Academic Affairs Cluster

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF CPC

M I N U T E S

December 19, 2007

2:30 p.m.

President’s Conference Room

ATTENDANCE

PRESENT

Administration

Kristi Blackburn, Dr. David Humphreys, Bobby McNeel, Dr. Robert Richards, Luis Rosas

Faculty

Nabeel Barakat, Carmen  Carrillo, Joy Fisher, Marian Locascio, Lauren McKenzie, Joyce Parker, Beverly Shue, June Smith, Jim Stanbery, Tricia Wickers, Mark Wood, Bradley Young

Students

Oluwatoba Oluyide, Michael Preston, Charly Robledo, Carlos Saenz

ABSENT

Faculty

King Carter, Dr. Stanley Sandell,  

Classified Manager

Carla Mussa-Muldoon

Classified

Hovsep Kotelyan, Traci Liley 

CALL TO ORDER

Luis Rosas called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m. in the President’s Conference Room. 

I. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

The agenda was accepted as presented with one change: Item III, Final adoption of unit plan template was changed to Reconsideration of unit plan template. 

II. ADOPTION OF MINUTES     

The minutes for the meeting of December 12, 2007 were not available for review. 

III. RECONSIDERATION OF UNIT PLAN TEMPLATE

A special meeting attended by Jim Stanbery, Lauren McKenzie, Beverly Shue and Dave Humphreys was held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 to try and resolve some issues that came up in the last meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee of CPC. After some significant discussion, it was agreed that further working meetings would be held on January 10 and 14 in order to try to resolve these issues and that the focus of today’s meeting would be to solicit further input from the committee.

The participants in the Dec. 18 meeting gave a summary on the issues discussed. Lauren McKenzie stated that the discussion centered, as far as Dave Humphreys was concerned, that we make sure that we begin to address how we are going to measure our SLO’s. “These are the SLO’s and these are the activities, now how are we going to measure success?” Dr. Humphreys added that more importantly, “what were the results because that is what is going to help you change anything you do to your plan.” He went on the say that he had a couple of underlying assumptions about a unit plan that he has been arguing for; namely, what is the purpose of the unit plan and what level of direction is it providing to the discipline. “My assumptions about the unit plan is not the 60,000 ft view that the program review is but I also felt that the direction we seemed to be going was at the 10ft. level and that we were going to get bogged down in a welter of detail that would kind of choke us off in terms of our ability to do things and react. So I was arguing for more of a 5 or 10,000 ft. view that wouldn’t necessarily determine which course you were going to offer but more of what are the turns and twists that the department or division is going to make in the next year in a sort of generalized format. To that end, my argument has been that you can produce a lot of data from protocol or other means and you can look at it and based on either your program review or your gut feeling as a division chair, you know that things are kind of fuzzy over here so that is the area you focus on, that is the trend area. You then write a narrative about what you want to do with that trend. I’m for providing data but bringing forward into that unit plan those things which are bending out of the ordinary. These are the trends, but not to try to use a high degree of specification for each course.”

Jim Stanbery stated that “the premise I am starting out with, if what we wind up with is a template that looks essentially like the current one, it is not going to be any more useful than the current one. My concern is a cluster plan. How do we get to a cluster plan? I think the format that we use for the unit plan is part of the problem. It doesn’t enable any real merging into the larger frame of reference. It should make it easy for us to derive a cluster plan. I don’t think the unit plans should be the schedule but I think there should be some resemblance and you should be able to tell why the schedule is the way it is from looking at those unit plans. The hallmark of our planning manual is if it isn’t in the plan, it isn’t in the budget. Currently, 80 percent of instructional spending will be found nowhere in any of the instructional unit plans, mainly because they don’t deal with current offerings at all. The FHPC manual says that FHPC decisions are supposed to reflect this instructional plan that we don’t have. As a result, FHPC recommends its priorities. There is a clash between the senate and the college president over this and a good viable cluster plan would greatly minimize those arguments. It would ease FHPC’s job in arriving at priorities and it would make those priorities relatively unchallengeable. The format should enable us to derive a cluster plan more effectively.

Lauren McKenzie stated that “the way I approach it is during this particular year what is it that the department, discipline or division wants to accomplish—a set of goals. I think that is where Dave Humphreys is coming in and telling us is that when you have all of these plans, how do you know you have succeeded or not? In the past, what I have done is if it has succeeded then I take it off the list. For accreditation purposes, we would like to quantify data. I think what we have in front of us is workable. It may be a matter of adjusting a few columns and, hopefully, division chairs won’t have to start over again.”

Jim Stanbery cautioned, however, that he did not want to see it move forward in a way in which the rest of the committee is not comfortable with.

Brad Young noted that the committee had also discussed using a computerized format similar to the L.A. Southwest College—a central database where everything that is entered could then be captured and retrieved.

Mark Wood stated that he has been saying for a number of years “that we have to try and tie our programs into the college mission and if we are going to group courses, perhaps that is where we should go to. The college mission is quite defined. We offer transfer programs and we offer vocational programs and basic skills. All of us should be doing something toward that list. If we are doing something that is not on that list, then it needs to go. Whatever needs to be improved is done with SLO’s.”

The discussion concluded at this point and it was noted that although frustration with delays in the process is regrettable, the committee will attempt to move forward with finalizing a unit template at meetings in January. 

IV.  ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR

There were no items from the floor. 

V. ADJOURNMENT