Academic Senate Minutes

Transcription

1 Academic Senate Minutes MAY 3, PM FACULTY HOUSE RECORDER: Allison Paine, Academic Senate Staff Aide Professor Jamie Blair, Academic Senate Secretary, revisions & edits from Senators, and distribution to BOT. Arismendi-Pardi, Dr. Eduardo Jesús Isaac, Darryl Consumer Health Science Senator Senator-at-Large Blair, Jamie Secretary Keesler, Kathy Senator-at-Large Math & Science Senator Boone, Rick Part-time Representative, Appointed Kennedy, Marilyn - Literature and Languages Senator PDI Coordinator (NV) Cabanel-Bleuer, Denise Vice-President Komenda, Virginia - Part-time Representative Senator-at-Large Cabral, Marta - EOPS Senator Kraft, Richard Visual & Performing Arts Senator Cutenese, Charles Senator-at-Large Lawell, Cheri - Curriculum Chair (NV) Cutting, Kris SGOCC Student Representative Annual appointment - (NV) Marcina, Dr. Vesna - President Social & Behavioral Science Senator Dale, John Parliamentarian Maurer, Dr. Ernie Senator at Large Library /Media Services Senator Drew, Rendell Senator-at-Large Neil, Jeanne Business and Computing Senator Dowling, Tom Senator-at-Large Pettus, Candy Senator-at-Large Gordon, Lee (NV) Faculty Development Coordinator Schneiderman Robert -Counseling Senator Hays, Scott Part-time Representative Skeie Leon Physical Education and Athletics Senator Hutchison, Richard Technology Senator Spencer, Steve Senator-at-Large Call to Order The Academic Senate President called the meeting to order at 12 pm. Approval of the Agenda for 5/3/11 The agenda was approved. Approval of Minutes No minutes were approved. Public Comment: SGOCC representative, Kris Cutting sent an to the Academic Senate Staff aide which senators will receive after the meeting regarding AB1341 and the amendments to the bill. The bill proposes BOG control over the CCC budget, priority registration and many changes to the CCC system. Kris encouraged senators to read through the information and reported that FACCC opposes the bill. Rick Boone thanked senators for re-electing him as part-time Senator at-large. 1

2 Senator Dowling acknowledged the OCC Horticulture students for winning first place in the South Coast Plaza Garden Show against professional landscaping competitors for their beautiful Moroccan landscape design. Senator Isaac noted that the horticulture students are also in part responsible for the lovely plants near the ABC Building. Consent Items : 1. Transparency Committee Bylaws 2. Board Policy entitled Senate/Faculty Role in Governance 3. Program Coordinator job descriptions Item 3, Program Coordinator job descriptions, was pulled from the consent calendar. A motion was made to approve items 1 and 2 on the consent calendar. The motion carried. A second motion was made on item 3, allowing the Academic Senate to send out the finalized negotiated job descriptions as soon as they are ready without having them come back to the AS for further approval because the contract allows for a 20 day advertisement of those positions and an MOU was done to shorten the timeline to 15 days to try to finish selection by the end of the semester. The motion carried. President s Report/Announcements: The AS President s blog: AS President Marcina announced that there are 23 applicants for Chancellor and that the process is moving forward. Nominations for Academic Senate officers: Position Academic Senate President Academic Senate Vice President Academic Senate Secretary Academic Senate Parliamentarian Nominees Dr. Vesna Marcina Denise Cabanel-Bleuer Jamie Blair John Dale Hearing no other nominations the Academic Senate president closed nominations. In response to an inquiry regarding voting by acclimation, she stated that the bylaws are silent in this area so we need to follow Robert s Rules. We cannot vote today as the item needs to be agendized per the Brown Act. Unfinished Business Nominations were closed for officers by the Academic Senate President. Academic Standards recommendations to faculty Senator Rendell Drew, Academic Standards Chair Senator Drew followed up on his Academic Standards presentation of last week. He will provide a copy of the bylaws for Academic Standards to senators to review in a few days. Recommendations from the new Academic Standards Committee: The following guidelines were revised and adopted, by the Academic Standards Committee, from the Education Policies Committee of the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges. They are meant to serve as recommendations to the faculty in order to help faculty members to ensure academic integrity: 1) Integrate discussion about ethics and academic integrity within all courses. 2) Design assignments in such a manner that potential problems with using and sourcing information occur with minor, minimum risk assignments. 3) Avoid giving the same assignments and exams during successive terms. 4) Organize group work in such a manner that individual expectations are clearly defined. 5) Monitor students consistently during exams, and when academic dishonesty appears to occur, be mindful that careful observations by a faculty member will be an important part of deliberations concerning an alleged infraction. 6) Establish grading criteria (including rubrics, holistic assessments, and portfolios) that state clear expectations and thereby minimize opportunities for academic dishonesty. 7) Set a baseline of student work for future comparisons by collecting samples early in the term. 8) Invite librarians, counselors, and others as guest lectures on subjects related to academic integrity. 9) Include in syllabi statement encouraging students to communicate with you prior to dropping a course. 10) Include in the syllabi a statement concerning academic integrity, including definitions, examples 2

