July BOT meeting, live and direct! (The dreary, Sisyphean era of "student success" lumbers forward)

     Good Lord, they're starting on time! Only trustee Prendergast is absent—although he participated via technology in the earlier special meeting. (Please also read Tere's Board Meeting Highlights.)
     No actions reported from closed session.

     First thing: swearing in James Wright as trustee, who replaces the late Tom Fuentes.
     He swears about the Constitution and such; it's official.
     Wright speaks, introduces his family. Short but sweet speech.

     No resolutions tonight. Some commendations: Chancellor Poertner presents a small group of four concerning the "Sherpa project," which helps students to reach their "summit." It gives recommendations to students: courses to take, etc. An uncommon service; it is being recognized across the country. (Applause.)
     Burnett introduces new managers and administrators. Four shiny new people. They sound pretty impressive, I guess. Dave Anderson included (now head of Emeritus, or something; didn't pay attention). Photo op, applause, repeat.
     Public comments? No one wishes to speak, natch. Summer, man.

Trustee reports:

     Bill Jay: Jim Wright has been here for years. A terrific gentleman, an intellectual, etc. Welcome!
     Frank "Mike" Meldau: also welcomes Wright to the board.
     Marcia Milchiker: yammers about Wright's achievements, qualifications. Addresses Wright: "I'm really big on trustee education, but you already know everything!" said Marcia. Laughter. She attended this and that and on and on.
     Nancy Padberg: no report aside from welcoming Jim Wright. "Ecstatic" to have him.
     James R. Wright: thanks for your kind comments, much appreciated. Attended the bridge re-opening at Saddleback. Applauds Marcia for her comments at that event.
     Dave Lang: wants to echo others' sentiments; wishes Wright all the best.

Chancellor Gary Poertner: he proceeds to the discussion item, namely,

COLLEGE COMPLETION:
     This is the sort of thing that must make administrative work hell, at least for intelligent and straight-forward people. "Student success taskforce," blah blah blah. Nothing too sensible allowed. Everything a bit off, uglified, delogicalized, jargonized, fucked-up. But you can discern some pluses in it, I guess.
     Gary discusses California's master plan for public education and its deserved reputation, a thing of the past. Our dominance is waning, etc. Shows chart comparing countries. We used to be #1. Now Korea is #1 with regard to percentage of pop. that has attained "tertiary" education. ("Tertiary"? Who comes up with this stuff?) Now we're ranked in the middle of the nations that we compete with.
     Babyboomers are retiring. We've educated large numbers of them, but we don't have the people to replace them--teaching, among professional ranks, etc. In 2009, the College Board took on a plan or goal to raise college completion rate by 2020. The path we're on now won't get us there. Pres. Obama has pledged support for a national effort. To meet his goal, each CA college will have to double amount of degrees and certificates awarded by 2020. "Rather ambitious." (Translation: no frickin' way, College Boy.)

     Mentions various entities that have done studies and arrived at similar findings, goals. Everyone's on the same track with regard to goals.
     Returns to the "master plan" (of 1960). Kerr and Co. came up with a three-tiered system. UC would do research: targeting the top 12.5% of high school. CSU, top 33%. CCs: instruction for anyone who would benefit from instruction. Golly, that even includes cats and dogs.
     For many years, no tuition at community colleges. Then we were charged with remedial instruction, workforce training, etc. We can't possibly accomplish all of these missions we've been given. So we're being asked to focus (by legislators).
     Need to address Latino students, the fastest growing group, etc. Tough challenge. Meanwhile, every tier is cutting back. It's all very dicey. Imagine the funding we would have lost were we not on basic aid? About $12 million per year, is what. And we're now taking many of the students who can no longer go elsewhere.
     In 2010, Bill 1143 passed. Requires...adoption of plan to improve student completion. So student success task force was formed (good grief). We've adopted the concept, "student success." Just different terminology. We're all part of the same movement, nationwide. The task force came up with 8 recommendations in a final report. (See Advancing Student Success: Recommendations.) Endorsed by DoE. SB1456. Will finally pass this stuff within next month. It focuses on "student success" and will implement the change. Students will be given priority if they have an educational plan.
     Presentations over coming next months will explain the bloody details. Boils down to orientation, campus student support, incentives, increased transparency, etc.
     The majority of college students are in our (CC) system. The problem is that a large number of students start who never make it over the finish line. We'll work on that specifically. We have 43,000 students: we couldn't possibly hire enough counselors for them all. So technology is an important part of the plan.
     This will be our top priority "for the rest of our careers." (Gulp.)
     Any comments or questions?
     Gary turns it over to O'Connor and Werle.

