Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved Minutes

Thursday, November 15, 2001

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by President Jane Patton at 2:08 p.m. She introduced Senator Martin to the body. He represents the Technology Division.

Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
Bell-Cheung (Ext.5385) AAS	X		Mancini (Ext. 5855) AF/HM		X
Brennan (Ext. 5313) Comm		X	Martin (Ext. 5349) Tech		X
Cochran (Ext. 5176) Stud Dev		X	McGee (Ext. 5042) Stud Dev		X
Estrada (Ext.5164) CommSvc		X	McKean (Ext. 5326) Math		X
Guich (Ext. 5270) SocSci	X		Myint (Ext. 5316) ESL		X
Jackins (Ext.5322 ) Math		X	Patton (Ext. 5296) Comm Stud		X
Johnson (Ext.5277) CATA		X	Sippel (Ext. 5118) Comm		X
Light (Ext. 5413) AF/CIT		X	VanTassel (Ext. 5334) Tech	X
Lynne (Ext. 5248) CommSvc	X		ASB: C.Vincenz	X
Other: B.Grayson (Staff Dev)		X	Guests: A.Braun (CRC)		X

II. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes for the November 8, 2001, will be reviewed at the next Senate meeting.

III. Order of the Agenda

The Senators agreed, by consensus, to reorder the agenda as needed to accommodate guests.

IV. Oral Communication from the Public

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

V. Information & Announcements

1. Senator Martin reported that Pro-Match.org on the web, run by the EDD, is a useful network tool for high-end professionals and sales people that have been laid off. Jane advised that many students have been affected by lay-offs, either directly or indirectly, and it is affecting their morale, their work in the classroom, etc. Jane suggested the Senate consider publishing a list of resources for students and asked for volunteers to begin the project.

2. Jane advised that the MC Academic Senate will meet with the Division Chair Council (DCC) to participate in the faculty hiring process, review requests and assist in the ranking of new faculty positions. Jane advised further that if a position becomes vacant, the department does not automatically get to replace the person. Many factors are considered first. It appears that approximately eleven new positions, and some replacement and retirement positions will be filled as well, for approximately twenty positions. The forms have been distributed through the Office of Instruction. Jane reviewed the process with the Senators and stated that the joint meeting with the DCC will take place on November 29^th. Following that meeting, Senators will meet individually with their DC’s and jointly rank their list of priorities for the Office of Instruction by December 3, 2001. The rankings will be tallied by the Office of Instruction and presented to the DCC, and a second meeting of the two bodies will be held on December 6^th. Jane stated that this process is an excellent one. Everyone learns about the needs of the programs, trends, and the direction of the college, etc. It is an educational process and a true shared governance process. The final recommendations are forwarded to the president for his consideration.

VI. Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

A. Curriculum Committee – * Alex Braun stated that 42 actions have been taken by the Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) to be presented to the Board for approval in December. Those actions include approval of nineteen new courses, nine distance learning courses, five major revisions, five new AA certificates, one certificate revision, and three reactivated courses. He expressed his satisfaction with the committee, which meets every other Monday. Each division is represented and attendance is excellent. * Despite the positive, he advised the Senate of his concerns that the CRC is essentially reactive – not proactive. The committee takes action on matters that come before the committee, on the basis of the appropriate completion of the forms. The committee, however, does not recommend whether the courses should be in the curriculum or not. The curriculum is growing on the basis of the aggregation of tactical decisions that are made at the division or department level, but not necessarily on the basis of strategic decision-making for the entire college. He asked that the Senate consider and discuss this concern under Item VIII.A of today’s agenda and determine a method for ensuring that curriculum decisions are based on the strategic plan for the college. Jane agreed that this can be discussed under Item VIII.A of the agenda, and the subject matter may require a meeting of the CRC with the MCAS. Once again, the Senators requested copies of the committee’s agendas and proposals, and it was stated that the curriculum agenda and proposals will be forwarded to the Senators via e-mail for their review.

B. Staff Recognition - No resolutions were presented at today’s meeting.

C. Committee Appointments

a) 25^th Anniversary Committee – Jane explained that President O’Hearn would like to meet with a small group of faculty to discuss the direction of the celebration. Senator Johnson indicated that he has already discussed the matter with the president and some ideas have been generated relative to music and dancing. Jane asked for volunteers and Senator Sippel volunteered. Jane will advise Chris.

b) Instructional Program Review – Scott Brunson of Hospitality Management has volunteered to represent Commercial Services on this committee. The Senators unanimously approved Scott’s appointment (M/S/U – Johnson/Mancini). Jane advised that the committee needs representatives from Health Occupations, Technology, and Natural Science.