3 of what constitutes academic dishonesty and the consequences of violations. 11) Require that students run their papers through an online plagiarism site and provide documentation of having done so. 12) Schedule distance education students to take proctored examinations which includes verification of students identity, and engage in frequent professor/student contact to help mediate against occurrences of academic dishonesty. Discussion/concerns: A faculty member noted that all of the recommendations mirror the Education Policies Committee of the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges, except number 12 for which the language was changed. The link to the ASCCC document: pdf She asked that the original language be used as drafted by the ASCCC: Schedule distance education students to attend in-person meetings, to take proctored examinations, and engage in frequent professor/student contact by phone, , and in person to help mediate against occurrences of academic dishonesty. Senator Drew reported that a committee member asked that the language be changed. A faculty member reported that his perception was that verification of students (taking proctored exams) was not an area where he felt progress had been made at OCC. In the classroom, identity verification takes place, and he is uncertain if something comparable happens like other institutions. Jill Golden, the Online Coordinator, verified that that proctored exams are available on campus as often as possible and the distance education guidelines recommend frequent and varied contact with students. Professor Golden felt that OCC does monitor and does its best to identify students as often as other campuses do. In distance education courses, each time a student accesses their course they must log on with a user name and password to identify who they are. Proctored exams could not physically be done on the campus due to a lack of physical space. A Senator stated that as far as he was aware proctored exams are done on an ad-hoc basis on the campus provided in an informal and unstructured way with no definitive funding available for proctored exams. Professor Golden stated that there are official testing guidelines developed by the Online Advisory Board that the computer testing center follows. She acknowledged that physical space is limited, funding is needed and authentication is important. She stated that accommodating a large group instruction course with hundreds of students who take their exams over a three day period and requiring the instructor to physically be present would not be feasible. The computing center checks a student s identification and makes certain they have no class materials with them when taking an exam. Senator Drew invited Jill Golden to the committee to make the recommendation and provide information on the guidelines they are recommending. Senator Drew stated the intention is to bring the recommendations forward from the committee to the senate. He mentioned that in recommendation number 10 a suggestion from the committee is that the faculty may want to include portions of the student code of conduct in their syllabus to address cheating. He clarified that there is no intention by the committee to tell faculty how to teach their classes and the committee is open to input. As a senator and Vice Chair of the committee his goal is to bring these recommendations to the faculty and the campus. This will be referred to the Academic Standards Committee for follow-up and will come back to the Academic Senate for approval. New Business Student Success Center Update Jaki Kamphuis, PRESENTER Jaki Kamphuis invited senators to attend the Student Success Center Open House from noon to 2 pm on May 9 th. She reported that although enrollment has declined at OCC the center has grown each year in student participation. She provided an overview of the center, distributed brochures, and answered questions. Several Senators thanked them for their hard work. Basic Skills Jamie Blair, PRESENTER Senator Blair reviewed the history of the Basic Skills funding and committee membership since She explained some key elements of the Basic Skills Initiative and discussed some of the 26 best practices. She stated that several years ago the Senate was asked to merge the Senate Basic Skills committee with Title III since some of the goals overlapped. She stated that she and Alex Gullien were on the Title III committee as BSI representatives at that time and did not agree that this was the way to go. When the Senate agreed to merge the committees, Senator Blair stated that she became aware that with all the business that the Steering committee had with respect to the Title III grant, Basic Skills seemed to get lost. She stated that there was just not enough time to focus on the Basic Skills planning. he recommended that a Senate Basic Skills Committee be reactivated and set apart from the Title III Committee. Senator Blair stated that Title III will be gone in about 1 year and the 3