     Kevin O'Connor presents first four recommendations.

     1. Increase college and career readiness:
     1.1 Collaborate with K-12....develop common standards....etc.
     2. Strengthen support for entering students
     Students will be "required" to do things. Participation in diagnostics, etc. Students sometimes don't use services available to them. Students must declare a program of study early on.
     3. Incentivize successful student behaviors [jargon]
     Give priority to some groups, require students to begin addressing deficiencies.... Provide students opportunity to attend full time.
     4. Align course offerings to meet student needs

     Kathy Werle presents the last 4

     5. Improve the education of basic skills students
     Comprehensive strategy...
     6. Revitalize and re-envision professional development
     More financial support? Sharing best practices, improving basic skills instruction, etc.
     7. Enable efficient statewide leadership and increase coordination among colleges
     System offices and what they can do. Setting goals, etc. Report cards.
     8. Align resources with student success recommendations
   
     Of course, we will only be required to do what will be funded. But funding will be pretty limited. (Golly, this sounds unpromising.)
     Comments? Questions?

Meldau: Glad we're meeting this head on. It will be a difficult row to hoe. There are so many new jobs and careers developing. Students will have motives to change along the way. (He also asks about common standards.) Werle explains that we have experts among us in this regard, etc.
Jay: Have read astounding figures recently--about unemployment, people working below skill levels. Saw this on O'Reilly too. (Yes, some people say he's a bit "bombastic," acknowledges Jay.) I think he said those in Math and Science too have high rates of unemployment. Need more Bachelors degrees.
Wright: thanks Poertner, O'Connor, and Werle for the "excellent presentation." It was indeed pretty good, I think.

[Warning: the rest is pretty routine. I wouldn't bother. Maybe read governance groups reports.]

Consent calendar. A few things pulled: 5.3, 5.4, 5.9 5.11, 5.15

Starts with 5.3: increasing contract for IVC Life Sciences Bldg construction (McCarthy Building Company). Brandye comes up to explain. Bankruptcy involved, I think. Surety process. Lang has question, as does Wright. Item is approved unanimously.
5.4: Construction question. Passes unanimously.
5.9: Lang asks about a particular grant for the nursing program. Grant that allows us to go from 44 to 60 students (nursing?). Passes unanimously.
5.11: payment for absent trustee. Passes unanimously.
5.15: Something about budget transfers. Passes unanimously.

Not

Action items:

6.1: Neudesic LLC for software development. Matter carries unanimously.
6.2: Blackboard contracts. Bramucci explains. He is asked to explain "what Blackboard is." Passes.
6.3: board policy revisions. Lang:  BP3300, exhibit E: would like to see this come back with additional language that speaks to eval of costs associated with gifts the district accepts. (He's thinking of the "bones" issue of the last meeting.) Marcia has query re student member of board. Question answered. Passes.
6.4: BPs for review and study. Approved as such.
6.5: IVC "management reorganization."
     Roquemore: no cost, minor changes. Shifting of responsibilities. Most of the deans are keeping most of what they're doing. A shifting of responsibilities. Lang: Presidents should be allowed to manage to resources that they have. Move for approval. Passes.
6.6: Academic Personnel Actions. A minor correction. Move approval. Approved.
6.7:  Classified Personnel Actions. Approved.
6.8: Agreement for special services with law firm (Atkinson, A, L R & R). A minor increase in billing? Approved.

