Quick Jump to Sections: Student Success Legislation, BC Dreamers, Accreditation, Affordable Care Act, Free Speech, District Consultation Council, Other, Next Meeting.
The Student Success legislation is quite prescriptive for what needs to be in both the Student Success Support Plan and the Student Equity Plan. The analysis for the Student Equity Plan will look at the "disproportionate impact" any of our programs have on specific demographic groups. "Disproportionate Impact" is a condition where some students' access to key resources and supports and ultimately their academic success may be hampered by inequitable practices, policies and approaches to student support. Equity is not the same thing as equality. Equality means treating all students the same while equity means treating students fairly according to their needs so that there is an equality of outcomes. Some students need tutoring in your class or an extra email encouragement to persist, for example, while others will be able to succeed in your class without that tutoring or encouragement. What do we need to do so that all students can meet our course, program, and institutional outcomes?
"80% Rule": Disproportionate impact exists when one or more demographic groups are succeeding or have access to resources at less than 80% of the most successful demographic group. For example, in 2009-10, 28.6% of the Asian/Filipino/Pacific Islander students had student education plans while only 14.7% of our American Indian students had student ed plans. In this case the American Indian students would be disproportionately impacted because their access to a student ed plan was just 51% of that of the Asian/Filipino/Pacific Islander students. So how would the college target the American Indian students to get more of them create 2a student ed plan?
Ethnicity, age, and gender demographic groups are mandated by legislation but internally we can also look at other demographic groups such as first generation college students and veterans, for example. Our work with Achieving the Dream is meshing nicely with the requirements of the Student Success Support Plan and the Student Equity Plan. Mandated indicators for the various demographic groups in the Student Equity Plan are: access, course completion, ESL and Basic Skills completion, degree and certificate completion, transfer rates, and student success and support services. See the presentation slides for definitions of the indicators. The Student Equity Plan will outline the strategies we will employ to make sure enough of the students in the various demographic groups are successful in those various indicators.
The Student Equity Plan will have to address how we will ensure that equity is reached in the four areas of the Student Success Support Plan: Orientation, Placement, Counseling/Advising with the student education plan, and Follow-Up Services including interventions and tutoring. The plan needs to include the professional development (training) of faculty and staff so they know the needs of the various demographic groups and how to most effectively meet the needs of the groups. All of this work on the Student Equity Plan, the Student Success Support Plan, and Achieving the Dream is necessary for the various state and accreditation mandates (see the new accreditation standard IA.1 draft) but it is also simply what high-quality institutions, who are genuinely interested in bettering students lives and the surrounding communities, do.
Link to the Student Equity Plan presentation slides. Leads on the Student Equity Plan include: Equal Opportunity and Diversity Advisory Committee co-chairs: Vikki Coffee, Terri Goldstein, and Bryan Hirayama; and Primavera Arvizu, Manny Mourtzanos, and Corny Rodriguez.
Undocumented students are those who entered the United States without legal immigration status and who overstayed their authorized time allotted ("Generation 1.5"). Nationwide, only 5-10 percent of undocumented high school students go on to college. Not all undocumented students are of Latino descent (just 2/3rds are) and 40% live in California. Most are very high-performing students. Jeannie Parent and Anna Poetker discussed the needs specific to this group of students, including the unique stresses and barriers they experience because of their undocumented status, and the state and national legislation that addresses the educational opportunities for these students, such as AB 540 that allows undocumented students who were enrolled a full three years in high school in California only to pay in-state tuition, the California Dream Act that increases access to state financial aid for these students, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that extends eligibility for a driver's license, work permit, Social Security number, and temporary relief from deportation. Most of the undocumented students find about their undocumented status only when they start applying to colleges and others after they're in college and unable to participate in some activity because they don't have a valid Social Security number or passport. Admissions & Records offices across the state/nation are struggling with how to deal justly with the students who found out about their undocumented status only after they were admitted because technically, the students commited perjury on their admissions forms when they specified their citizenship. One thing Jeannie Parent stressed we NOT do with the students is to pressure them to self-identify as undocumented. Instead, we should let all students know of AB 540, Dream Act, and DACA benefits. Students should start with AB 540 processing at Window 1 of Admissions & Records and then go to Financial Aid.