4 Communication Labor Relations with This Constituents: topic will be further Senate discussed Bylaws on a future agenda. Senator Senator Arismendi-Pardi, Kennedy, PRESENTER college needs a new Basic Skills committee configuration so that policy, procedures and by-laws can be developed and implemented. She emphasized that this committee also needs to develop a college plan for BSI across the campus. Discussion points: In response to a question on how basic skills classes are coded, VP Nish explained that coding basic skills courses is problematic statewide, for example: ESL courses at OCC were articulated for transfer which is atypical so no funding allocation from the state is provided for those through BSI, and also the ARC data does not reflect that information either. The coding comes from CB21 data (which was cleaned up with the exception of ESL) and we do not use N coding any longer. A faculty member stated that College Council has specific goals and objectives for Basic Skills that are part of the Educational Master Plan. One Senator stated that she felt that transfer faculty should be part of the committee, if it is opened up for more members. Senator Blair agreed stating that it is important for all those who interact and teach Basic Skills students be included on a Basic Skills Committee so we can come up with a college plan. A Senator stated that most of the committee members on BSI are the faculty that would initiate projects so it s almost like handing yourself a check without the oversight of the Title III Committee. Defining the relationship between the two committees is integral, and it would be difficult to separate them. Senators to discuss the appropriate relationship between the Student Success Center, Title III, BSI and its membership. The item will be agendized for further consideration at a later meeting. Program Review Process Georgie Monahan, PRESENTER Program Review Coordinator Georgie Monahan distributed a draft of the peer review process that was written by the Program Review Committee. This is to demonstrate sustainable, continuous quality improvement and overall effectiveness in Program Review. One three-year cycle of program review and peer review is completed and peer review is designed to be a supportive process that gives two or three sets of eyes reviewing each program review to offer feedback before the PR moves forward to try achieve the goals of that particular department. PR needs to be clear and provide solid arguments for its objectives. Assuring rigor and quality is what PR is designed to do. She asked for senate feedback on the draft so the document can move forward to College Council Discussion points: One comment by a Senator was that faculty who have formerly been peer reviewers are part of the PR Committee. Compensation is something they want to eliminate from the process, but they do not receive enough volunteers so they incentivized faculty to get enough reviewers to participate. It could be viewed as a conflict of interest if the people setting policy are also being paid. Another Senator stated that the missed deadline consequences seem punitive. The timing of the writer s response may be an issue if faculty get behind on the peer review or if something outside of their control happens. Professor Monahan will take that feedback to the committee for consideration. It was noted that this draft is designed to apply to program reviews from academic year. A Senator explained that four years ago an idea was suggested that if a PR was incomplete the program would not be offered the following year. This draft states that a program would not receive funding and would have to be considered for funding in the following year. A concern was raised that Program Review would not allow a program to be funded if found not in compliance with SLO/PSLOs, but not Program Review. Professor Monahan clarified there is no process on the campus that does not allow for a program continue. This process is related to the peer review part of program review. A suggestion was made to have reviewers either meet with the lead writer or have a peer reviewer with more expertise in the program area or global point of view provide feedback. Mid-term report of 2010 link: One Senator clarified that standard 1B and 2A specify the way that decisions are made on the campus. Peer review is a process of validation of claims that are made in various program reviews. The campus has struggled for four years to find a method and develop a global perspective. With or without compensation the list is not long for faculty to be involved in the PR process or peer review. This is a fairness issue for those that have provided evidence and completed the process. It is about requesting additional resources for supplies and things that is the spirit of it, not program discontinuance. Adjournment: The Academic Senate President adjourned the meeting at 1:02 pm. 4

