Remembering 2003 (and a certain idea allegedly hatched by the VPI)

Former IVC VPI White

     A PERSON who once participated in college governance contacted me last night. They thought they could shed some light on IVC’s “lab” issues—namely, the alleged fact that, for some time, students received unit credit for computer labs despite (1) their not having to attend them (students often failed to attend them or used the time to do homework) and (2) their not being run by the instructor of record; etc.
     What follows is based directly on what the contact told me:

     I seem to recall that, back in 2003, Irvine Valley College Vice President of Instruction, Dennis White, was pursuing an idea according to which the college would add maximum lab hours to the Carnegie Unit system without granting units. In this way, the college could maximize “billable” hours.
     White evidently took the view that Title 5 required the lab to be “supervised” by (e.g.) a lab tech and not necessarily by the faculty of record in whose class the student was enrolled. This amounted to “drop in labs” with sign-in sheets.
     CIS and CIM classes, where faculty pay was tied to both lecture and lab hours—despite faculty being there for neither—would be covered in the same way; White, as VPI, would turn a blind eye and assume their attendance. Faculty would receive 5/8 or .888 LHE if the lab was in their normal teaching load and one-for-one if it was in overload, summer, or online.

     Of course, according to this arrangement, students would be paying for and attending hours in which there were no instructors and they were getting no units.
     Naturally, the plan would have to pass muster in the curriculum process. I [Roy] was deeply involved in the Academic Senate at the time, and it seems clear to me that our Curriculum Committee would never have approved this scheme.

     My source is fuzzy on what happened next. Their recollection is that “White changed the hours unilaterally through changing the hours in the printed schedule and because faculty and classified lab techs were getting more money, it went unreported.”
     At the time (namely, c. 2003), the college was embroiled in the “war talk ban” controversy (which was caused by White’s infamous faculty "war talk ban" memo) and then the “hiring policy” lawsuit (which was caused by the Chancellor/board violating the law granting important rights to Academic Senates). And so perhaps the changes occurred unnoticed by the usual suspects.
     How it came about that (allegedly) students received unit credit for these "lab" hours: dunno.
     For what it's worth: my contact is someone with whom I have worked; they were in a position to know things, as were many at the time, including me; further, I am persuaded that the above account is an honest one.

COMMENTS:

Among comments:

• My recollection is similar. Dennis White unilaterally changed what was formerly a lecture/learning (aka tutorial) center to a lecture/lab. This was against the recommendations of the Business faculty. At that time, the lab was staffed by two full-time lab instructors who had previously been paid on a 2 for 1 basis. The change to lecture/lab caused their pay to be adjusted to 5/6. I know for sure that the curriculum changes did not go through the faculty. Curious, how courses can be shoved through the committee on courses when admin is behind it. Insinuating that faculty did this out of some motive of greed is irresponsible and inaccurate. I urge faculty to check their facts before turning on their colleagues. We need to stick together now more than ever.

• Since I am the only CIM instructor left on campus with the history and background to be able to speak to this issue, I invite you to stop by my office, BST201D. I'll be happy to answer your questions. Please do not attack the Business Science faculty. We are not Raghu's buddies (as if that mattered), nor are we greedy or dishonest. Sadly, Dixie Massaro

   Re the last comment: why not simply set the record straight right here? If someone made a claim that is false, why not identify that claim and then explain how it is false? I would be happy to lay out some of the claims that have been made (and please note that many different claims are being made by different people).
   For instance, is it true that ① students received units for "lab" hours (in computer courses that combine lecture and lab) despite their not attending lab or attending "lab" to do homework (despite Title 5's regulations to the contrary*)? This is among the chief claims being made. Is that claim true or false? It ain't rocket science. Tell us.
   Here's another: did ② Dennis White bring about changes of the sort described above? ③ Was the curriculum process circumvented in any way in making any such changes?
   Tell us!


*According to California Community Colleges Guidelines for Title 5 Regulations, Chapter 6, Part 1—adopted by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors, July 9, 2007 and effective August 16, 2007—the following is an example of how units are to work for combined “Lecture and Lab” courses:
   “Three units = 32 hours (minimum) in-class lecture, 48 hours (minimum) in-class laboratory, plus 64 hours (minimum) out-of-class study. In this case, two units are awarded for lecture and one unit for laboratory.” [Note: IVC's CIS courses are the "combined" type. Not sure about CIM courses.]