Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
Thursday, 5 April 2012       MCW-312

I.	Meeting called to order at 1:33 p.m. The following Senate members were present:
Arquilevich, Gabe—English and Learning Resources
Chen, Albert—Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
Forde, Richard—Career and Technical Education
Gardner, Ty—Math and Sciences
Guillen, Guadalupe—Student Services
Haines, Robbie—Senate Secretary
Lange, Cari—Senate Vice President
Mitchell, Nancy—Career and Technical Education
Morris, Terry—PE/Athletics, Communication Studies, Foreign Languages, and ESL
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Pauley, Mark—Senate Treasurer, Curriculum Co-chair
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Anguiano, Joshua—Senator, ASVC 
Bricker, Susan—VC Registrar
Garey, Judy— Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
Kinghorn, Sandra—Business (Career and Technical Education)
Lewis-Huddleston, Gwendolyn—Dean, Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
Palafox, John—Business (Career and Technical Education)
Rodriguez, Alma—VC Financial Aid Officer
Sanchez, Ramiro—EVP, Student Learning
Tartt, Erica—VC Instructional Design Specialist
Wilbur, Krista—VC Instructional Technologist

II.	Public Comments
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests
a.	Susan Bricker, VC Registrar
On the topic of late registration, Bricker reported that we must allow a late registration period, although the amount of time is not mandated or specified. She recommends that faculty talk to their deans to have a way to control how to add students later into classes, especially regarding courses with safety issues, like laboratory courses or those using dangerous equipment. If there is no time for second safety session in these courses for students who missed the initial safety information, Bricker recognized that instructors are playing catch-up as well as students, and that this is often disruptive. Such instructors should talk to their deans about the possibility of imposing early controls on who is permitted in those classes. 

Bricker next noted that registrations for summer and fall are now separated. All faculty should take a very close look at the fall calendar—our new Thursday start date makes for a very different set of deadlines, and the third week will no longer work for “cleanup” of registration-related issues. Sanchez noted that the new rule of thumb for late enrollment petitions is that they will no longer be signed after the fourth week, although exceptions may be made in cases with legitimate rationale. He stated that faculty should strongly encourage students with add codes to use them before fourth week. 

Regarding repeatability, Bricker pointed out that there are now disparities between state and federal regulations regarding repeatability and financial aid. Students will not get paid financial aid for third attempts at individual courses and without that financial aid they will therefore not be considered full-time students. She opined that we need to figure out a good way to communicate this difference to faculty and students. Faculty who advise failing students to drop should bear in mind that these new regulations introduce a new, significant caveat to that advice. Faculty should therefore advise students to also talk to financial aid and counselors. The differences between Ds, Fs and Ws were discussed. Bricker pointed out that students who earn Ds can only retake a course once as far as financial aid is concerned while those who earn Fs may re-take a course as many times as they want to (with the caveat that the state still limits the allowed number to attempts to 3, with the option of a 4th time where the college will not be reimbursed by the state). She informed senators that the registrar’s office has distributed a flyer enumerating step-by-step changes to state regulations and that new information will be shared as it comes. 

b.	Gwendolyn Lewis-Huddleston, Dean, Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
Lewis-Huddleston discussed VC’s new Distance Education (DE) committee and distributed a handout describing what it has been doing. She noted that there are 191 fully or partially online sections this year, and 400 sections containing web-enhanced content. The DE committee’s main focus has been looking at and attempting to increase student success in DE courses. Lewis-Huddleston reported that DE courses at VC are about 10% behind in-person classes in terms of the percentage of students who pass a course, and she noted that this is common across the nation. She informed senators that VC’s Title V Cooperative grant supports work toward lessening that gap. 