5 Academic Senate Minutes MAY 10, PM FACULTY HOUSE RECORDER: Allison Paine, Academic Senate Staff Aide Professor Jamie Blair, Academic Senate Secretary, revisions & edits from Senators, and distribution to BOT. Arismendi-Pardi, Dr. Eduardo Jesús Isaac, Darryl Consumer Health Science Senator Senator-at-Large Blair, Jamie Secretary Keesler, Kathy Senator-at-Large Math & Science Senator Boone, Rick Part-time Representative, Appointed Kennedy, Marilyn - Literature and Languages Senator PDI Coordinator (NV) Cabanel-Bleuer, Denise Vice-President Komenda, Virginia - Part-time Representative Senator-at-Large Cabral, Marta - EOPS Senator Kraft, Richard Visual & Performing Arts Senator Cutenese, Charles Senator-at-Large Lawell, Cheri - Curriculum Chair (NV) Cutting, Kris SGOCC Student Representative Annual appointment - (NV) Marcina, Dr. Vesna - President Social & Behavioral Science Senator Dale, John Parliamentarian Maurer, Dr. Ernie Senator at Large Library /Media Services Senator Drew, Rendell Senator-at-Large Neil, Jeanne Business and Computing Senator Dowling, Tom Senator-at-Large Pettus, Candy Senator-at-Large Gordon, Lee (NV) Faculty Development Coordinator Schneiderman Robert -Counseling Senator A Hays, Scott Part-time Representative A Skeie Leon Physical Education and Athletics Senator Hutchison, Richard Technology Senator Spencer, Steve Senator-at-Large Call to Order The Academic Senate President called the meeting to order at 12 pm. Approval of the Agenda for 5/10/11 The agenda was approved. Approval of Minutes for 4/19/11 and 4/26/11 A motion was made to approve the April 19 & April 26, 2011 minutes. Senator Keesler asked that on page 3 of the April 19 th minutes that the IPC agenda item be revised to state that the college knowingly went down a path unsure of what the outcome would be. Senator Pettus asked for a name spelling error in the Public Comment section to be corrected on the April 19 minutes. Minutes were approved for April 19 &26 pending those revisions. Public Comment: None Senator Kennedy informed senators that a CFE negotiations update will be distributed this week to faculty. She will send an all user to the faculty and encouraged faculty to respond to the CFE survey. 1

6 Consent Items : None Academic Standards Bylaws; Curriculum Committee Members: Pam Barvarz, Business and Computing; Steve Drum, Math and Sciences; Jarren Gonzales, Social and Behavioral Sciences; Leslie McCall, Visual and Performing Arts. A motion was made to approve the consent calendar items. Motion carried. President s Report/Announcements: Dr. Vesna Marcina, PRESENTER The Academic Senate President reviewed some of the items posted on her weekly blog: She reported that on she is part of the Chancellor Search Committee and would provide information as it becomes available for the public. Electronic ballots for IUAs are out to the respective divisions/departments.. None Unfinished Business IPC Membership Dr. Vesna Marcina, Senator Blair and OCC President Dr. Harkins President Harkins updated senators on the IPC Membership mutual agreement discussions. IPC and the Senate both had proposals and he is working collaboratively to ratify and finalize the membership. He thanked Dr. Marcina, Senator Blair and VP of Instruction, Melinda Nish for participating in the discussions. President Harkin s main concern is the size of the committee membership. He wanted broad representation, and committee membership as small as possible so that it could be effective. Divisional representation and majority faculty vote was advocated for by the senate. He recounted that balance between instructional faculty and administration was also a concern expressed clearly. He advocated for students and classified staff to be represented in the body. He informed senators that the current configuration is 33 members and the VP of instruction was a non-voting committee chair who only voted to break a tie. President Harkins distributed the membership configuration for senators to discuss. He reported that next year s discussions on reorganization and restructuring need to begin, and as those discussions unfold the IPC membership will need to be looked at again in terms of representation. He noted that the proposed membership would last a year, and then need to be looked at again as potential structural changes may take place at OCC, and we will begin that discussion next fall. Based on the non-instructional staffing reductions OCC has experienced this year discussion of automating and efficiency to handle processes will likely take place to address non-instructional staffing losses. Making certain that OCC is responding to students needs is a priority. Discussions/concerns: President Harkins confirmed that the Deans will be represented in their present form until the membership expires. In response to a question about where we are in the process, President Harkins stated that he is ready to write-up a proposal as part of the Mutual Agreement, then the Senate President will either sign it or we will go back to what we had before. He stated that the intent is to put something in place before the academic year closes that is a compromise that we can work with for about a year. Allowing engagement in the process was of utmost importance rather than doing what might be considered the most efficient or quick resolution to a problem. Going through the steps and the dialog was what created a transparent process. A concern about the PR Coordinator and the SLO Coordinator having voting rights was raised by several Senators and faculty because those positions could be perceived as informational positions that do not represent a specific constituency within the committee. 2

