Benighted and bewildered

     Last semester, some faculty in my school were compelled to deal with an unstable student. At one point in early November, the student's behavior became very disturbing (he showed up during late hours looking for an instructor, muttering strange and worrisome things about her), and subsequent faculty efforts to draw an adequate response from administration proved to be frustrating—even infuriating. A certain degree of incompetence or confusion seemed to prevail.
     And so the matter was brought to the attention of the Academic Senate.
     At the time, DtB reported as follows:

     Nov. 5: At yesterday's meeting of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate, a senate officer described an unfortunate circumstance at the college this week. (See Rebel Girl's recent post: Running with scissors.) On Tuesday, she said, a student walked around the faculty office wing of the A200 Bldg., making menacing remarks about instructors. (There’s lots more to the story, but rest assured that the situation was alarming.)
     She offered the view that the college has not handled the situation well (note: Dean Karima Feldhus, who is good with these situations, has been away with family this week), evidenced by the fact that there has been no public communication about the existing situation, and, worse, some of the student’s professors have not even been informed about him and the problem he now presents. She said that administration had a "communication" problem and that a "protocol" should be developed for such cases.
     For now, the senate can do no more than to agendize the matter for a future discussion.

     Ultimately, administrators seemed to get their acts somewhat together (arguably), and there was some effort to keep immediately-involved faculty apprised of the student's location and disposition (he was briefly institutionalized, then released, but continued to make provocative statements).
     At a subsequent senate meeting, as I recall, the Rep Council decided to communicate with administration, asking that it examine the practices and protocols of other colleges—with regard to dealing with disturbed and possibly violent students—toward the establishment of an adequate protocol at our benighted and bewildered college.
     At some point, we learned that the student had communicated with the college, explaining that he would no longer set foot here but that he would soon resume his studies at a certain other local college.
     D'oh!
     Naturally, some of us wondered whether that college should or could be warned. It appears that, owing to legal constraints deriving from the student's rights, no such warnings could or would be given. Amazing. Or not.

* * * * *

     During last week's inservice activities at IVC, one session seemed to be inspired by Fall's "disturbed student" episode. Entitled "Balancing Student Privacy and College Safety," it was "advertised" as follows:

What constitutes disruptive behaviors and the teamwork needed to successfully address those inappropriate college behaviors. A review of recommended preventive measures to inform student of your behavior expectation, available campus resources and protocol in documenting will be covered.

     I dunno. I was discouraged. To me, the session, thus entitled and described, was redolent of a failure to acknowledge the seriousness of what had recently occurred. These administrators just weren't getting it. The usual bromides and tips weren't gonna cut it.
     The session was led by the Vice President of Student Services, the Dean of Student Services, and IVC's Chief of Police.
     When I arrived for the session (a bit late), the discussion seemed decent enough, but it struck me as odd that no (or only passing) reference had been made (I asked) to the recent episode, which had upset so many of us, especially with regard to the apparent cluelessness of administration. And so, being me, I asked the panel whether administration regarded the college response to that episode as adequate. I explained that it can be very difficult proceeding with one's classes, knowing that an unstable and possibly violent student is loose, liable to return to class or appear in one's doorway in who-knows-what-state. No, I said, it just won't do. Administration should have some sort of policy or procedure to relieve faculty of this kind of burden, to give them a sense that somebody is covering the waterfront. Surely, there ought to be something, a protocol, that kicks in fast and can be depended on!
     My question elicited a certain amount of mindless dystopian blathertude from some, but, eventually, the VP of SS flatly stated that the response had indeed been inadequate and that steps should and would be taken to develop an adequate protocol.
     I do believe that the VP of SS "gets it," more or less. Good. I have no such confidence, however, in her administrative partner, the dean. (Stories of that woman's questionable competence are legion; nevertheless, she continues to be handed responsibilities—with predictable results.)
     Some of us left the meeting with imperfect confidence that things would be taken care of. It was yet another IVC moment, like so many others. What now, my love. Now that you've left me.
     A committee will be formed, of course, and it will make recommendations, I suppose. But you know how that can go. Committee doings so often are uncommonsensical, onanistic, Orwellian, and flat stupid, especially when people with education degrees are in charge. Good Lord. And then somebody gets a prize, and we all go home and drink.
     And now this Arizona gunman thing happened. And the shooter (allegedly) was a community college student. And folks at his little college recognized that he was a potential threat (good work!) and took steps to remove him. Administrative cluelessness was eventually overcome; he was removed.
     Nevertheless, the larger system failed to detect him as the kind of threat he evidently was. Plus the State of Arizona is flat insane. They hate Mexicans, you know. And Americans can't think about guns. Morons. They don't get it. It seems that they never will.
     And so there you are. 

