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.]

"Lab" critics ignored years ago?

     [Update: see also subsequent post: Remembering 2003.]

     THIS SUMMER, I have been attempting to stay out of college and district politics as much as possible. Perhaps you noticed. I really wanted to take a break from that.
     Nevertheless, starting several months ago, I have been contacted by people who seem to want me to pursue the “story” regarding the (alleged) recent audit or report about facilities and programs in the Business Science and Technology Innovation Center (BSTIC) and the recent actions of top administration at Irvine Valley College with regard to those facilities and programs. (I’m not sure whether this is an IVC story or a broader one.)
     Some of these contacts have told me essentially the following: that, years ago (perhaps as long as nine years ago*), certain parties attempted to address perceived serious irregularities or inadequacies regarding (at least some) Computer Information Management (CIM)** and Computer Information Systems (CIS)*** courses. The issues concerned, among other things, the failure of students to attend labs for which they received credit and the failure of course instructors to run those labs or to run them appropriately.**** According to accounts I’ve received, efforts to address these perceived problems were rebuffed and dismissed by top administration, who seemed determined not to rock any boats—and perhaps to placate faculty who had particularly powerful district friends.*****
     I’m told, though I have not confirmed, that the recent report or audit concerns just such issues as those mentioned above.
     Is any of this correct? If it is not, I would certainly like to know the actual truth. If it is, confirmation would be appreciated. I'm told that the alleged audit is a public document, but, as far as I know, it has not been made available.
     Anyone with useful information can contact me at the college via email or through my private account. I’m not hard to find.
     (Feel free to comment here. But please do so responsibly.)

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION:

     One of my sources—a very reliable and knowledgeable person—sent this “clarification.” Referring to the period of perhaps five or six years ago, they said:

there was always an instructor in the lab. But he did not teach the lab. There were no "lab" assignments the way there are in a bio lab with an instructor. There was an instructor (Al Murtz, Nancy Bishopp, etc) who helped students who came in individually with their homework. So students were getting hours of lab credit in CIM or CIS for doing their homework in the lab, or not. Mostly they did homework at home. Instead of a lab of 40 students from the lecture attending at a specific time/day and getting specific lab assignments to do, they worked on homework with the teacher assigned to the lab for that hour. If no one came in, the teacher could just correct papers, do whatever. … [Another] problem with this arrangement [beyond students getting lab credit despite not attending the lab or attending and doing only homework] is that the lecture instructor did not "teach" or moderate the lab. So what happens if a higher level class in programming has a student come into the lab for help and the "teacher" assigned to the lab is a spreadsheet teacher?

     My source is of the opinion that the lecture teacher should be “teaching” the lab with assignments to earn the credit. But that’s not what was happening. Far from it.
     (My [Roy's] note: do keep in mind that two different schools taught courses involving computer labs; further, there are (or were) several "computer labs" on campus. These circumstances may be causing some confusion in interpreting some of my sources' claims.)

NOTES:

*According to my sources, the phenomenon of dismissing concerns about labs at IVC stretches back at least to the “Dennis White” era. White was hired as IVC's Vice President of Instruction in early 2003 and was canned in 2006. He was replaced by Craig Justice in June of 2007.

**Housed in IVC's School of Business Sciences

***Housed in IVC's School of Math, Computer Science, and Engineering

****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.]
   According to reliable sources, years ago (and until recently), students (at least in the case of some lab courses at IVC) were not required by their instructors to attend lab, and those students who did attend used "lab" time for homework. Further, faculty often were not present for these "lab" hours.
   One source close to relevant governance at IVC told me: Only about a fourth of the Computer Science (CIS) Lab Hours per week are covered by an instructor at IVC. This means that most students are getting credit for lab hours (in CIS courses) without an instructor. “In my [reading of Title 5], that is a violation of the rule that instructors be present when students are earning credit. If an instructor is not present, credit cannot be awarded. … Title 5 regs regarding these labs are there expressly to eliminate a credit class as a place to ‘do homework.’”
   Other seemingly reliable sources with whom I have spoken hold this interpretation of Title 5. It is difficult for me to see how it can be interpreted otherwise.
   One source told me:
   “The School of Business [at IVC] has come to run their lab as a sort of service to the entire college. Thus, an instructor can direct his students to enroll in a ticket number and be able to use the computer lab’s better equipment. That seems great, but how does it jibe with Title 5 regs—to award students credit for using the college’s computers?”