7 In response to the above concerns President Harkins stated that he hoped decisions are made at OCC based on the following steps: 1) Is this reasonable for the district? 2) Does this support student need at my college? 3) Does this work within my division/department? Hopefully alignment can take place among some of those areas, and the vote cast would be for the best interest of the institution for the sake of our students and not necessarily the most popular point of view in your department. Otherwise we just go to a general vote on everything that arises on the campus. A representative body is empowered to make the big decisions and together President Harkins felt we can do that. Difficult votes happen often in government for increase of taxes that constituents are not comfortable with, but in the larger example you do what needs to be done. A faculty member pointed out that SLOAC and Program Review are needed for information only and asked why they had to be voting members. Several Senators agreed with this point. President Harkins stated that he understood their point, but felt that these positions as well as others give a global perspective. In particular, students on the committee are important. President Harkins was asked if we can still make recommendations to his proposal, or was it final as is. He stated that we can continue looking at the proposal and have more discussion. A Senator stated that IPC looked at the last vote for faculty prioritization and parsed it out by division to see if it was true that representatives on the committee were voting with their department/division and not as a representative. The faculty members followed the rubric and reviewed common materials before voting and the result shows the majority did not vote for their own division or department. You could see in a few cases where someone did do that, but overall that was not the case. Advocating for your division on IPC is atypical of most members. Managers will be looked at next to see how they voted on IPC so faculty may want to stay tuned for that. President Marcina said that it was clear that 2 representatives from each division was not going to prevail in the negotiation. She and Senator Blair decided to ask for more AS representation since they would be elected by the AS and accountable to the AS. This recommendation was accepted and resulted in 3 Senate representatives, thus an increase of 1 faculty position. As far as the coordinators, the managers did give up 7, but felt the 4 chosen were critical to the planning process. She mentioned that the AS selection process for coordinators includes two faculty and two managers regardless of the length of the appointment. A Senator pointed out that two faculty on the hiring committee was not the same as faculty elected positions. It was suggested that the selection process for coordinators may need to be reviewed if it does not align with the contract. President Marcina stated that a single policy was developed that incorporates faculty as part of the process for any coordinator. She will double check with Dean Mancina on the selection process. It was noted that typically there is a single candidate and not a pool of them for the selection of coordinators. In response to the observation that the CHS, PE and VPA have director representatives which makes division representation larger for those divisions, President Harkins perceives the Art Director as culture and aspects of anthropology and much more interdisciplinary outreach on the campus. President Marcina confirmed that the senate attempt to reduce managers was not successful, but they did try for a reduction. It was noted by several senators that we return to our divisions for feedback and begin the process of selecting representatives since we are certain that we will have at least 1 division representative. A perception of Physical Education is not as important as some of the other academic areas was voiced. 3

8 Chair VP of Instruction Academic Senate President, VP and Senator Divisional Representative Business and Computer Sciences Consumer Health and Sciences Counseling,DSPS,EOPS, CALWorks, CARE Library and Media Services Literature and Language Mathematics and Sciences Physical Education and Athletics Social and Behavioral Sciences Technology Visual and Performing Arts Program Coordinators Online Program Coordinator Program Review Coordinator Student Learning Outcome Coordinator Student Success/Title III Coordinator Deans (7) Management (Interim reorganization) Directors Art Pavillion Athletics Director ( en lieu of PE Dean) Community Education/Career Services Foodservices Marine Programs (off-site Coordinator) Classified Staff Students Non-voting member** (3) Faculty (7) Management (1) Management (1) Management (1) Management (1) Management (1) Management (2) Classified (2) Student NOTE: 17 of 33 voting members would be faculty positions. The membership reflects the old division structure for faculty and the new structure with the deans. **Committee Chair would vote only in the event of a tie. This item will be discussed within divisions and the process to choose representatives should begin. Senators will vote next week. Program Review and Peer Review Process Georgie Monahan and Candy Pettus, PRESENTERS Program/Peer Review Process was presented last week and a suggestion was made to alter the process for peer review so that it was clear that those who turned in materials in a timely manner were not penalized. Clarity was needed to be sure that a delay by the peer review process would not cause a penalty for the program/department submitting the program review if they turned their part in on time. Another point of clarity recommended last week was that once a submission was done by a department for peer review that the department needed to either respond to the peer review recommendations, or write a justification as to why they would not take action for a specific suggestion that was made to their department. Discussion: A question was asked about the harsh penalty for late program reviews since, if deemed late, the department/program would not be eligible for additional resource allocation. The PR Coordinator reported about 3% fall into this category. One Senator clarified that some mechanism of enforcement has been discussed for the last four years. ACCJC requires that OCC use data to make decisions and to validate the use of the data. 4

