ARCC Meeting Minutes

September 26, 2016

4:00-5:30pm EST

1

ARCC Meeting Minutes

September 26, 2016

4:00-5:30pm EST

In Person

Stephen Bradley

Denise Brown

Noah Cochrane

Jackie Cosse

Annemarie Gockel

Katelin Lewis-Kulin

Peggy O’Neill

Irene Rodriguez Martin

Aiden Thayer

Doreen Underdue
Marianne Yoshioka

Calling in

Rory Crath

Tanya Greathouse

Hannah Karpman

LaToya Lopez

Beth Prullage

Elise Trujillo

Chris Watkins

Laurie Wyman

1

ARCC Meeting Minutes

September 26, 2016

4:00-5:30pm EST

  1. SSW has weathered significant media attention following the student protests of summer 2016.
  2. Resident faculty held a 2 day retreat where the focus was on faculty dynamics that lead to division; we have an agreement around working as a team.
  3. We have made 2 offers for the yearlong Sotomayor Fellows with one acceptance:
  4. MamtaDadlani has agreed to be the lead Fellow and involved in shaping the position moving forward.
  5. Important to bring trust and to clarify re: what is the level of confidentiality? How will this information enter into the review process when relevant?What is their independence and relation to the administration?
  6. We considered asking the Sotomayor Fellows to keep a log of student situations, so we can look at patterns across students and across the years.
  7. Present to the ARCC and at every faculty meeting.
  8. We concluded that if this goes forward, it would be best to include a range of people because different students discuss their situation with folks in different roles.
  9. Our aim is to understand why the current structure isn’t working.
  10. We will need to discuss this item with other faculty and field committees
  11. Update regarding the anti-racism assignment: There are 3 sites at which the ARA can be completed (agency, community, SSW).
  12. A follow-up communication has been developed and is being reviewed to go out shortly. It will be important that students have options to complete assignment outside the agency, especially if the student feels like this work may target them in any way. Students can work on projects in groups as well.
  13. On the Petition of 2015 students asked for a revised orientation and a specific additional resources for the assignment. The field department wants to consider a full redesign of the assignment.
  14. Maria del Mar Farina will be available to consult and support individual students about the assignment.
  15. What are the other resources that students can turn to help them make the decision to flesh out ideas?
  16. The FFA is the primary person with whom they can think out their choices; can students self-select a different person even if the FFA remains focal in receiving the proposal? What are the supports for the FFA to fully engage with the project?
  17. We will identify the structure.
  18. We need to develop an FAQ.
  19. We have identified a person external to SSW to conduct the exit interview. Interviews can be done by phone or person.
  20. There will be 4-5 open ended questions asking for students to comment on what would have been helpful, what was helpful, etc.
  21. We can add a question asking for recommendations that would help the School to better support students
  22. When contacting students to be interviewed, we will need to clarify guidelines that the interviewer is external to the School, how informed consent work, limits of confidentiality, how information is shared.
  23. Review of ARCC’s work for the 2016-17
  24. From the Faculty Action Plan
  25. Assess the SSW Essential Abilities from the lens of anti-racism and the Code of Ethics and formulate recommendations for change if necessary
  26. A full re-examination of the policy and procedures of academic consultation/review process with an eye toward understanding how we could intervene and support earlier and throughout
  27. Build in additional support to students who are on leave and/or questioning whether they want to return to the program
  28. Continue with work on the petition items from summer 2015
  29. Reviews:
  30. Peggy O'Neill presented three-year data reporting consultations and reviews.
  31. Statistics show that a small number/percentage of students participate in consultations and fewer in reviews, yet suggests racial disproportionality.
  32. There is a significant jump in # of students since our new procedure formalized the consultation process and increased tracking of the consultation activities.
  33. Currently, consultations are attended by FFA, supervisor, field director. In the past year, there was a change in the procedure making them more formal because consultation must be pre-requisite to a review.
  34. Previously, consultation involved more participants including adjunct faculty, FFA representative, the student’s FFA, supervisor and student and reviews involved up to 8-10 people in the room.
  35. Outcomes from Review:
  36. Most students continue in the program.
  37. The majority of those who go on leave of absence return to the program
  38. While there are a small number of students who are automatically dismissed from the program due to failing grades, the review process has not resulted in a dismissal in the past three years.
  39. A minimal number choose to withdraw from the program.
  40. There are differential graduation rates that even out when considered over 4 years and 5 years.
  41. It was noted that our change in procedure is not well-known by our community; in terms of the data. There has been a standardization of the process that also impacts the FFA’s work but carried no impact for how FFAs problem-solve;
  42. It feels like the consultations are as fear-invoking as reviews but were intended only to be a mechanism to bring issues forward
  43. It was rolled out without a lot of explanation.
  44. Students on leave – how to support their learning while away?

1