*****One of my sources, a very reliable sort, says:
   “The operation of labs and learning centers became a hot issue when the state added to Title 5 very specific requirements for the hours and content of such courses. … Many fought these requirements—the Math faculty, Reading, School of Business. They all had reasons, ranging from 'it doesn't apply to us' to 'that’s not how they do it at Saddleback' to 'we've always done it this way.'"
   My source identified one “area” at IVC that did not fight, but instead embraced, the spirit and letter of the requirements. So the negative reaction was not uniform at IVC.

Second largest for-profit sued

Raghu Mathur works
for Argosy in Orange

For-Profit College Group Sued as U.S. Lays Out Wide Fraud (New York Times)

     The Department of Justice and four states on Monday filed a multibillion-dollar fraud suit against the Education Management Corporation, the nation’s second-largest for-profit college company, charging that it was not eligible for the $11 billion in state and federal financial aid it had received from July 2003 through June 2011.
     While the civil lawsuit is one of many raising similar charges against the expanding for-profit college industry, the case is the first in which the government intervened to back whistle-blowers’ claims that a company consistently violated federal law by paying recruiters based on how many students it enrolled. The suit said that each year, Education Management falsely certified that it was complying with the law, making it eligible to receive student financial aid.
     “The depth and breadth of the fraud laid out in the complaint are astonishing,” said Harry Litman, a lawyer in Pittsburgh and former federal prosecutor who is one of those representing the two whistle-blowers whose 2007 complaints spurred the suit. “It spans the entire company — from the ground level in over 100 separate institutions up to the most senior management — and accounts for nearly all the revenues the company has realized since 2003.”
     Education Management, which is based in Pittsburgh and is 41 percent owned by Goldman Sachs, enrolls about 150,000 students in 105 schools operating under four names: Art Institute, Argosy University, Brown Mackie College and South University.
     In a statement Monday, the company denied any wrongdoing.
. . .
     According to the 122-page complaint, Education Management got $2.2 billion of federal financial aid in fiscal 2010, making up 89.3 percent of its net revenues.
     The states joining in the suit are California, Florida, Illinois and Indiana.
     The complaint said the company had a “boiler-room style sales culture” in which recruiters were instructed to use high-pressure sales techniques and inflated claims about career placement to increase student enrollment, regardless of applicants’ qualifications. Recruiters were encouraged to enroll even applicants who were unable to write coherently, who appeared to be under the influence of drugs or who sought to enroll in an online program but had no computer.
     According to the suit, recruiters were also led to exploit applicants’ psychological vulnerabilities — for example, a parent’s hopes of moving a child out of a dangerous neighborhood….
. . .
     Publicly traded for-profit college companies have recently been a target both of government scrutiny and whistle-blower suits. In 2009, the Apollo Group, which owns the University of Phoenix, the largest for-profit college, settled a whistle-blower case for $78 million.
     The complaint noted that Todd Nelson, the chief executive of Education Management, previously headed the University of Phoenix. At Phoenix, he signed a $9.8 million settlement with the Department of Education, which had found that Phoenix had “systematically and intentionally” violated federal rules against paying recruiters for students. Phoenix never admitted any wrongdoing in either that settlement or the larger whistle-blower settlement two years ago.
     The Justice Department complaint said Education Management’s compensation system was similar to the one at Phoenix; company officials have said it was set up long before Mr. Nelson joined it in 2007.
In 2003, Education Management’s chief executive was Jock McKernan, a former governor of Maine who now serves as chairman of the board. Mr. McKernan is married to Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican whose 2010 financial disclosure form lists Education Management stock and options worth $2 million to $10 million.