9 The senate has been consulted many times and discussions have gone back and forth about a process that would work with regard to how to hold programs accountable since there are in the small percentage that are not fulfilling the requirements the other programs are doing. Under ACCJC standards, it is not appropriate to allocate additional resources to programs without evidence. This means sitting out a cycle because when peer review convenes, it is not pragmatic for reviewers to reconvene for a program that did not complete the process on time for a program review that came in late. There is fudge room on the deadline and if they missed it they would sit out the one year until it could go through the process. A Senator stated that he thought the planning councils are not going to shut the door and cut off resources in the middle of a cycle, but College Council could say peer review did not endorse this document. If something blows up and you need a new one they are not going to lock the door, you can still get in but it may be much more difficult. A Senator noted that the language in the new draft was an improvement and helped clarify some of the concerns. Other Senators had concerns with the peer review process and whether the reviewers understand what faculty from other divisions do, and for some divisions the process has not worked. A suggestion was made that peer review come from within the faculty members own division/discipline. The PR Committee Coordinator stated that the process is open to discussion and review and that the PR document outlines a notion of it being as supportive and objective as possible while looking for increased standards and quality. One Senator stated that they were a lead writer and a peer reviewer and his experience was that he appreciated peer review because faculty outside his discipline reviewed his work and explained the areas that needed more clarification before the documents were sent to planning councils. President Marcina offered that this is about setting high standards for ourselves as faculty. We set high standards for our students and we should expect them of ourselves--that s the most important reason for doing it. Complying with ACCJC is necessary, but not the best reason to adopt this process. Senators will bring the edited PR draft to their divisions and continue discussion next week. BSI Resolution: Senator Blair, PRESENTER Senator Blair read a draft resolution for Basic Skill committee: "The new configuration of the Basic Skills committee would preserve present committee membership and current funding allocations so as to not interrupt the continuity of programs already in place. The Academic Senate Basic Skills committee would enlarge membership to be more inclusive of college faculty, develop by-laws, and policy/procedure to distribute additional funding received." Discussions/concerns Senator Blair reported that funding has increased for BSI, and a college plan for the additional funding is necessary. She would like to start that process as soon as possible and introduced a statement to restructure the committee to include all those who work with or have input to help basic skills student success. This committee would develop By-laws, policy and procedures, allocate the additional funding received, and develop a college plan for success. The original funding allocations would be honored. When asked how the present funding was allocated, Senator Blair responded: PASS program receives 50% of the BSI funding and the writing lab receives the other 50% of the $90K funding. Those funding allocations were decided by the Title III Steering Committee. This year, the college receive an extra 150,000 that has not been allocated. 5

10 Communication Labor Relations with This Constituents: topic will be further Senate discussed Bylaws on a future agenda. Senator Senator Arismendi-Pardi, Kennedy, PRESENTER A concern over the senate s purview was raised as the Title III Committee has done the decision making for the allocation of BSI funding. Title III is not an Academic Senate Committee therefore it has no purview to tell them where to allocate their funding. Senator Blair responded that BSI is under the purview of the Academic Senate and is listed on our agenda as a Senate committee and the AS President signs the fiscal reports. She explained that several years ago the Senate agreed to merge the former Basic Skills committee with Title 3 since there were some overlapping goals. She stated that at that time she and Alex Guillen were the BSI ex-officio representatives on the Title III Steering committee and did not agree with this merger. Former AS President Eduardo Arismendi-Pardi agreed with Senator Blair recount of the change and stated that he was AS President at the time. Although he disagreed with the merging, he decided to try the new structure to see how it would work. He now sees that the committee should be separated from Title III. New Business The discussion will be brought back next week due to time constraints. Nominations and elections of senate officers. This item will be discussed at the next meeting. Adjournment: The Academic Senate President adjourned the meeting at 1:08 pm. 6