The automatic referral "protocol," part 3: violating Title 5

     I posted this yesterday, and, somehow, it seemed to fall between the cracks. So here it is again:
     1/10/11 — I managed to speak with several key persons today with regard to the new “protocol” re referrals (of students, by faculty) to tutoring. You’ll recall that such a protocol has been put in place (as of last Thursday night); it provides that faculty who leave a box checked at the bottom of their rosters (at the start of the semester) thereby “refer” all students on that roster to tutoring.
     THE GOOD NEWS, MOSTLY. Today’s conversations have reaffirmed my beliefs that

• The new protocol does not permit or create any boondoggle;
• Despite the implications of descriptions of the protocol, an instructor’s leaving the box checked does not cause his/her students to be contacted and sent to tutoring;
• The purpose of the protocol was/is to eliminate the bother and paperwork of students hunting down faculty for referrals—it really is an attempt to streamline the process by creating blanket referrals to be used only in those cases in which individual students seek tutoring;
• The new protocol is the result of a year-long development, including Academic Senate participation, at Saddleback College;
• For whatever reason, that development or discussion did not occur at IVC; owing (probably) to some misunderstandings and miscommunications, at the last minute, IVC was included in the implementation of this Saddleback-generated protocol.

     THE BAD NEWS (IMO). On the other hand, today, it is clearer to me that

• The protocol renders “referrals” (by faculty) a kind of rubber-stamping, i.e., an automatic process involving no actual assessment (by faculty) of individual students and their needs; it seems to create a situation in which students virtually refer themselves to tutoring;
• As such, these referrals (leading to tutoring) seem to violate Title 5, which (as I read it) restricts (state-funded) tutoring to that tutoring instigated by faculty (or counselors) prompted by an “identified learning need.” Further, Title 5 states that “Students cannot refer themselves for tutoring….”

     Here is some of the key language of Title 5:

     Apportionment may be claimed for individual student tutoring only if all the following conditions are met:
     (a) The individual student tutoring is conducted through a designated learning center.
     (b) The designated learning center is supervised by a person who meets the minimum qualifications….
     (c) All tutors successfully complete instruction in tutoring methods….
     (d) All students receiving individual tutoring have enrolled in a noncredit course carrying Taxonomy of Programs number 4930.09, which is entitled “Supervised Tutoring.”
     (e) Students enroll in the Supervised Tutoring course … after referral by a counselor or an instructor on the basis of an identified learning need….
. . .
     A counselor or an instructor, on the basis of an identified learning need, must refer all students seeking tutoring. Students cannot refer themselves for tutoring…..

     We certainly welcome your comments.

Previous posts:

• Update on the tutoring protocol (Sunday; January 9)
• Referring students—sight unseen—to tutoring? (Saturday; January 8)

Former 1st Lady, L. Bush, today in Tustin

Radical change in funding?

Brown's radical change to community college funding (California Watch; Louis Freedberg)

…According to state law, every college has a "Census Day" – typically the first Monday of the fourth week of a semester – during which instructors take attendance and submit those figures to the state. The state then provides funding based on the number of students in attendance on that day. After that, it matters not how many students drop out or don't complete the class for any number of reasons.

For years, a variety of researchers and policy makers have pointed out that this system does not provide a financial incentive to colleges to keep students from dropping out. As a report from Cal State Sacramento's Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy noted, "current finance policy places disproportionate emphasis on the front end of a student’s college pathway: we are buying college enrollments but not college completion."

Gov. Brown says that has to change….

Somebody sold him a gun

In today's New York Times, Bob Herbert writes:

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.

Excluding the people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than 150,000 Americans have been murdered since the beginning of the 21st century. This endlessly proliferating parade of death, which does not spare women or children, ought to make our knees go weak. But we never even notice most of the killings. Homicide is white noise in this society.

The overwhelming majority of the people who claim to be so outraged by last weekend’s shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others — six of them fatally — will take absolutely no steps, none whatsoever, to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. And similar tragedies are coming as surely as the sun makes its daily appearance over the eastern horizon because this is an American ritual: the mowing down of the innocents.

To read the rest, click here.

*