of responsibility, especially #1, #2, and #5). The participants were reminded that the subcommittee was called together by the Academic Senate at the request of the CRC, a standing committee of the Senate, to resolve the issue, and every division is represented on the Academic Senate. Since the subcommittee has been unable to agree on a recommendation, the Academic Senate has the authority to make a decision on this matter. The above motion was passed unanimously.

Jane suggested that the committee have a retreat and that staff development would probably cover expenses. The Senators requested that any information on the above issue be distributed to them prior to March 28, 2002, in order to become familiar with the issues.

6) Discussion of Academic Directions for the College

Jane advised that the MCAS is reviewing its constitution and is considering reconstituting its Budget and Planning Committee, tentatively called “Academic Directions Committee.” She asked for direction on membership and charge for the committee. It was suggested that the Research Analyst be included in the membership, as well as GAP members, and faculty at large in order to glean as broad a perspective as possible. The Senate’s own task force looking into improving the Senate’s policy on the creation of a new department recommends that such a committee act as an advisory committee to mentor new programs and consider faculty availability, funding, resources, etc. The institution is growing rapidly, which impacts the heart of the college, and maintaining the appropriate balance is a constant challenge. Don indicated the importance of considering all issues – transfer, course equivalencies, general ed courses, and Jane asked him to join the Senate in the discussion to determine the responsibility of this Senate committee.

In conclusion, Alex stated that it is clear that the Academic Senate is responsible for setting academic standards. If the Senate does not address issues of concern, it is not living up to its responsibility. It was emphasized that the Senate’s decision should be a well-informed decision using expert wisdom and information. In the meantime, the CRC needs to review the approval process and consider any barriers that exist in order to determine what needs to be changed. Jane recommended that the members of the CRC join the Senate discussions on curriculum issues, and urged them to pay special attention to the Senate’s agendas. All Academic Senate meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. (M/S/U – VanTassel/Sippel). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.