11 BASIC SKILLS RESOLUTION Moved by Jamie Blair, AS Secretary Seconded by BSI RESOLUTION (Blair & Arismendi-Pardi, 2011) Resolution Number S11 Dr. Eduardo Jesús Arismendi-Pardi, Senator-at-Large Whereas, Title III Committee has struggled to have a quorum in the past; Whereas, Title III grant will end within a year and plans to develop policies, procedures, and by-laws are needed; Whereas, the Basic Skills Initiative was led by Academic Senate for California Community Colleges under the leadership Dr. Barbara Illowsky from DeAnza College; Whereas, the OCC AS President must sign Basic Skills Initiative official documents assuring legal compliance and submittal to the State of California, California Community Colleges System Office; Whereas, the current Basic Skills Committee (a) serves in an advisory role only, (b) has no decision making power, and (c) has membership guidelines that excludes membership opportunity to all faculty; Whereas, Section D, Subsection D.8 states that "developmental educational faculty routinely share instructional strategies" (The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges, 2007, Section D, p. 60) Whereas, Section C, Subsection C.2 states that "faculty play a primary role in needs assessment, planning, and implementation of staff development programs and activities in support of basic skills" (The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges, 2007, Section C, p. 31);

12 BSI RESOLUTION (Blair & Arismendi-Pardi, 2011) Resolution Number S11 Whereas the Title III Steering Committee, includes a large percentage of managers and lacks basic skills faculty members; Whereas BSI decisions including funding are not faculty driven and such decisions do not honor the spirit of Section of the Code of Regulations of the State of California; Whereas, the lack of policies, procedures, and by-laws has resulted in a nontransparent dispersal of funds that has circumvented basic skills faculty; Be it Resolved that the Academic Senate assume the leadership role of BSI and continue to support and preserve the current Basic Skills membership and funding already allocated; Be it Further Resolved that the Academic Senate support the new configuration of the Basic Skills Committee membership as well as current funding allocations so as to not interrupt the continuity of programs already in place; Be it Finally Resolved that the AS Basic Skills Committee be required to augment its membership to be more inclusive of faculty and counselors, and develop policies, procedures, and by-laws in relation to allocation and distribution funding received.

13 PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS-INSTRUCTION The purpose of the comprehensive program review is continuous program improvement. It is a selfstudy to provide a thorough, evidence-based analysis of departments in order to understand program strengths, identify weaknesses and key areas of improvement, and create a workable plan for achieving the desired improvements. This also meets the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) requirements for all colleges in the western region. This process is designed to: Provide a rigorous examination of the program and its courses, including their student learning outcomes Engage departments in planning program improvements that are responsive to student and community needs Provide information for resource allocation within departments and across the college. Every three years, all instructional programs will undergo a comprehensive program review. Annual Resource Requests will be done by all programs in four resource areas: staffing, facilities, staff development and technology. The focus of the annual review will build upon resources needed to improve programs identified primarily in the three year comprehensive program review. Through the program review process, the following outcomes will be assured: Improve programs and services consistent with the College Mission, Academic Master Plan and the ISLOs for OCC. Determine program direction and goals for the next 3-5 years Foster cooperation among college departments Develop information to assist in the allocation of resources Increase responsiveness to student and community needs Improve response to external and demographic changes Respond to state and federal mandates for accountability Prior to completion of the comprehensive program review, the draft program review will undergo Peer Review. Peer Review is an objective review of the draft document by peer faculty members to ensure that the review is understood by the campus community and adequate justification and explanation is included for plans and resource requests (see Peer Review). PROGRAM REVIEW AREAS The comprehensive program review is comprised of FIVE areas: Section I. Description of Program Section II. Enrollment and Access Section III. Success and Retention

