Notes 2015-09-03

Print Feedback

Font Size: + -

September 3, 2015
Academic Senate Meeting Notes

EM Workshop Report
Offered by ACBO (Association of Chief Business Officials) and the Chancellor's Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Workshop Website

Overarching Powerpoint:
http://www.acbo.org/files/Enrollment%20MGMT/ACCCA-ACBO%20Enr%20Mgt%20Workshop%20Case%20Studies_FINAL.pdf

This workshop was a thought-provoking look at how to plan for and manage enrollment--from recruitment/outreach to completion. It was a range of topics that we don't often discuss in the Academic Senate, but may in some cases influence academic and professional matters. For me, it was extremely thought-provoking and enlightening to think about these issues from a fiscal/management perspective. The combination of addressing these issues from both academic/professional and fiscal/management perspectives, for me, gives a truly institutional view.

Recruitment to Completion Retreat
A letter of explanation from Walt Tribley:

Dear Academic Senators:

As most of you know, the MPC community identified nine recommendations to me of ways that we should take action to overcome our fiscal issues and move the institution forward. These were developed from inputs ranging from a survey of the campus community via “Survey Monkey” to collaborative efforts within our shared governance model. The nine recommendations were presented to me in October of 2013. I accepted all nine recommendations, without reservation or revision, and presented those to the Board of Trustees.

Since then, the college has taken action to implement those recommendations. More action is needed and on a rapid timeline. We are taking steps necessary to “operationalize” many of the recommendations through the lens of a student’s journey from recruitment to completion (R2C). One of the steps we are taking is to convene a workgroup to generate ideas for these actions, particularly to increase FTES and improve efficiencies to help stabilize the financial condition of the college.

Sincerely,

Dr. T. and the R2C Planning Group

Full text of the 2013 College Council Recommendations to the President

Offer a retirement incentive.*
Reduce college’s benefit costs.*
Improve institutional efficiencies.
Scheduling
Consolidating
Efficient use of resources
Create and implement a significant marketing plan.
Improve and enhance enrollment and retention rates.
Increase program development to meet the changing educational needs of the community.
Develop and implement plan to increase the number of international students.
Create opportunities to partner with public and private organizations.
Obtain extramural funding.
*Negotiable

Recommended Faculty Members
John Anderson
Diane Boynton
Heather Craig
John Cristobal
Jamie Dagdigian
Alethea DeSoto
Andres Durstenfeld
Kelly Fletes
Adria Gerard
Sunshine Giesler
Paola Gilbert
Fred Hochstaedter
Elias Kary
Jon Mikkelsen
Todd Ritsema
Lyndon Schutzler
Catherine Webb

Factors Considered in Selection of Recommended Faculty Members
Faculty members attending the EM Workshop
Accreditation
Academic Senate -- Academic and Professional Matters
Counseling
Library
Below college level sequences in English
Below college level sequences in Math
Learning Centers
CTE
Curriculum
Instruction
STEM
Division Chairs / AAAG / SSAG

Chancellor's Office Task Force Report on Accredtiation
http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reports/2015-Accreditation-Report-ADA.pdf

Some findings:

• The structure of accreditation in this region no longer meets the current and anticipated needs of the California Community Colleges.

• The ACCJC has consistently failed to meet the expectations outlined in section three of this report.

• On several occasions the ACCJC has promised changes and has offered reports detailing their efforts to address concerns, but these promises and reports have led to few significant improvements.

• The California Community College system and its member institutions have lost confidence in the ACCJC.
(page 8)

Some recommendations for the Chancellor and the Board of Governors:

1.The Chancellor’s Office should investigate all available avenues for establishing a new model for accreditation, including options such as the following:

a. Form a combined single accrediting commission with community colleges joining WASC Senior College and University Commission, in keeping with the prevalent model for regional accreditation.

b. Identify other regional accreditors that could serve the California Community Colleges.

2. The Chancellor’s Office should evaluate possible accrediting agents for the California Community Colleges in a thorough yet expeditious manner and, working through the system’s established consultation processes, bring a recommendation for action to the Board of Governors by Spring 2016.

3. Until a new accrediting agent for the system is identified, system constituencies should continue to work in a cooperative and proactive manner with the ACCJC to ensure the continuity of the accreditation process for all colleges within the system.
(pages 8-9)

Some themes:
Compliance rather than improvement
inconsistent/Inequitable treatment of colleges
Unclear expectations (i.e., communication)
Transparency and public participation
Alignment with other regional accreditors
Inadequate, poor training
Collaboration and respect for key constituency groups
Overstepping roles and responsibilities
Evaluation/feedback for the ACCJC
(pages 12-18)

ASCCC adopted resolutions on accredtiation
(page 32-39)

College Council (last met on August 25, 2015)
Endorsed a budget to be brought to the board
https://www.mpc.edu/home/showdocument?id=13738

Highlights: Budgeted structural deficit of $1.2M
Budgeted expenditures that include:
One-time funds from the state to cover the structural deficit (no need to transfer from dedicated funds this year)

Three net new tenure-track faculty members, i.e., in addition to any replacements
Other new expenditures matched needs identified by instituional goals/objectives and by the accreditation "Big Five + one" (technology, data, SLO participation, staffing, communication)

AAAG Report (met September 2, 2015)
Technology Update
Goal is to have wait lists in time for Spring 2016. That's a goal, not a promise.
IT Website is undergoing renovation with lots of improvements for obtaining help, how-to, etc...

Accreditation
Catherine Webb: Fall plan is for targeted review: each committee will be asked, at a minimum, to review certain sections of the report that is under their purview. Review for accuracy and completeness. I there is a good example that hasn't been included in a standard, please let the Accreditation Committee know.
Kiran: We all need to be familiar with the processes because we will be interviewed by the visiting team.

Scheduling -- probably the biggest topic of the meeting
2016-2017 schedules will start on a Friday to ensure Friday classes meet 17 times to meet regulations.
2016-2017 schedule will be synchronized with CSUMB.

Block scheduling is gaining prominence.
One-hour blocks on MWF and 1.5-hour blocks on TTh.
This is all being done to enable students the greatest flexibility in choosing classes in the morning hours.

Thinking should shift from courses to programs and thinking about scheduling in a way that enables/encourages students to finish programs.

Marina: needs to offer everything in order to increase enrollment to attain "center" status where the institution would obtain ~1$M base funding.

Academic Senate Goals

Accreditation Self-evaluation Review
The Accreditation Steering Committee would like to use the shared governance committees as "area expert" groups, and enlist them to review specific areas of the self-evaluation that overlap with their committee charge or area of interest. Of course, it would be great if all committees could read and provide input on the entire document and provide feedback. But by inviting specific committees to focus their review on specific standards, more people will have read more parts of the document, and that the dialog will be more engaging.

This first content review will occur this semester in the October-November time frame. This will be the Academic Senate's first reading of the document.

A second opportunity for review of the document will occur in the Spring. That will be the Academic Senate's second reading of the document.

Free viewers are required for some of the attached documents.
They can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below.

Word Viewer