Besides the handout given to us at the meeting, you can view the PowerPoint slides of the College Council presentation and the PowerPoint slides they used for a flex workshop (more details than the College Council one) at the College Council website. Also take a look at the BC Dreamers blog. President Christian wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about California Dreamers that you're encouraged to share in your various social media outlets.
BC got a clean slate of the accreditation recommendations (i.e., we have fully addressed all 8 accreditation recommendations) with no additional follow-up report needed. That is a very rare note of praise from our accrediting agency (ACCJC). Good things ARE happening here at BC. Special note of appreciation for the Accreditation Steering Committee under the leadership of Kate Pluta and Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg. Now what we need to show ACCJC is that the things we did to fulfill the 8 recommendations have been sustained (embedded within our systems and structure) and to show what we're doing to address the five actionable improvement plans we self-identified in our 2012 self study report.
The mid-term report is due in October 2015. All colleges (clean slate or not) do a mid-term report. The accreditation standards will have been revised by 2015---see link 1 (cover), link 2 (eligibility requirements), and link 3 (standards) for current DRAFTS of the new language. As part of that we need to update the College Mission and our strategic goals. All of our programs and services are supposed to come from the College Mission. A table showing the mapping of the new proposed Standard I to our college goals and responsible parties is posted on the College Council website.
We looked at the work we are already doing in meeting some of the proposed new standards. Standard I.A.1 Mission: The institution's mission described its broad educational purposes, its degrees and credentials offered, its intended student population, and its commitment to student success, as reflected in student learning and student achievement. The institution's programs and services are aligned with its mission. The "intended student population" points to the need to be very intentional about our work with particular student populations (Achieving the Dream + the Student Success legislation). The state scorecard is focussed on the student achievement aspect---the progression and completion rate (# degrees/certificates, # moving from pre-collegiate to transfer level, etc.). In our strategic goals map we start off with the student learning stategic initiative and the SLOs/Assessment data strand, so we're already on our way.
Standard I.A.3 Mission: The mission guides instituional decision-making, planning and resource allocation and informs instituional goals for student learning and achievement. Our increased focus on showing how we allocate our resources in such things like the Closing the Loop document is an example of this.
Standard I.B.3 Assuring Academic Quality and Instituitonal Effectiveness (Academic Quality): The institution demonstrates a substantive and collegial dialog about student outcomes, academic quality, institutional effectiveness, and continuous improvement of student learning and achievement. Our current work on coming up with what are BC "standards" and "targets" for our institutional scorecard through an iterative process that includes surveys and forum meetings is an example of this. We're acting as a community struggling with the matter in a collegial way. In reference to the institutional scorecard word, the "standard" is the level at which we say we cannot go below (the floor); otherwise, we're non-compliant. So what can we reasonably accomplish with our student population. A "target" is a "stretch-goal": something beyond the standard that we're aspiring toward.
Standard I.B.3 Assuring Academic Quality and Instituitonal Effectiveness (Academic Quality): The institution publishes institution-set standards for student achievement, appropriate to its mission, and assesses how well it is achieving them in pursuit of continuous improvement. So once we set our standards and targets, we'll publish them for the whole world to see.
Another thing to work on is how we'll create the Educational Master Plan that integrates all the various plans and bubbles up from the work we're already doing. Also, how the grants figure into all of the work we're doing in the big picture and do people know about that work.
