|
|
š Winter Meeting ›
Date: Thursday, Feb. 8, 2007 Location: South Puget Sound CC Hosting Rep: George Neal |
ATTENDEES:
Diane Pelletier, Green River Diana Knauf, Shoreline
George Neal, South Puget Sound Mark Doerr, Spokane Falls
Max Heinzmann, Big Bend Tim Keely, Tacoma
Randy Nelson, South Seattle Steve Byman, Lower Columbia
John Cleary, Grays Harbor Randy Nelson, South Seattle
Bill Moore, SBCTC Jim Howe, Lake Washington
Jennifer Wu, North Seattle Chuck Weedin, Yakima
Candace Gentry, Pierce-Ft. Steilacoom Leon Khalsa, Pierce-Puyallup
Phil Droke, Highline Michelle Quinn, Seattle Central
Mike Dodge, Olympic Jason Clizer, Columbia Basin
INTRODUCTIONS AND WELCOMES - New and returning members were welcomed.
COMMON COURSE NUMBERING
Our actions at the Fall meeting were reviewed as per the minutes. At that time we voted unanimously NOT to take a position due to the diversity of opinions both on individual campuses and across campuses. Representatives were charged with going back to gauge faculty views on the campuses and be ready to report concerns at this meeting. Those who need additional information are directed to: http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/education/commoncoursenumbering.asp
Tim Keely, FACTC representative to the Common Course Numbering Steering Committee (which meets monthly), reviewed the initial goals: to simplify the movement of students from campus to campus in taking the core courses students commonly want. The CCN Steering Committee was created by XXXXXX and consists of XXXXXXX. The group developed 3 lists of courses: Those we would never designate as common, those we can easily designate as common, and those about which we are unsure.
These discussions have led to all sorts of misconceptions as to what the project is actually trying to do. Tim was spending so much time dealing with the emails just from his campus, that he finally began sending them on to Sue Anne directly.
The faculty workshops have happened over the last couple of months, and have involved negative feedback primarily from particular disciplines – these may be more problematic. Many of the workshops were well attended and fruitful. Early workshops were not emotional or problematic, people got down to work and determining Additional objections concern what bias this might create among students for a “common” versus “unique” course.
The designator system is what is being put forth to the Instructional Council and the Presidents. This way we will also not run out of numbers, and there will be no need to clear a course number at the state level. This will allow transparency.
Macro economics may have one number at one school, when they transfer to another school, would that school accept it as they would their own macro class? If so, then it will be common. This is done now, it is typically done by credit evaluators.
CONSPIRACY APPROACH: If we do this, does this mean that actual course content will eventually have to be the same? And does that mean the textbooks will be the same. It is the old slippery slope.
Bill Moore – the 4 years are not formally or technically involved, but the leadership for the baccalaureates are involved. All of the 4 years EXCEPT UW are in favor of it and they think it is great. At UW it is a mixed bag, some are in support, some are not. The 4 years are in enough trouble with regard to transfer that they are not going to oppose them. Student Services was instrumental in this issue from the very start as they deal with these issues every day.
Jan negotiated this originally via a bill being assembled by Phyllis Kinney, Phyllis pulled the info out of the bill because the system was already pursuing it. The idea originated because legislators receive calls from constituents about transfer problems. Estimates currently say as many as 25% of our students have credits from at least two colleges when they graduate – this is from internal sources of the board attempting to estimate. There was no need for her to leave it in the bill. AND we might find it preferable for it to be
The legislature did not “mandate” a solution, but was in the process of doing so, and SBCTC and the Presidents asked to organize it themselves.
The goal was to provide ease of transfer for our students. This program is simple and efficient for students.
Pierce - Faculty who had experience with this system in other states say that it was definitely easier for students. Faculty member cites is as logical and straightforward. If you are opposed you should research it and then speak. There is a group at BCC that is opposed, the NW Biology Association is opposed.
The designator idea is currently being considered, but is not a done deal.
The baccalaureates are at the table and
Intention to clarify and better support students. Committee has been responsive to the fact that it appears information did not get to all faculty across campuses and hurried to rectify that case.
Highline Faculty Senate passed 2 resolutions stating that curriculum is the purview of faculty at the particular college.
At NSCC, the contact persons have never communicated it to the campus, because they did not feel it was an instructional issue.
There are some objections where prereqs may end up with a higher number than the class. Most here were happy with if the 100 class is a prereq for a 200.
Is it Drama or Theatre? A group spent the whole day trying to decide this one issue.
