Approved
WEST VALLEY COLLEGE
DCC/PGC Meeting Summary
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 2:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Club Room
ATTENDEES
NAME / REPRESENTING / PGC / DCC / Pr. / NAME / REPRESENTING / PGC / DCC / Pr.Diane Hurd / AAS / x / Kuni Hay / VP Instruction / x
Heidi Diamond / Business / x / Victoria Hindes / VP Student Services / X
Chris Cryer / Fine Arts / x / Fred Chow / Dean-Tech & Info. / X
Leigh Burrill / Language Arts / x / Stephanie Kashima / Dean, Inst.& Stu. Success / X
Joan Worley / Physical Education / Frank Kobayashi / Dean, Career Ed / X
Rebecca Wong / Science & Math / X / Lance Shoemaker / Academic Senate / X
Carol Pavan / Student Services / X / Pat Fenton / VP Admin Services / X
Steve Juarez / Social Sciences (Mel Pritchard) / X
Indicates Voting Member of PGC or DCC
Guests: Mel Pritchard, Lisa Kaaz, Inge Bond, Thuy Tran, and Sonia McVey
DCC:
I. Welcome and Check in
Kuni congratulated Psychology for being next on the list to begin a faculty hiring after the English Department decided to not move forward with a request for insertion into this year’s list.
Leigh indicated that English wanted to honor the previous process. The decision to move forward was not because of lack of need. English will be requesting two positions in Fall 2013.
The group welcomed Sonia McVey as the new Executive Assistant for the Office of Instruction.
II. Curriculum Committee
Kuni presented a background information and overview of the Curriculum Committee. Kuni indicated that when she arrived in fall 2011, 50% of Catalog offerings in 2011-12 were not aligned with State approved courses, certificates, and degrees. She said that there was a collaborative clean-up process that was supported by the Academic Senate and the Curriculum Committee. The alignment of Catalog, Datatel, and Curricunet has been important for the institution, especially in regards to Accreditation. Kuni shared that it is essential that the process of local and State approval be honored. She shared instances in the past when the process was not followed. Kuni shared a diagram of the curriculum approval process. She mentioned that there have been implementation issues with Curricunet that were not thought through in the past. Kuni shared that for TMC, courses must be recent (5 years for regular courses, 2 years for CTE courses). She indicated that while several TMC’s are ready to go, courses that make up these TMC’s have not all met regency requirements, delaying submission.
Cheryl Miller, a Chair of the Curriculum Committee, reviewed the approval steps in the Curricunet process. She indicated that the steps in the Curricunet process align with the diagram of the curriculum approval process that Kuni shared. Cheryl shared that after the curriculum is launched, the Technical Review occurs with a smaller subset of the Curriculum committee. She indicated that it is important that before a course or program comes to the Technical Review committee, that dialogue occur at the Department level as opposed to a simple check off. Cheryl cited the example of Melissa Salcido sharing information about a Counseling course with her department especially in regards to the Student Success Act of 2012 implementation, and engaging in dialogue with her department about the course. She indicated that during her tenure on the Curriculum committee, she has noticed a significant increase in scrutiny from the State. Mel indicated that he sat on the Curriculum committee in the past, and this most recent iteration of curriculum submission was much more rigorous. Cheryl indicated that especially in CTE areas, there are significant requirements related to labor market statistics, employer surveys, and wage data that had been added per the state as major part of the requirements. Cheryl walked the group through the Curriculum Committee approval, Academic Senate Approval, Load Committee approval, the VPI’s Office, Board of Trustees approval, and State Approval. After State approval, the VPI’s Office implements the curriculum or programs into the appropriate year of the catalog.
Diane asked whether there was scrutiny after the Curriculum Committee approves. Cheryl indicated that there could be scrutiny at any time. Kuni clarified that everyone who is part of the Curriculum process supports the remaining steps of the process. Mel asked whether if curriculum approved at the beginning of the process, if it is highly unlikely that it will be rejected later in the process. Cheryl indicated that Curriculum is a faculty driven process. Kuni stated that in Curriculum committee, the group has been using the same priorities that have been instituted by Division Chairs Council and Performance Goals Committee. She said that in the past Curriculum committee has not been empowered to make decisions on behalf of the institution, but it is important that this group be empowered to do so just as PGC is expected.
Leigh shared that in Academic Directions Committee, there were comments that curriculum that has been approved in curriculum committee but not submitted to the state. Cheryl shared that Kuni and the Curriculum Committee led a process that reviewed the Catalog accuracy last year, and discovered that there were a significant number of courses, certificates, and degrees that were not approved by the Chancellor’s Office but they were in the catalog. She stated that not having State approval is a disservice to students and out of compliance with the Title 5. Kuni reminded the group that there has been a significant amount of work done by the curriculum committee in conjunction with the department faculty to clean up this process last year.
Cheryl shared that Digital Media had certificates that were rejected by the state due to lack of documentation. She also indicated that with Commercial Music, the same lack of documentation was not available for the Certificate.
Cheryl stated that three AAT’s are currently approved at WVC. The following AAT’s are waiting for state approval: Administration of Justice, Art History, Anthropology, Business, Early Childhood Education, English, History, Math, Political Science, Studio Art, and Theatre Arts. The goal is 80% of AAT’s by Fall 2013 of our offerings, which is 16 of 20 possible offerings at West Valley College. CIS and Music are under production. Kuni said that we are hoping that the AAT’s recently submitted are approved prior to the production of the Catalog 2013-14 as it only helps students to be able to transfer in these areas much more smoothly.