14 Section IV. Student Learning Outcomes Planning/Analysis of the SLO-Three-year Cycle Section V. Program Planning All programs are scheduled to undergo program review within a 3-year cycle (beginning in 2007). Program Review is approximately a 6-7 month process beginning each fall semester. The first draft of the comprehensive program review is completed by December, setting up January for Peer Review. The peer review feedback is provided to all department leads by the first of February, and the final draft from all participating departments is signed and submitted by the mid-february to become part of the budget allocation and planning process at the college level occurring through College Council in the spring semester. PEER REVIEW Orange Coast College established a peer review process for program review to provide departments undergoing program review honest and objective observations to the first written draft of the department s comprehensive program review. It is an anonymous process. It is intended to maintain academic rigor and relevance and to foster integrity and innovation, as well as to provide the opportunity to increase awareness about other programs. Particular attention is paid to how effectively the program is meeting the needs of students, the college and the community: Overall quality of the program s report Effectiveness of assessment activities in the program Suitability of the program s assessment plan Strengths /weaknesses/challenges of the program based on analysis of provided data Responses to any specific issues raised during the past three years Suggestions for plans/strategies the program/college might take to address weaknesses/challenges/opportunities/needs that have emerged from the analysis Three or more constituents outside of the program participate in the process and upon completion, the program review coordinator reviews and distributes the peer review comments back to the lead writer for each department. The lead writer reviews the comments and integrates the suggestions into the draft and finalizes it with the department members and dean. Finally, the final report is submitted as an e-copy to the PR coordinator by the deadline with the signature page signed and placed in the coordinator s mailbox. PROCESS All first draft program reviews will undergo an anonymous peer review process Three or more constituents will write peer review comments using an established rubric The peer reviewers will be assigned to various program review drafts randomly, with the caveat they will not review their own department s program review All department leads/writers/members will assume all peer review comments are objective and valid Comments will be carefully read and considered Questions regarding peer review suggestions or comments will go through the program review committee. Each department will have two weeks to incorporate the peer review feedback into their comprehensive program review or write a justification for not incorporating the feedback and submit a completed program review

15 LATE POLICY Failure to submit the comprehensive program review by the deadlines indicated above and specified by the Program Review Coordinator each year with the department leads: The department will not receive consideration for additional resource requests until their program reviews are complete and they incorporate or respond to the peer review suggestions. Additional resource requests include the full-time faculty hiring request and the annual resource request. These resource requests will include the date of the last completed comprehensive program review. Other college committees may develop relevant policies on their own. Such departments will complete their program reviews the following year if they are unable to complete it before the end of the spring semester. This policy formalizes the best practice and accreditation standard that planning and resource allocations reflect decisions made on the basis of information, evidence, and demonstrated need. AREAS OF ANNUAL REVIEW The campus-wide program review model has four areas that undergo annual review. The annual reviews formally request resource needs throughout the three-year program review cycle and allow for such requests to move forward in the college planning and budgeting process when resource allocation decisions are made. The resources needed should be identified and described in the comprehensive program review. This need is completed on the Faculty Hiring Request form distributed by program review through Institutional Effectiveness in the fall semester and completed in Oct/Nov: Faculty Needs This set of needs is completed on the Annual Resource Request (ARR) form distributed by program review through Institutional Effectiveness in the early spring and completed in March: Facilities Needs Technology Needs Staff Development Needs Human Resource Needs PROGRAM VIABILITY REVIEW PROCESS The purpose of program review is continuous improvement of the program. It is not a process for discontinuance as clearly stated in the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) program review white paper Program Review: Developing a Faculty Driven Process (1996, spring) and supported by our local program review guidelines. Programs in need of revitalization, as identified in program review or other conditions, are forwarded to the college s Viability Review Process (2010, spring). The process for viability review of programs is in accordance with the ASCCC s Program Discontinuance: a Faculty Perspective (1988, spring). LINKAGE TO CAMPUS-WIDE PLANNING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION The comprehensive program review process culminates in planning goals designed to enhance aspects of the program or student learning. The college s planning cycle is explained below in the P-I-E chart. Program review occurs in Step 2 (planning phase). Program review results are integrated into collegewide planning in Step 3 during the three-year wing plan review and revision process. Certain plans will require resource allocation to ensure completion. Steps 4-5 integrate planning needs campus-wide and allow for each wing to prioritize its needs for College Council for the campus. Resource allocation for

16 campus priorities are evaluated in Step 5 by the College Budget Committee and recommendations sent back to College Council for final approval. The P-I-E chart illustrates the college s link between program review, planning and resource allocation. The planning document in program review (Section V. Program Planning) links each program s identified goals to the college s values (C-L-A-S-S) and goals. The college values and goals are detailed in the current Education Master Plan (EMP).