Lewis-Huddleston described the DE’s creation of a 4-week training course in teaching online classes for VC faculty. The main objective of this course is for an instructor to create his/her DE class, in addition to learning about pedagogy, netiquette, and so on. As always, permission for an instructor to teach an already approved DE cours is still up to that division’s Dean. Lewis-Huddleston opined that students need training on taking online courses, too, and they often find that online courses are more difficult than they’d anticipated. Because of this, she reported that the DE committee is also creating an online orientation for DE students. This would additionally allow instructors to focus just on their material, rather than on also teaching students how to use computers effectively. The DE committee’s goal is to roll out this training course in June, and for all DE instructors to voluntarily take this course. Lewis-Huddleston estimated that the course will require 2–5 hours per week, depending on experience with online pedagogy. Sanchez added that the intended audience for this course is faculty who are already teaching online. He noted that our D2L license is up for renewal and that we will probably extend it for one year then re-evaluate it based on faculty feedback. He further noted that all normal approval procedures for new online courses and who teaches which ones are still in place. Sezzi pointed out that the CORs for all online courses have addenda regarding maintaining “regular personal and effective” contact with students. When senators asked if will we have fewer students attending in-person courses if we bump up promotion of online courses, Sanchez responded that web-enhanced courses are a good way to start. Senators asked if this new training course is all-or-nothing, or is there a provision for learning just about particular topics like, for example, quizzes? Sanchez responded that the entire course must be taken from beginning to end. Senators next asked if the training course discussed will be truly voluntary, or will those who take it enjoy some advantage in terms of teaching assignment over those who do not take it. Sanchez responded that this is up to individual Deans, that Deans cannot make non-contract requirements for load assignments, and that disputes over this matter will go to him as EVP of Student Learning. 

Lewis-Huddleston reported that the faculty room on first floor of LRC is being refurbished for faculty’s benefit, and that equipment to support online instruction will be furnished there. The TV studio in the basement of the LRC will additionally be turned into a training room with modern, up-to-date equipment. Advanced, in-person training in online instruction beyond that supplied in the 4-week online course will be available there. She also reported that the DE committee is investigating the possibility of on-line tutoring for students, which is also supported by VC’s Title V Cooperative grant. She ended by recommending a visit to the expanded DE website and by soliciting ideas and feedback from faculty.

IV.	Approval of minutes—22 March 2012
Guillen motioned to approve these minutes, Forde seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

V.	Study Sessions
a.	Actual and Proposed Changes to Registration Procedures at VC/VCCCD
This item is covered under VI. e.

b.	Academic and Professional Matters Related to Distance Education  
This item is covered under III.b.

c.	Ventura College Academic Senate Faculty Satisfaction Survey
Sezzi distributed the previously discussed survey questions. It was discussed, and some changes were made. Questions duplicating those on an upcoming AFT survey were removed. Consensus was reached that minor refinements will be made, then it will be distributed to all faculty. 

d.	Ventura College Academic Senate Self-Assessment Survey
Sezzi distributed this previously discussed survey. It was discussed, and minor changes were made. Consensus was reached that minor refinements will be made, then it will be distributed to VC’s Academic Senators.

e.	Statewide Academic Senate Spring Plenary Resolutions
These were briefly discussed. Senators expressed a concern that Resolution 9.03’s urging of colleges to implement prerequisites runs counter to a push to decrease units by not enforcing prerequisites. The example of VC’s Nursing program was raised: this program is running up against unit limitations and has requested that “hidden prerequisites” (prerequisites to prerequisites) be limited. This matter was discussed, and consensus was reached that a decision would be made at the next Senate meeting. Thus study session will be carried over until the next Senate meeting so as to allow further discussion and then action on any or all Statewide Academic Senate Spring Plenary resolutions.

VI.	Action Items
a.	Resolution on Using Student Learning Outcomes or Institutional Effectiveness Metrics Only in the Aggregate and Not as Evaluative Measures on Individual Faculty Performance (Second Reading) 
This resolution was renamed. Arquilevich motioned to approve it, Forde seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

b.	VC Institutional Effectiveness Metrics (Second Reading)
Pauley motioned to approve this document, Lange seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

c.	AP 4255—Course Repetition (Second Reading)
Pauley motioned to approve this AP as well as AP 4227 and AP 5013 (see below, sections VI. d and VI. f), Forde seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

d.	AP 4227—Course Repetition Absent Substandard Academic Work (Second Reading)
See (VI. c), above.

e.	AP 4230—Grading and Academic Records Symbols (Second Reading)
Second reading of this topic was to augment Senators general approval (from previous meeting) of moving the Withdraw (W) date with discussion from constituents. Disagreement ensued about whether or not there is a difference in repayment of tuition requirements for students who withdraw before or after 60% of a semester has passed. This matter was clarified by Rodriguez: only if a student withdraws from all classes before 60% of a semester has passed would his/her tuition have to be paid back; if such a withdrawal happens after 60% of a semester has passed, the student’s tuition would not have to be paid back. Similarly, tuition would not need to be paid back in the significantly more common event of withdrawal from fewer than all classes (i.e. withdrawal from one or more classes, but remaining registered in at least one class). Senators suggested that this could be resolved by making a W date at 61% or 62% of the semester, so that the students who want to completely withdraw could do so without having to pay back their tuition.