At SCC there are objections relating to why it isn’t a crosswalk or “California” system being used? Where is the research that shows how many students are affected by this problem? At Lake Washington they are just getting used to gen ed, let alone course numbering. There isn’t a great deal of controversy.
At present communications are going to: those in charge of curriculum, the VP for Instruction, union representation, and involved faculty. Unfortunately, not all information is being disseminated. We can all assist by contacting those individuals on our campuses to be sure the information is getting out.
We discussed that we have been talking about it and sharing with our campuses for about 3 years. It appeared that no one really cared for the first couple of years, but now it is a hot button topic.
Our discussion is a debrief about the process. The train has left the station. The system has decided to move forward regardless.
Consult, warn, advise – just like the queen, we have responsibilities.
TO DO: All representatives need to insure that they are responsibly provide information and resources to faculty on your campus about this issue. Put the urls here for factc blog and ccn website
|
Date: Friday, Feb. 9, 2008 |
INTRODUCTIONS AND WELCOMES - New and returning members were welcomed.
ATTENDEES:
Diane Pelletier, Green River Diana Knauf, Shoreline
George Neal, South Puget Sound Mark Doerr, Spokane Falls
Max Heinzmann, Big Bend Tim Keely, Tacoma
Randy Nelson, South Seattle Steve Byman, Lower Columbia
John Cleary, Grays Harbor Randy Nelson, South Seattle
Bill Moore, SBCTC Jim Howe, Lake Washington
Jennifer Wu, North Seattle Chuck Weedin, Yakima
Candace Gentry, Pierce-Ft. Steilacoom Phil Droke, Highline
Michelle Quinn, Seattle Central Jason Clizer, Columbia Basin
Officers’ Reports
Secretary Diana Knauf
No corrections were necessary and the October ’06 minutes were approved unanimously.
Treasurer Diane Pelletier / Randy Nelson
Balance of $2,677.74 remains after some of the expenses associated with the Tools for Teaching conference (catering bill has not yet been received) and the printing of the FACTC Focus. Dues statements have not been sent to schools for this year due to difficulties with the transfer of responsibilities and will be sent soon. Dues typically amount to approx. $3,000.
Vice-president George Neal
George has contacted several of the schools without representation in an attempt to get new representatives. He is also going to update the current mailing list and distribute it to members.
President Diane Pelletier
Diane’s work is embedded in individual agenda items.
FACTC WEbsite AND newsletter
Tom Affholter was not able to attend the meeting, but asks members to review the website and send him suggestions. Minutes have not been posted since 2005. Diana will send electronic copies of approved minutes since that time so that the website is current.
TO DO: All representatives need to review the information on the website and send Tom suggestions. Please go to http://www/factc.org to do this.
TOOLS FOR TEACHING: Diane Pelletier, Diana Knauf
FALL ’06: Total cost to FACTC, approx. $1600.00. Tools for Teaching IV (our 4th year) was deemed a moderate success with 60 attendees, but only 9 FACTC representatives at the conference. Attendees came from 20 colleges and 30 different disciplines. It was the first conference for 28 attendees, while 23 people had come to a previous TFT. Evaluations were generally positive (and are attached). Thanks to Diane Pelletier, Diana Knauf, Phil Droke, and Mark Doerr for their efforts this year.
Bill Moore asked if we might prefer to consider being an add-on to an existing event or at least move to a different location to encourage the attendance of others. What about the New Faculty Seminar (200-300 attendees) or the Teaching and Learning conference (about 200 attendees). Choosing an excellent keynoter is vital.
As an aside, we need to make sure that FACTC has representation at the New Faculty Seminar. Many appeared to be open to a change in terms of when the conference is offered, but that the New Faculty seminar may not be good timing for returning faculty (who may be away at that time). The Teaching and Learning conference is usually the first week of May and we could co-sponsor. The T&L conference seems to have similar offerings, although there overhead issues with a group that large (for ex. it usually meets in a hotel). Although the college in the school where the conference is held could also contribute space.
Bill also thought the Big Ideas concept might be a nice match for conference content. The Big Ideas project looks at the core concepts that would be expected in key introductory courses, and how can we assess that students are truly learning what we want them to know. They want to do a mid-August event at Sleeping Lady.
WASHINGTON STATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TASK FORCE Leon Khalsa
Leon is one of 2 faculty representatives to this group. See the materials that were circulated at the meeting. Funds will be available to incentivize colleges to increase system-wide performance. Leon works with the group that is only advisory to those actually making the decisions.