Deputy Director of the CEDC

     Many of course still remember Greg Bishopp, former Saddleback dean and IVC faculty, who retired three or four years ago.
     It has just come to my attention that his son, Colin Bishopp, is a member of Team Obama:

Colin Bishopp

Colin Bishopp is the Deputy Director of the Clean Economy Development Center (CEDC), a non-profit organization that helps public officials and community leaders create jobs with clean energy projects. Colin joined CEDC in 2010 as its first Director of Business Development. In that capacity, he developed the Clean Economy Roadshow, an economic organizing platform that has helped to create jobs in thirteen states including Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon. Colin is also the lead architect of the Gulf Coast Sustainable Economies Project, a collaborative effort to help twenty Gulf Coast communities diversify and strengthen their local economies. Prior to joining CEDC, Colin led various projects for the Change to Win Federation, first as Virginia State Director, and later as State Policy Director for the Home Performance campaign. In 2004, Colin taught courses in American politics and culture at Benedictine University. Colin earned his master's degree at the University of Chicago and his bachelor's degree at the University of California, Berkeley.

Congrats!

Jack Wu thanks Tom

Thank You, Tom Fuentes Wu’s World, Newport Beach Independent, August 5, 2011

Harry

     One of the greatest pop singers (and songwriters) of the last fifty years was Harry Nilsson, an eccentric and very troubled and very talented man. He died at age 52 in the early 90s.
     I was checkin’ out Hulu last night and came across this documentary about Harry that appears to be available there for free for the time being:

Who Is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talkin' About Him?) (Click on the link)

     I watched it. Loved it. I highly recommend it. (John Lennon and Ringo Starr are all over it.)
     Here’s Harry’s greatest performance (as many of us believe), which ironically is a cover of another band's song:

     Love it, love it, love it. I remember it so well. First my radio, then the family stereo, became a church, and I worshipped that song. What an amazing performance and production.
     Though Harry was a wonderful songwriter, this particular song was written and originally performed, not by him, but by the underrated Badfinger, two years earlier. (The two main talents of that band—and composers of the song—later committed suicide, but that's another story. The song was the result of combining Ham and Evan's two unfinished songs.)
     Harry was pretty special. When he was breaking up with his second wife, he produced this marvelous ditty:

     My favorite lines:

I’m goin’ insane
There’s no one to blame
So fuck you

     Here's Harry on the Smothers Brothers' Comedy Show, probably in 1969 or 1970 or so. I recall seeing this then:

     If you pay strict attention, you'll notice that the audience is fake. I mean, there's no audience there. (No doubt they played the tape of Harry's performance before an audience and recorded their reaction. Then they bounced that on top of Harry's performance.) Evidently, Harry was desperately afraid of live performing. —Well, no. He seemed to have no problem with live performing. His problem was with performing in front of an audience. Evidently, this was the result of a very bad experience he had in the late 50s.
     You've gotta love a guy that's that messed up.
     (Another fake "live" performance from about the same period: for British TV. Really good.)

• Listen to Jump Into the Fire, featuring superdrummer Jim Gordon, who, a dozen years later, heard voices that told him to kill his mother. He did.

New "whale" license plate—designed, in part, by IVC adjunct Bill Atkins

New Whale Tail license plate debuts (OC Reg)

A brighter, sunnier Whale Tail license plate is now available to California drivers, three years after artist Wyland asked the state to stop using his original design. ¶ Bill Atkins, a Laguna Beach graphic designer and illustrator, worked on the new image with Elizabeth Robinette Tyndall of Contra Costa County after winning a design contest…. (continued)

Atkins is Irvine Valley College’s "part-time faculty member in Digital Media Arts" (according to IVC).