Wednesday, August 24, 2011

One smiling dog trumps nearly everything

Assessing the draft: re IVC’s “college recommendation 6”

Evelyn Nesbit
The "draft" says that things are just hunky
dory among groups at IVC. Is that true?

     In January, Irvine Valley College received seven recommendations—six “district” recommendations plus one “college” recommendation—from the accrediting agency (ACCJC). Let's focus on the "college" recommendation (CR6):
Although the college and its constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism, the college does not have this same type of relationship with the district leadership and the Board of Trustees. While some progress has been made and policies have been developed, the team feels that Recommendations 7 and 8 ... of the 2004 visiting team Accreditation Team have not been fully met. (See recs 7 and 8 here.)
     Observe that the first sentence assumes that “[IVC's] constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president.” The "working relationship" problem, according to ACCJC's CR6, isn’t within the college but between the college and “district leadership and the Board of Trustees.”
     The draft (of the follow-up)—about which input is due tomorrow—exploits that assumption, asserting that
At the college level the [Accred] team validated a solid working relationship among the administration, faculty, and classified staff [within the college]. Furthermore, various college climate surveys provide evidence regarding this assertion. The team went so far as to commend the college for the positive change in campus climate since the last accreditation visit.
     Note that the draft does not address relationships within the college. It addresses only the relationship between the college and the district.
     Ah, yes, but things change, and that makes the glacial Accred review process vulnerable to failing to take important changes into account. The draft explicitly acknowledges this phenomenon:
Dialog at the campus level after receipt of the Evaluation Report indicated a disappointment that the snapshot in time was not taken a month or two later. With changes in Board membership, Board Leadership, and the seating of a new chancellor the relationship between the college and the district leadership and Board of Trustees had already improved markedly by that time.
Glenn, Gwen, Craig
     But if this "things change" phenomenon can happen relative to the district/college level, it can happen relative to the college level too.
     Until about two years ago at IVC, faculty and administration (and other groups) had a common enemy, namely, the Chancellor (the odious Raghu Mathur) and the board (dominated by the Fuentes/Wagner block).
     That enemy is essentially gone. Meanwhile, in the last two or so years, it has seemed clear to at least some of us—our carping has been much in evidence on this blog—that the relationship between faculty (and other groups) with administration “at the campus level” has grown increasingly unhealthy.
     I believe that one can get a good sense of the problem by reviewing the history of IVC's “Early College” Program. It was originally foisted upon faculty several years ago (during the Dennis White era), despite expressed faculty concerns. Soon after its launch, severe difficulties of the sort predicted seemed to surface, and that led to a survey of participating instructors conducted by the Academic Senate. The survey indicated that there were indeed serious problems with the EC program. The Academic Senate continues to have serious concerns about it. It is pursuing further investigation.
     IVC administration has responded to all this with a degree of reassuring blather at Senate meetings—and, apparently, a total commitment to proceed with the EC Program. Indeed, just a month or two after the dismal findings of the survey were discussed on the senate floor, Pres. Roquemore, standing before the board of trustees, celebrated the alleged success and virtues of the EC Program as though it were the Crown Jewel of the college.
     It was as though the senate and its concerns did not exist at all.
     In my view the problem “at the campus level” more fundamentally concerns these facts (that I allege):
• The VPI, an intelligent but ruthless and crafty individual, actually runs the college, instilling fear and causing low morale. He does not take others' opinions seriously.
• The President, an obtuse fellow, seems oblivious to this circumstance; he has never “connected” with the campus community and seems forever unaware of its denizens' concerns. (He responds to crises of confidence by arranging to drop out of military aircraft and then showing video.)
     That's my opinion. What do you think? Let us know.
     And don't forget to pass along your input re the draft. Due tomorrow.

So says the draft

What the accrediting agency recommended to our colleges

     AS YOU KNOW, at each college, drafts of follow-up reports—to recently issued Accreditation recommendations—are being circulated. Obviously, in these reports, the colleges seek to satisfy the ACCJC (the accrediting body) that they have responded adequately to their recommendations.
     Both colleges have been given a "warning," so this is serious, accred-wise.
     Oddly, at least at Irvine Valley College, members of the college community seem to have been given only three days to provide feedback. (LDA sent out the draft on the 22nd of August. She wrote: "Please send all comments to myself and Dean Werle ... by Friday 8-25-11.")
     I offer the following as a reminder of the recommendations. Both Irvine Valley and Saddleback Colleges received six “district” recommendations. I list them below. (IVC also received a single college recommendation, listed at the end)*:
District Recommendation 1: The teams recommend that the chancellor develop and implement both a strategic short-term and long-term plan that is inclusive of the planning at the colleges and that this planning structure drive the allocation of district resources for the colleges, …ATEP, and the district….

District Recommendation 2: The teams recommend that the district and the colleges develop and implement a resource allocation model driven by planning that includes all district funds and is open, transparent, inclusive, and that is widely disseminated and reviewed/evaluated periodically for effectiveness….

District Recommendation 3: The teams recommend that the college, district administrators, faculty and staff develop a communications process among the entities on key issues of district-wide concern including academic calendar, planning, ATEP …, technology and building priorities….

District Recommendation 4: The teams recommend that the Board of Trustees widely communicate the results of its self evaluation process annually and use this as the basis for improvement….

District Recommendation 5: The teams recommend that the Board of Trustees develop a clearly defined policy for a code of ethics which must include dealing with violations of the Board‘s code of ethics….

District Recommendation 6: The teams recommend that the district provide a clear delineation of its functional responsibilities, the district level process for decision making and the role of the district in college planning and decision making. The district should perform a regular review of district committees, conduct an assessment of the overall effectiveness of services to the colleges and communicate the results of those reviews….
For Irvine Valley College, this recommendation was added:
College Recommendation 6: Although the college and its constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism, the college does not have this same type of relationship with the district leadership and the Board of Trustees. While some progress has been made and policies have been developed, the team feels that Recommendations 7 and 8 … of the 2004 visiting team Accreditation Team have not been fully met.
Babs
2004 IVC Evaluation Report Recommendations  7 & 8:
7. [DEFINING ROLES] Consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 team, the 2004 team recommends that the Board of Trustees, District leadership and College leadership define, publish, adhere to, regularly evaluate, and continuously improve the respective leadership roles and scopes of authority of college and district constituent groups and governance committees in meaningful, collegial decision-making processes….

8. [REDUCE HOSTILITY & DESPAIR] Consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 team, the 2004 team recommends that the Board of Trustees, chancellor, presidents, administrators, managers, faculty senates and unions, classified senates and unions, and students come together and take measures to reduce the hostility, cynicism, despair, and fear that continue to plague the college….
• See IVC’s Accreditation documents here.

• See Saddleback College’s Accreditation documents here.

*Source: recently distributed draft of IVC follow-up report

The consequences of high textbook cost

• 7 in 10 Students Have Skipped Buying a Textbook Because of Its Cost, Survey Finds (Chronicle of Higher Education)
…"Students recognize that textbooks are essential to their education but have been pushed to the breaking point by skyrocketing costs," said Rich Williams, a higher-education advocate with the group, known as U.S. PIRG….

Meanwhile, the New York Times is holding one of its “debates”:

• Do We Spend Too Much on Education?
Americans are spending more and more on education, but the resulting credentials — a high-school diploma and college degrees — seem to be losing value in the labor market…. See the debate

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...