D. Oral Reports

1. Staff Development – No report today.

2. Datatel Implementation Committee – No report today.

3. Instructional Technology Committee - Carol will make her report later today.

4. Other: Jane advised that President O’Hearn has sent out an e-mail regarding GAP’s recommendation to delay the implementation of the compressed calendar until Fall 2003.

VII. Old Business

A. Continue Discussion on Revisions to the MCAS Constitution & By-Laws

The Senators reviewed the constitution page by page. Jane suggested that the Senators share the proposed revisions with their constituents. She suggested further that a regular senate meeting be devoted to amend the constitution or that the project be assigned to a subcommittee of the Senate. She opined that the only issues of contention may be the election time frame and the President-Elect proposal. Donnelle offered to work with Jane on the revisions to this document, and she will consult with Alex on the end product. Ultimately, the proposed changes must be presented to the faculty for a vote.

VIII. New Business

A. Discuss Concurrent Enrollment Policy & Procedures

Jane encouraged the Senators to review the October 30^th minutes of the WVC Academic Senate. The WVCAS had a lengthy discussion on procedures and guidelines for concurrent enrollment. WVC is experiencing challenges in this area that differ from Mission College. She explained that a large number of youngsters from age 9-15 attend WVC. A number of home-schooled children attend West Valley College as well. Since concurrent enrollment is a major issue at WVC, and since there has been an increase in the number of younger students attending MC, the Senate has been asked to discuss concurrent enrollment. In addition, this year Mission College (MC) implemented the Middle College Program, with 25-30 high school students attending MC classes. Jane invited Dan Matarangas to provide the Senate with detailed information on this matter.

Dan advised that prior to the change in the law in the 1980’s, it was easy to identify an eligible student (18 years of age or older, a high school graduate, or the equivalent). The change in the law was intended to broaden the criteria and establish the “ability to benefit,” and this implied no age restriction. In the 1990’s, the state Chancellor’s Office Legal Counsel, Ralph Black, published a position paper that clarified the rights of minors on community college campuses. The ruling clarified that the criterion for “ability to benefit” or “advanced academic or vocational class work” was intended for the exceptional student. Very few young students requested placement in the early 1990’s, and the numbers increased in the later 1990’s, with more students, mostly from Milpitas High School, participating in the summer school programs at the college. It is his impression that the high schools placed more emphasis on summer school remedial courses in order to enable students to attain benchmarks. The requests for entry to the college from a number of younger students increased. Currently, two or three home-schooled students attend MC, although there may be more that have not been identified as such.

In the early 1990’s, Dan reviewed the college’s policy, and, in conjunction with the Academic Senate and/or representatives of the Senate, it was determined that the law intended that these students take advanced academic work. The college established its own criteria and priorities for registration. High school students eligible for college work were to register after the college students were registered.

Dan clarified the term “concurrently enrolled” students. MC has two groups of concurrently enrolled students. Since the first day Mission College was established, a bridge program has been in place with feeder high schools, primarily Santa Clara High School. The program includes students of junior and senior standing who are short units and need a course they can pass to make up course work and graduate on time. This program currently exists. A high school student concurrently enrolled in the college for one semester can make up one year of high school. The college requires that the students take courses commensurate with their ability and it is anticipated that these students will, therefore, have a high degree of success. The majority of these students are seniors.

The issues arise when we consider students below “junior” status - 15 years old or younger. The state’s position paper did not establish any criteria for judging the “ability to benefit,” or what qualified as an “advanced academic course.” Therefore, the colleges established their own criteria. Currently, Mission College has sixty students enrolled that are under 15 years of age. Of those 60 students, the age for 15 of them is inaccurate or unlisted. WVC has a much larger number of students that are 15 years or younger. The MC administration, in consultation with senate members, established the criteria for an advanced academic course as being ready for college coursework. MC has an assessment battery that is open to all and establishes the reading level (12^th grade level), the math level (second year algebra), and the English composition (English 1A) level of the student. He indicated that the math level could be higher if the Math Department so desired. The student is deemed ready for college coursework if the student can pass these three assessment batteries. MC has not denied access to any student that has met those criteria. In order to attend the college, the high school student must meet with the VP of Student Services to discuss their rights and privileges as a college student and to discuss which classes they wish to take. Often the parents of younger children opt to defer their child’s attendance at the college when Dan advises them that their child’s transcripts are private and permanent. Dan acknowledged that MC has a few students younger than 15 currently enrolled, and, in his opinion, they are qualified to do college work.