Goal: Policy recommendations need to include all student in all areas of the community and technical colleges. The group is to set out the benchmarks for system achievement, and Leon asked the group to generate some ideas about this before he provided some background information. The composition of the group is designed to involve all faculty and staff at all levels of student contact regardless of particular college demographics. The system is hoping to improve student success as it relates to Washington Learns, but also as it relates to the unique factors of each campus.
Sometime in the future decisions around funding at all of our colleges will be based on some of the things this task force is doing. It makes sense that we all pay attention as these decisions are being made rather than in retrospect.
XXXdi – Kim Thompson is rep from shoreline on this
TO DO: Leon requests that all representatives distribute information to faculty on our campus about the project. You can do so by passing on the url for the report on which the work will be based: http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/docs/data/research_reports/resh_06-4_socioeconstudy.doc
SBCTC Updates Bill Moore
Bill distributed the System Direction publication for our information, this is essentially a “ten year” plan in light of our changing system. Task forces are being formed to respond to some of the initiatives. The task force for Technology currently has no faculty representation.
Bill also forwarded the Legislative News earlier this week.
TO DO: Forward the link that Bill sent you to faculty on your campus.
Math Readiness: Groups are attempting to look at a “College Ready” test in an attempt to be able to communicate a consistent message about what it means to be ready (in math, science, and English), this will allow the system to create one rather than to wait for the legislature to impose one. At present, the goal is to have a pilot test that can be used throughout the system sometime next year.
Achieving the Dream – a national project funded by several different sources, 6 colleges in our system are involved. The goal is to look at student success from a quantitative viewpoint. Many colleges are involved.
The group also discussed current legislative issues and reviewed the visit by a small group of FACTC members with Senate Majority Leader, Lisa Brown.
FACTC Focus Mark Doerr
The paper copies of the 2006 Focus were sent to campuses. Please distribute them.
We shared what we do with the paper copies on individual campuses: some put it in boxes, some distribute it at the Faculty Senate (or Senate Council) meetings, some place copies in commone work areas or Teaching and Learning Centers, some give copies to Boards of Trustees, and President’s leadership teams.
Mark proposed a topic for the 2007 Focus featuring the changing use of technology by students and faculty. A title might be: Technology and Education: the good, the bad and the annoying. Think about cell phones, email, Ipods, pagers, looking at email rather than taking class notes, myspace, Facebook, instant messaging, e-Portfolios, virtual spaces, online faculty ratings, Podcasting, perhaps an historical perspective – where have we been, where might we be going, Podcasting, 24/7 access, technology and the social network.
TO DO: Mark will prepare a request for articles and establish a deadline. When you receive this email message, please disseminate it to your campus.
FACTC Blog Jennifer Wu
http://factc.blogspot.com/ Current topics are listed on the left, if you click, then read, and then click the button you can choose to join the discussion or make a comment. It is simple and easy to use, and it is not moderated. It is free and does not require space on any college’s server (a google product). The administrators are Jennifer Wu and Diane Pelletier: they do have the capability to remove a comment if it is inappropriate.
VEBA Jennifer Wu
VEBA (Voluntary Employees’ Benefits Association): At the time of retirement you can cash it out at a 1 to 4 ratio (but it is taxable). You could also use for your HRA (Health Reimbursement Arrangement, this is not taxable) to pay for medical expenses. State employees at compensated at the 1 in 4 rate, but King County and City of Seattle employees are compensated at a 35% rate. How it appears to occur now however is that everyone who retires in that year must choose the same plan (so majority rules). For more information, go to: http://www.veba.org/ctc.edu and http://www.metrokc.gov/employees/benefits/hraveba/default.aspx
Chuck observed anecdotally that VEBA was easy to set up and very easy to use, and the menu has recently expanded to provide more options.
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
We discussed differing sabbatical policies across campuses. We also discussed RIF policies.
TO DO: Please submit your campus report to dknauf@shoreline.edu by Friday, 2/1X.
TO DO: In preparation for the Spring meeting, please be prepared to talk about the following topics: Administrative grading (V’s, W’s and Z’s), and Inconvenient technology restrictions on campus.
Campus Reports
Thank you to those who sent your reports to Diana in advance.
TO DO: If you have not yet done so, send your campus report by to dknauf@shoreline.edu
Closing Remarks and Adjournment – see you at Moses Lake at Big Bend on 5/10 and 5/11/07! Remember, we will be START our Spring meeting at 1PM on Thursday and adjourn at 1PM on Friday to accommodate travel.