One thing we did find out at College Council that quite unusual, even disturbing, was that the district office (not the Board) did modify our accreditation report AFTER we had finalized it, including some pieces of evidence being pulled out of the 2012 self-study and wording changes in the follow-up report. District offices are not supposed to do that because it is the individual colleges that are accredited and such an action could even threaten our accreditation status. We need to figure out how to deal with that for the future report. Also, remember that the Board merely ACCEPTS our accreditation report; the Board does not APPROVE the accreditation report.
The IRS has given large employers a one-year extension on implementing the ACA requirements so this year's summer scheduling is fine. In addition the BC administrative team led by Liz Rozell, Cindy Collier, and Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg diligently proposed less conservative interpretations of ACA rules to the district. The IRS has also come out with guidelines that say that a district can offer medical insurance to part-timers that is paid for by the part-time employee. That will roll out by October. In the new guidelines, if we happened to mess up in our implementation with one employee, the fines would be a lot less than the $2000/employee multiplied by the number of all employees in the district described in the previous report. Adjuncts would have 1.25 hour of prep for every hour they are in class. Student workers are now not part of the calculations, so we have greater flexibility in the hours assigned to student workers than we thought at the previous meeting. Seasonal workers such as professional experts/consultants are not part of the calculations as long as they work for less than 6 months for a given organization. The seasonal workers also must have at least a six month break between jobs at that organization.
Perhaps you have seen the large crowds of students that have gathered in the open area between Science Engineering and Finlinson in response to a community member (a former student) who has been preaching a particular form of conservative Christianity message. There was an article in The Rip about the preacher and the college needs to set a policy on acceptable free speech on a college campus. Other colleges have dealt with free speech issues as outlined in the CA Free Speech Report posted on the College Council website. Many speech codes at other colleges are too restrictive. A group consisting of Amber Chiang, Sonya Christian, Michael Korcok, Elizabeth Peisner, Ann Tatum, Christian Zoller, and Kathy Freeman met to discuss possible college action on the religious activist and start a campus dialog with the eventual development of policy on free speech boundaries. In the meantime, send your comments about this issue to any of the members of this group.
Because of the re-engagement of the District Consultation Council process, the proposed change to the fiscal policy in the Board Policy Manual that would increase the districtwide reserve from 5% to 17% (and possible college reserve minimum increase from 0% to 5%) was not voted upon at the Board of Trustees meeting. It was sent back to District Consultation Council for further discussion. Also, the proposed policy change on student worker hours (severely restricting the amount of summer hours) because of the Affordable Care Act was sent back to DCC and the colleges.
The Wellness graduation requirement for local degrees (4D1F) still has not been re-inserted (as of February 27th) despite the claim of the deletion being a "clerical error". Work is being done in the Academic Senate to create a formal resolution to the district office or Board of Trustees along the lines of the College Council resolution from the February 7th meeting that makes it clear that the vetting process of changes to Board Policy was not used and that the Wellness requirement be re-instated while colleges discuss the proposed change. The excuse of a "clerical error" is a bit suspect because it does not take over a year to fix a "clerical error". The Senate resolution should further recommend that any change to the Board policy on the Wellness requirement should be explicit language that allows each college to set their own local graduation requirement, such as a Wellness requirement or the multi-cultural requirement we have in our General Education pattern (also in the CSU Gen Ed Breadth)
The College Council February 7th resolution to DCC about the lack of a consultation process for the removal of the Wellness graduation requirement will go forward to the chancellor at the DCC meeting. Future College Council meetings and Academic Senate meetings can focus on the content of the proposed language as it comes back for the proper vetting.
One request from College Council to the district office is to create a website for the District Consultation Council that is accessible by all employees of the colleges that holds meeting materials, minutes, etc. It should go under the KCCD Committees site under which you find all of the BC committees websites. Until that happens we'll post DCC materials in a section of the College Council website.
Nothing has happened so far with reorganization because of financial restrictions but the next College Council meeting will include an agenda item on the thinking so far on what will happen with reorganization.
Next College Council meeting will be March 7, 2014.
Last updated: March 6, 2014
Document author: Nick Strobel