The college has an application process for junior and senior high school students to complete. If the student is at a lower level than junior or senior, there is an additional portion to the application that the student must complete. As required by law, the high school must approve the request and designate the courses to be taken, and it is mandatory for students under 15 years of age to pass the assessment and to meet with Dan. A brief discussion followed on the differences between the MC and WVC programs. Dan stated that MC decides if the student is qualified; WVC relies on the high school principal’s decision. WVC has a much greater number than MC of concurrently enrolled students under 15 years age, which includes home-schooled students, high school juniors and seniors. Hence, the two colleges have different issues and concerns.

Jane advised that one of the concerns discussed relates to the faculty member’s responsibility for students under 18 years of age. For example, the law mandates that faculty report suspected abuse of minors. Dan emphasized that no one can legally sign a minor’s rights away, and when you have a minor in your class, the faculty member is responsible even if the parent signs a waiver. We are not responsible for a college student who is legally considered an adult. The criteria of negligence shifts when a minor is involved. Example: The college has a fire drill and the building is evacuated. Students leave after waiting for an hour, and the minor in the class does not return to class. Is it the faculty member’s responsibility to notify the parent? That question has not been addressed.

As discussion continued, it was noted that the faculty does not have the right to deny a minor access to his/her classroom. Dan remarked, however, that a minor must add the class, and the instructor can determine if there is room in the class.

Regarding the MC Middle College Program, these students are juniors and seniors supervised by the high school on the MC campus. Those students take enrichment courses at Mission College in a high school setting. It appears that the liability for the college and its faculty is considerably less in the Middle College Program than students who are concurrently enrolled in college courses.

Jane recognized that questions remained on this topic. It was agreed that Senators Brennan, Johnson, and McGee will meet with Dan to investigate the matter further and report back to the Senate. Any additional questions should be forwarded to any one of them.

At this time, the Senators agreed to suspend the Order of the Agenda and move back to Item VI.D.3 to accommodate Carol Toppel.

D. Oral Reports

3. Instructional Technology Committee - Carol advised that the consultant made a presentation to the committee, and the report focused primarily on IS issues. Most of the discussion centered on the addition of a District Chief Technology Officer position. The presentation included the following goals for the district:

• Improve the level of service and quality support for information technology at the college and the district (customer service).

• Add the Chief Technology Officer position

• Place a manager on each campus

• Improve campus/IS relationship

• Improve quality of technical support

• Improve faculty access to network resources, network performance and reliability

The goals for Mission College were as follows:

• Create a formalized faculty resource center

• Improve accessibility to instructional technology resources

• Establish supportable standards for faculty computing

• Link college technology plan to additional plan and resources

After the consultant presented his report, discussion ensued, and he was advised that the technology committee had hoped for specific details relative to technology and the college campus. The consultant advised that this is phase one of the report and that the committee must draft a plan to fill in the gaps. Carol remarked that the consultant did interview some members of the committee, and those interviewed, according to the consultant, focused on IS, which led to the emphasis on IS. The needs of the college dealt with the needs of faculty relative to computers, the trade-up of computers, and the capabilities of the computers. The focus was, therefore, on IS. The consultant strongly recommended a Chief Technology Director position be created to improve the level of service and quality of support for information technology at the colleges and district offices, as well as coordinate and establish a campus-based manager/supervisor, comparable to Facilities. E.g. John Holland is a district facilities person, based at MC to serve the college.

Carol indicated that the committee will draft a report listing the college’s needs. The consultant’s goal is to finalize the report in March. Carol will bring the draft to the Senate for review, and it is her hope that the final report will be presented to the Board by June. The committee thought there was a need to expedite the report; the state provided Tech 2 money to the colleges to write a plan. However, when the governor stopped the funding, the target date was deleted, and it is the committee’s hope to have a plan to the Board in November or December. Carol emphasized the importance of preparing a workable document to ensure that the technology plan encompasses everything the college will need in the future, particularly in light of the expansion of distance learning. It is imperative that the plan includes the new Mission College buildings for Child Development, Science, etc. Carol will keep the Senate apprised and bring the draft plan to the Senate when appropriate.

At this time, the Senators agreed to reorder the agenda and move to Item VIII.D.

VIII. New Business (Continued)

D. Discuss Board Decision re: Flags in the Classrooms

Jane reported that the final decision of the Board regarding flags in the classroom is to provide flags to faculty who wish to place them in their classrooms with funding from private or public funds. Senator Brennan presented a draft resolution for the Senate’s consideration. There was a brief discussion, but because it was 4:00 p.m., it was agreed that the resolution will be considered for approval at the next Senate meeting.

The remaining agenda items were postponed to the next meeting due to the time factor.

XII. Adjournment

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