Quick Jump to Sections: Program Reviews, Accreditation, Budget, College Goals, Enrollment Management, AB 515 (extension courses), Other Things, Next Meetings.
We had four program review presentations. For each one I give a direct link to the Program Review Committee's (formerly IEC) appraisal in the College Council public folder (you'll need to login to Outlook Web in order to download the Word docs) plus my notes.
Health and Physical Education (link to PRC appraisal doc in public folders). Meshing together the health academic courses and the physical education activity courses and intercollegiate athletics can be challenging. The department is now aware that they need to be more involved with college governance because of the assault by the state on physical education programs. A few community colleges have some very low standards for what they required of their students and in typical state punitive fashion, they painted all community college PE programs with the same broad brush. There is also the question raised of why should we have PE requirements if the students have had PE instruction all throughout K12. Kern County has one of the worst ratings healthwise (high obesity + diabetes + asthma, etc. rates) so K12 education is NOT doing its job teaching proper health habits. College is the last chance for formal education of the public. The department is also aware that exercise courses are not part of the college's core mission. The department raves about the use of clickers to get instant student feedback in their health classes (including anonymous feedback on health issues that the faculty would otherwise not get) and to keep the students engaged. They hope to eventually get the Nutrition courses under their umbrella.
Philosophy (link to PRC appraisal doc in public folders). Seven faculty and 1 adjunct educate 4100 to 4200 students per year. All but one of their courses have NO prerequisites so they deal with a WIDE of student abilities. Primary service is instruction in critical thinking and critical reading skills and general education courses. Having the students reflect on their own social responsibility is a key component of their courses. Student retention is 86.5% and about 60% student success. Demographics of students in the classes matches the demographics of the general student body. Faculty are active in college governance. Cheap program to run: just faculty salaries and $450/year in supplies.
Child Development Centers (link to PRC appraisal doc in public folders). Note that this is NOT the Child Development program (academic dept with courses in child development) but a child care program for the children of college students. Also, it is a district program, not a college program. They get most of their money from the California Department of Education and a small percentage of their funding is GU001 (general fund) now that VTEA, EOP&S, and CalWorks funds were sharply cut back in the past couple of years. The faculty and directors took pay cuts in order to keep the program going (the directors led by example in taking the pay cuts). They closed the Delano Center's Child Development Center because too few students needed its services (apparently, many childcare places are now available for the Delano students). In order to participate in the program, students must be below the 70th percentile (I may be wrong on the income level) below the state median income and maintain a 2.0 GPA. They care for approximately 175-180 children at the BC facility. They need to replace all 14 of their cribs by the end of the year in order to meet new safety standards.
An updated draft of the Annual Program Review FAQ was presented by the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC). has developed an upgraded process of linking the Unit Plan with budget decisions. The Unit Plan will become the Annual Program Review with additional questions that look at curriculum assessments (for instructional areas) and hiring decisions. The huge six-year program review will be modified and it will be called "Integrated Program Review".
Department chairs in particular should take a close look at the updated APR draft as well as the "ISIT form" (for computer and AV media technology requests---now a spreadsheet with drop-down menus for easier data entry) that is part of the unit plan since they are the ones who have had to fill out the Unit Plans and the Program Reviews. Please send feedback to the ASC members that include Kate Pluta, Nan Gomez Heitzeberg, LaMont Schiers, and others.
State tax collections are coming in at about $2.5 billion above previous estimates so the deficit won't be quite as large. Unfortunately, many political observers are feeling that will mean that the state legislature will be more likely to not go along with any tax extensions and create a "smoke-and-mirrors" budget as in years past since the budget crisis is not as great. We're still planning on the doomsday scenario funding.
Here's the latest draft of the criteria.
May 4, 2011 draft
With the goal of maintaining quality programs and services in all administrative, instructional, and student support areas, those making budget recommendations and decisions will use data and the following criteria. All budget decision-makers will communicate their decisions and the rationale with the sector of the college community they oversee. The rationale will address the identified criteria and data used.
Statements and questions included in the discussion of each criterion are intended as a general framework rather than an exhaustive list.
Core Mission: The budget decision will ensure that the college will be able to continue to offer a range of courses of sufficient breadth and frequency in the core mission areas of transfer, basic skills, and career/technical education so that students can move through the program to earn a degree.
College/District Goals: The budget decision will be aligned with College/District mission and goals.
Legal and state mandates: The budget decision will ensure that the college follows all legal requirements and state mandates (i.e., Title 5, ADA Compliance, Faculty Obligation Number FON, 50% law)
Health and safety: The budget decision will ensure a healthy and safe learning environment for our students and employees (e.g., Fire Prevention and Evacuation, Accident Prevention, Maximum Occupancy, Emergency Response, Health Services, Waste Removal, Utility Infrastructure).
Student success: The budget decision will improve (or at a minimum, maintain) student success in one or more of the college's core mission areas: transfer, basic skills, and career/technical. Student success measures will include items such as
Program and service sustainability:
Service area needs: The budget decision will meet an identified need for particular skills in the community of the college's service area.
Human Resource needs: The budget decision will consider staffing levels needed to address all other criteria.
Technology needs: The budget decision will consider technology needed to address all other criteria. (e.g.: Computers, Software, Media Equipment, Network, Teleconference and videoconference)
Well, we're not going to have those completed by the time spring 2011 semester ends. As of May 6th, just 43 people had responded to the college goals survey with just 80-some percent completing it. Focus groups were conducted for FCDC and the inter-club collegiate council (students). Focus groups for Classified Staff and Administrative Council still are being planned. Goals will be finalized at a summer college council meeting.
We are down 1% in Fall FTES registrations from the same point in last fall's registration. This drop is to be expected with fewer sections being offered this coming fall than last fall.
The order and approximate timing of priority registration appointments are as follows:
Note: The exact dates used for the Day 12 and 13 registrations will be modified to more equally distribute the appointments.
Assembly Bill 515 would enable (not require) community colleges to create extension courses, an ability that the CSUs and UCs already have. This bill would authorize a community college district to offer extension courses for credit; and require that they be self-supporting, open to the public, developed in conformance with the Education Code and Title 5 regulations governing community college credit courses, and subject to district collective bargaining agreements. No General Fund moneys could be expended to establish or maintain the courses, nor would an extension program course be allowed to supplant regularly funded courses, or to reduce state-funded courses relating to basic skills. This bill would require district boards to annually certify compliance with these requirements. This bill would allow community college districts to charge students for the actual costs of the courses.
Santa Monica and Santa Clarita Community College Districts are pushing for it. Argument for: AB 515 would give community colleges more flexibility in meeting local needs, enhance student access and protect faculty jobs during this time of enrollment constraints and reductions. Argument against: By offering extension courses, will there be a higher quality “fast track” lane for students with the ability to pay? Some colleges might choose to significantly increase extension courses and “cream” the best students from neighboring colleges. The State Academic Senate is opposed to the bill because of the possibility of creating a two-tier system: students who can afford to pay will divert resources from those who cannot afford to pay the premiums (counter to the mission of the California Community College system).
AB 515 has already passed one committee (I think the Assembly Appropriations Committee) and it looks like this will pass and become law. What will it mean for the Kern Community College District?
More on AB 515:
May 20 at 8:30 to 10:30 AM.
Last updated: May 7, 2011
Document author: Nick Strobel