7.1: college speakers. Info item only.
7.2: Student trustee nominations.
7.3: Basic Aid report.
7.4: facilities master plan.
7.5: retiree trust fund report.

(Wow, this meeting is moving fast!)

Reports from governance groups:

Saddleback College Academic Senate (Cosgrove): Bob notes that this is the first time we're not hiring new full-time faculty. Task Force recommendations put more work on the faculty.
Faculty Association (Jacobs): invitation. Flex week events: luncheon and program at IVC. Tuesday, Aug. 14. Also on 17th at Saddleback for new faculty. Picnic lunch.
IVC Academic Senate (Schmeidler): echoes what colleagues have said. Commends their work on pamphlets for new faculty.
IVC/Pres. Roquemore: congrats to James Wright. Reminds of "Pres' opening" during inservice. Introduces new IVC student pres.
Saddleback College/Burnett: refers to bridge dedication. Faculty inservice starts soon. Academic Senate does a great job. Classes start soon. Opening of Library and Resources Center, underway. We'll "just make it." There'll be a BBQ.
VC Bramacci: nada
VC Bugay: blah, blah, blah
. . .
Saddleback Classified Senate: excited about Wright. Classified retreat. Reviewed Roberts 'Rules of Order. A "fund-raising opportunity" through Macy's. I dunno what he's talkin' about.
Blah, blah, blah

That's it.

CSU Fullerton limits spring 2013 applicants (OC Reg)

SOCCCD's first superintendent: clashed with trustees; bailed fast

x

     The SOCCCD has a history of rogue boards and it is clear that the phenomenon, for us, started with our first board, way back in the sixties. Back then, while other districts concerned themselves with, oh, instruction, the original SOCCCD trustees occupied themselves with male students' hair length and with fears that Saddleback College’s new library might not be defendable against imagined student protesters (who never materialized).
     One possible chapter in that story concerns the district’s first Superintendent/President, a man named Jack Roper. In a Times article (“Saddleback College Chief Rejects Offer of 3-Year Contract”) from June 26, 1968, we learn that, a few months before the college’s opening, Saddleback College’s new (and first) superintendent, Roper, declined to sign a new contract:

     Roper, in a letter submitted to trustees at the close of an executive session Monday, indicated his reason for leaving is the failure of trustees to accept “certain key recommendations made by me and my staff.”
     In an interview Tuesday he said there was not any one reason for his decision but mainly “general displeasure with the job itself.”
. . .
     He said the board’s action on the budget—increasing reserves and cutting out staff-recommended positions—may have been a culminating factor in his decision because there were “negatives” but were not the main reason….
     Roper said he has not definitely decided on his next position, but he may return to the Orange County schools office where he had been serving as a deputy superintendent prior to going to Saddleback last September.
     Board President Hans Vogel also discounted any disagreement between Roper and the trustees as a major factor in Roper’s decision.
     Vogel said Roper was questioning four months ago whether to stay in junior college administration and that he had urged Roper to give the work a full trial.
     However, Vogel said, Roper’s rejection of a new $25,00-a-year contract came as a “shock” to the board Monday night. “But it left us no choice but to accept his resignation—with sincere regrets,” he said.

     The Times article explained that, at a meeting the next Monday, the board would “set criteria for Roper’s replacement and may actually make an appointment.” It appeared then that the job would go to Dr. Fred Bremer, recently named VP of the college.
     That is indeed what happened. (Bremer had been president of a community college in Nebraska and then a dean at Santa Ana College. He was chairman of the education division at Chapman before arriving at Saddleback in October.)