Muñoz and Guillen reported strong support from their constituents in Student Services division for leaving the W date unchanged, expressing the opinion that at-risk and under-prepared students need all the time we can give them to succeed in their classes. Other senators agreed that these students needs as much time as possible but noted that the relevant time is after the W date, not before it, because the W deadline is the point at which such students are forced to evaluate their chances for success in a course—if 75% of a course has already passed, those students have already lost their opportunity to bring up their grades and they’re left with no choice but to withdraw. In response to Muñoz asking where this topic was coming from, Sezzi noted that the Senate has discussed this many times over the years, and there appears to be strong anecdotal support from instructional faculty for it. He further opined that now seems like a good time to make such a change because other big changes are also in the works and there is a lot of discussion and dissemination of such information. Gradual and piecemeal changes are much less likely to be noticed by students.

Senators and student guests noted and discussed other opinion about and aspects of this issue: An earlier W deadline might allow students to sign up for other, late-start classes to maintain their financial aid. A late W date poorly prepares students for transfer which appears to be our new focus in the current budget climate—universities limit Ws to the first two or three weeks of a term, so a late W date sets up unrealistic expectations for our students. Since Ws, Ds, and Fs are all essentially the same in light of the new repeatability requirements, we must do everything we can to help students pass and an earlier W deadline would give students a larger window of opportunity for passing. Retention would be improved with an earlier W date, and retention is one of the new criteria by which our institution will be judged. Assignments are generally more successful if time to complete them is short. Students who get help earlier have a better chance of recovering from difficulties in a course, and an earlier W deadline might encourage struggling students to work harder and seek out tutoring earlier.

Rodriguez noted that this conversation would be better if supported by data; without data, conversations about what students do or need run the risk of being oversimplified. Sezzi observed that it’s a complex issue and we’re not being forced to make a change now, so maybe we should postpone a decision until after data have been gathered. Surveying students was discussed, as was gathering data from instructors regarding what a failing student’s chances are for improvement at the 60% mark compared to the 75% mark in a semester. Ford motioned to gather data on this matter and revisit it in the fall, Pauley seconded. Motion carried 10–2–0 with Muñoz and Guillen opposed. Pauley motioned to approve the remainder of this AP, Lange seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

f.	AP 5013—Students in the Military (Second Reading)
See (VI. c), above.

VII.	President’s Reports
a.	DCAP report—Response to Accreditation Recommendations
DCAP introduced by Sezzi, followed by a brief discussion. Sezzi noted that a part of DCAP’s charge is to review its charge and committee charge before the end of this calendar year. 

b.	Consultation Council report
Sezzi informed senators that one of this group’s meetings per month discusses the Board agenda, and the other discusses participatory government. Sezzi will bring a new draft of Participatory Government Handbook to the next Senate meeting. 

c.	Board of Trustees meeting report
Sezzi informed senators that the meeting on Tues is where classified cuts will be happening. 

d.	DTRW, DCSL, DCHR reports
Nothing to report from DTRW. DCSL is reviewing the APs that we have just reviewed and approved. DCHR discussed which employment documents are public and which are private. Seniority lists should be available from the following, in order: Department Chair, then Division Dean, then Human Resources. Senators noted that AFT has all these documents. FSAs and longevity lists are not public documents. 

e.	BGOITF report
Nothing to report. Sezzi noted that nothing useful is currently coming out of this group.

f.	Administrative Council report
Nothing to report as yesterday’s Admin Council was scheduled at the same time as DCAS.

g.	DCAS report
This group met yesterday. Field trip forms are changing again, this time for the better. They will be completely online, and much more easy and sensible to fill out. The difference may be significant and should make it much easier for faculty to take students on field trips. It was opined that clubs should use comparable online forms, too.

VIII.	Senate Subcommittee and Campus Committee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee report
Sezzi reported that math competency will remain as it presently is. The change proposed by the Mathematics Department was retracted. 

b.	Student Learning Outcomes Oversight Committee report— Update on Fall 2012 changes the assessment of course, program and institutional level SLOs
Changes were passed out by Sezzi. Gardner reported that this committee will be re-visiting program level mapping to institutional level SLOs this semester and the process will be slightly different. TracDat will be implemented in the fall. 

c.	Professional Development Committee report
Nothing to report.

d.	One Book, One Campus Committee report
Sezzi informed senators that the survey is out now, and he encouraged all faculty to vote.

e.	Other Committees
Nothing to report.

IX.	Information Items
None was discussed.

X.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m.