• EARLY COLLEGE. I'm told that, recently, the IVC Academic Senate was “honored” for its support of the Early College program.Absurd!
In truth, the Early College program has never been popular with the AS (i.e., with faculty). Faculty were irked from the start—when it was rammed down their throats by administration, despite faculty concerns and objections, all of which have proved prescient. Faculty have attempted to determine whether the program is as fraught with difficulty as some participants have claimed, and thus far all of its findings have supported the voices of concern and alarm.
Essentially, administration has ignored faculty concerns and, inexplicably, it seems determined to pursue the EC program despite its failings, its expense, and its lack of support among faculty.
• ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK. What’s up with ATEP? In fact, for quite some time now the two colleges of the SOCCCD have been seriously at odds over the development of this facility. Why is this “debate” still in the shadows? Why are we still in the dark concerning the future and fate of ATEP?—BvT
snafu, phr., adj., and n.
Used acronymically … as an expression conveying the common soldier's laconic acceptance of the disorder of war and the ineptitude of his superiors.—From the OED
. . .
1946 Amer. Jrnl. Sociol. Mar. 419 “Interestingly, the expression ‘snafu’, derived from this, ‘Situation normal, all f---ed up’, is coming into general civilian use.”
BEDTIME READING: the OLD GUARD, fifteen years ago: Adventures in Advertising: The real purpose behind gay-baiting at Saddleback College
18 comments:
We've been sold out. Just as the admin co-opted our former leader, they have done so with the current leader - look what she gets in exchange. Time to clean house.
You mean the shipping crates?
And so much more!
The senate leadership needs to represent, not placate, the faculty. Time for a change.
I say put up or shut up about the salary schedule. If you don't feel you earn your paycheck, you can always teach a class for free, or donate a portion of your salary to the foundation. I'm trying to get gas in my tank and eggs on my plate, and it is getting tougher to do that every year.
11:19, this post has nothing to do with salaries. Are you lost?
Another post discusses salary issues of 1997. Are you lost in time, too?
Sometimes I really wonder about the intelligence of many of our readers.
Read the letter that the LAD and Werle posted regarding the accreditation warning. I don't really know if our relationship with the district has improved, but I know for sure that there isn't a climate of trust on the IVC campus. Far, far from it! There is a climate of distrust, lies and trickery. It is much worse than when the original report was written. I read the original self study as a work of fiction.
It states in the draft to the accreditation that "the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate presented the IVC College President its formal position paper (evidence/IVC Academic Senate Position Paper dated May 11, 2011) in support of the college’s involvement at ATEP." So, how many senators voted no? bvt, I think you've turned a corner from dissent to establishment.
2:29, start making sense. Your thesis seems to be that I am now an apologist for the "Establishment." Don’t think so.
OK, what is your evidence?
That I voted for this White Paper?
The last senate meeting was May 5. At that time, the senate agreed to forward a "white paper" to the president about ATEP. As I recall, we supported general propositions about the fate of ATEP (in the context of a threat to existing college plans and agreements by Saddleback College).
OK. Suppose I supported the white paper. Or suppose that I did not.
And your point, then, is—what?
Here is what I said in this post:
…for quite some time now the two colleges of the SOCCCD have been seriously at odds over the development of [ATEP]. Why is this “debate” still in the shadows? Why are we still in the dark concerning the future and fate of ATEP?
—I am objecting to an absence of leadership and a failure of transparency. I am not objecting to ATEP. Get it?
As I recall, the White Paper concerned a threat, coming from down south, to some IVC agreements/plans re ATEP. The Academic Senate (as I recall) was supporting IVC's President in his efforts to protect said plans. Many general statements concerning our plans for ATEP seem prima facie unobjectionable to me. My problem with Roquemore and Co. is that their talk never seems to produce actual progress or clarity regarding what's next re ATEP. My problem is not simply that I am "against ATEP" and Roquemore is “for” it.
Here's something for you to think about, if that is possible. It is not the purpose of DtB to criticize or counter the "establishment." I have always been perfectly willing to praise leadership when they've deserved praise. And I've criticized them when, in my view, they deserve criticism. Get it?
Frankly, only a moral idiot would suppose that we must always be "against" the establishment. Are you that moral idiot, 2:29? Seems so.
Has anybody actually read the accred follow-up report? Did anybody notice that faculty were given only 5 days for comment during the first week of instruction? How many faculty have time to read and thoughtfully comment on such an important document during the first week of classes? This is simply wrong. The former faculty leader made sure the accred reports were available for faculty review long before the first week of instruction. Why is the draft being released for review so very late in the process? Why weren't we informed throughout the process? Of course, it really doesn't matter because the focus of the faculty is the classroom, teaching, and the welfare of our students. Hopefully, the incompetence of the Academic Senate leadership will not adversely affect our accreditation. The Academic Senate leadership needs to be replaced with faculty that are not self interested and downright snotty.
The former leader and her reports were not much better either. No one has enough time to really contribute and they like it like that.
I know for a fact the academic senate engages in giving the old stink-eye if there is disagreement by onlooking faculty.
Just read it. OMG. There is no way to comment other than re-writing the entire thing. Our only hope: It is so poorly written that only the accreds could understand it. Given the accreditation commission and team member's lack of understanding of English grammar, this report should be just fine. Dear lord. This is our faculty leadership?
Glenn likes it. Craig likes it.
'Nuff said then. Hope Glenn has his app out. Has anybody seen Saddleback's report? Does their report contain more bullets and italics than ours? Gotta love the bullets, then small bullets, then italized bullets. Would any faculty accept this type of BS from a student? I guess it is too much trouble to string a full sentence together these days.
They did the best they could with what they had.
I think its time to employ professional accreditation self-study writers; otherwise we are going to lose this thing. We are doomed!
This is the worst week for faculty to be able to read and anlayze the draft report. Is it possible for the senate to delay? We need time to give input.
Post a Comment