The "GOP" community college district, c. 1968

     When Roper accepted his 10-month contract at Saddleback, he “had taken a year’s leave of absence from the County Schools office.” While secretary to the OC Committee on School Organization, Roper had assisted in developing plans for Saddleback College. After Saddleback trustees interviewed 57 (evidently unsatisfactory) applicants, they asked Roper to make himself available for the job. (It appears that Roper was involved in hearings concerning a possible south county district starting in 1966.)
     The Times quotes Roper’s letter:

     “It is with regret and long thought that I must decline the new three-year contract…. There have been many rewarding successes this last year to be sure, but certain key recommendations made by me and my staff have not found approval by the representatives of this school community.
     “Because I am deeply committed to the concept of the true community college spirit, I feel it would be in the best interests of the school district and the young students whom it serves if I would step down as superintendent and president.
     “To move forward rapidly to meet emerging deadlines and crises, a new district must have an administration and school board with congruent goals and philosophies. I sincerely hope that the board will find such a man as my successor.”

     According to the Times,

     Roper said he was concerned because the board had not approved proposals on staff organization and felt financing for the start of the new college was not flexible enough.
He confirmed he was also disturbed because the proposed 1968-69 budget had been pared by the board to provide more than $200,000 in reserves, the extended-day program was curtailed and limited to the campus and several new positions recommended by the staff were dropped.

     Sounds like “micromanagement” to me.
     A minimum in “reserves” for community college districts is required by the state. Indeed, the SOCCCD was placed on warning by the state for falling below the minimum in 1997 or 1998. It sounds as though, back in Roper's day, the board insisted on exceeding that minimum by quite a bit.
     It appears that Mr. Roper went back to his old job at the county after his brief community college episode.
     As we reported recently, the initial board took some unusual actions, including "resigning" from a state "board of trustees" organization on the grounds that such a private organization should not receive taxpayer funds.
     According to some readers, Roper's replacement, Bremer, met a bad end at the district. Is that true? Does anyone know the details? Any documents?

P.S.:

[12-17-20]

Near as I can tell, by the new millennium, Roper was residing in Dana Point and was running Roper Mailing Service, or he seemed to do so up to at least 2014. I believe that he was born in 1932, and so, if he is still with us, he's 88 years old.

For-profits, for garsh sake (further evidence that Republicans are Satan's spawn)

Results Are In: Harkin releases critical report on for-profits (Inside Higher Ed)

GOP defends 'em—no crackdown

     A U.S. Senate committee released an unflattering report on the for-profit college sector on Sunday, concluding a two-year investigation led by Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat. While the report is ambitious in scope, and scathingly critical on many points, it appears unlikely to lead to a substantial legislative crackdown on the industry—at least not during this election year.
     …It questions whether federal investment through aid and loans is worthwhile in many of the examined colleges.
     The investigation found that large numbers of students at for-profits fail to earn credentials, citing a 64 percent dropout rate in associate degree programs, for example. It also links those high dropout rates to the relatively small amount of money for-profits spend on instruction.
     For-profits “devote tremendous amounts of resources to non-education related spending,” the report said, with the sector spending more revenue on both marketing and profit-sharing than on instruction….
. . .
     Republican staff members also contributed a dissent to the report, saying it is “indisputable that significant problems exist” at some for-profits, but that the investigation was not conducted in a bipartisan manner….
. . .
     In the absence of “significant reforms,” the report said the “sector will continue to turn out hundreds of thousands of students with debt but no degree.”
. . .
     The enclosed profiles of for-profit companies detail problems the investigation uncovered in areas such as student recruiting, substandard academic offerings, high tuition and executive compensation, low student retention rates and the issuance of credentials of questionable value…. (See Results Are In: Harkin releases critical report on for-profits)

SEE ALSO End of the Beginning (Inside Higher Ed)

"Sen. Tom Harkin’s two-year investigation of for-profit higher education has ended, and was capped with a four-tome final report that many -- at least critics of the industry -- see as definitive. The for-profit policy battle is far from over, however, although it probably won’t fire up again until 2013."