Diane asked which AAT’s are available. Cheryl and Kuni answered that of the possible AAT’s, there are currently 20 available due to our current offerings. Cheryl shared that the available AAT’s are on the Curricunet site. Carol asked if there are only 20 AAT’s for West Valley. Kuni responded that the State will continue to develop AAT’s with input from the field.
Leigh asked how difficult it is to revise an existing AAT. Cheryl responded that it would be dealt with like any program revision. Kuni indicated that with a unit change, it would constitute a substantial change.
Rebecca clarified with Leigh whether she meant swapping out a course. Leigh responded that it would be including additional courses. Chris asked whether this was a result of CID’s being newly approved. Leigh affirmed this. Kuni clarified that it is about Catalog rights for students, so the institution can be clear to students what requirements are. Kuni indicated that she and Stephanie will be bringing questions like this to the CIO Conference next week for further clarification.
III. Distance Education: Hot Topics
Fred Chow and Lisa Kaaz have been working with the Distance Learning Committee for the past 8 months on new Distance Learning issues. Their intent is to provide high level information to various shared governance groups.
Fred started by defining distance education.
Fred continued with the topic of Correspondence vs. Distance Education. The key is “regular or effective contact” between instructor and students. The intent is to create an experience similar to face to face through active participation by the instructor. Instructor initiated conversation and graded discussion boards. Lisa indicated that the State has discovered during audits that there is at times not enough faculty participation through active participation. The three relational components to an online class are faculty to student, student to student, and course material to student. This is important to Accreditation, Title IV Funding, and Apportionment. Victoria clarified that for Financial Aid funds, the College has to certify that Colleges courses have been approved by the State. Kuni clarified that during Accreditation, we must give visiting team members access to all of our Distance Learning courses, and that the team will sample these classes.
Fred followed with the issue of Last Day of Attendance. This is different from the Census Date, and is related to Federal Financial Aid funds. If a student withdraws before attending 60% of a class (Spring 13 = April 9), WVC is required to calculate a return of Financial Aid funds. Lisa clarified that it is not enough to verify that students have been logging onto ANGEL, but has to be more rigorous, such as homework assignments. Non active students should be dropped.
Fred continued with the issue of State Authorization. If West Valley College offers Distance Education to out of state students, we are required to obtain authorization to be an Educational Institution in that state. Each state has different authorization rules and fee structures, for example it is $10,000 in MA. The State governing agencies working toward a solution to meet authorization requirement. Out of State DL students (SP12 = 7, SU12 = 11, FA12 = 7).
Fred followed with the issue of Student Identification. The passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 resulted in federal regulations requiring accrediting agencies to assure students taking distance and correspondence classes are the actual student. At West Valley College, each student must have their own unique password and login. ANGEL is a closed password protected site. The state has not settled on a standard. On our ANGEL learning page, there is an affirmation statement from the student that they are the student enrolled in the class. Mel asked whether there will be a requirement for certification of instructors. Fred responded that there is interest from the Distance Learning committee that there be adequate preparation for faculty teaching Distance Learning classes. Leigh shared that she spoke to a student that she learned of a faculty who teaches classes through Facebook. Lisa replied that they don’t see themselves as policing Distance Learning classes, but they approach issues on a case by case basis. Kuni indicated that one of the issues is not all faculty utilizing ANGEL as a platform. Lance shared that there was an issue last year at Mission of a student having to pay fees for a separate online platform. Pat clarified that this was construed as a material fee. Chris shared about music course-packs. Lisa indicated that the level of engagement between the faculty and course pack is the question. Rebecca shared that we as a College should have a conversation about the level of interaction in individual Distance Learning sections. Mel shared that teaching an online course was very difficult for him, due to the labor intensive nature of the requisite interaction with students. Fred indicated that the purpose of this roadshow was to begin the dialog about these issues. Carol asked whether evaluations for online distance learning instruction are in place. Fred indicated that this was approved by the Academic Senate, and will now be reviewed by ACE.
Kuni asked whether there should be an Accreditation prompted survey about how many faculty are using ANGEL, and how many faculty are not using ANGEL. Lance indicated that that probably would not be an issue if prompted by Accreditation. There was consensus from the group that this would be an appropriate survey.
Chris suggested mandatory Flex day training for all online instructors.
IV. Academic Senate
Lance reported that John Hannigan and Inge Bond discussed with the Senate what Program Review does with the data after submission. Two issues brought up were what to do with Program Reviews that are not submitted, and what to do with Program Reviews that are insufficient.
The Senate approved that the PR committee should bring names of those who do not or refuse to complete Program Reviews. There was a brief discussion about ADC.
The Senate had a discussion with the Chancellor about IS. The Basic Skills committee requested that this issue be agenized at the Senate. The Chancellor will change the reporting structure to report directly to the Chancellor. Hot topics in Distance Education were covered. Becky and Victoria went over student behavior issues. At the next meeting, there will be a report on Student Success. There was a presentation from Ed Maduli on the District budgeting.
V. Academic Directions Committee
The subcommittees have met or are meeting with the six programs. A discussion took place about an action plan prior to May 17. The goal would be that the implementation of the action plan would take place during the Summer and Fall. The co-chairs will be making a presentation to the Academic Senate in the Fall. Now that the subcommittees are meeting with their subgroups, ADC meetings will take place every other week.
VI. Student Services Council
Victoria indicated that enrollment priorities have to do with both enrollment and Satisfactory Academic Progress. Student Services is working to clean up the protocol and administrative procedures in regards to enrollment priorities. There will be a campaign about enrollment priorities. Victoria reminded the group that the Presidents Scholar’s applicants are due on April 5.