August 2011 SOCCCD Board Meeting (and rodent observation op)—live and direct!

 

     [Please see CORRECTION below re item 6.8.]
     [These are lowlights. For Tere's "highlights," go here.]
     6:11: Well, it's just after six o'clock here in the Ronald MacDonald BoT meeting room in beauteous Mission Viejo, CA. The meeting was supposed to start at 6:00, but there's no sign of the trustees.
     6:15: the room's filled up a bit. Still no sign of the trustees. Someone's brought a baby into the room; I hear her crying.
     There's something festive about summer meetings (yes, I said summer; I refuse to relinquish it). The drive was lovely. Mission Viejo really is "beauteous."
     Helen Locke is huddling with some of her students. What's that about?
     6:21: As you know, the trustees are in closed session (prior to their open session at "6:00."). I bet they're yelling at each other about now. I wonder if Lang and Padberg ever get into fistfights? She'd win.
     There's no "discussion" item tonight, which could really streamline things. The two student governments will be presenting their final budgets. In the old days, with Fuentes and Wagner, that reliably produced fireworks, and often for good reasons. You know where ASG gets much of its money? It's a fee tacked onto textbooks bought at the bookstore.
     It's nearly 6:30, and still there's no sign of the BoT.
     6:37: Trustee Prendergast has emerged! There's Bill Jay, chewing on something. Looks like he just woke up.
     6:41: still only Prendergast and Jay. A minute ago, they were standing next to that awful bust of Ronald Reagan. Yes, it's sitting immediately behind the trustees at about trustee chest level. From down here, he looks like a peeping tom, poking up from behind some bushes.
     Here's Meldau, and now Lang. I do believe Nancy punched Betrayal Boy in the face. His hair looks like mine and his face is all mushy.
     Nancy and Marcia have entered, though Dave's gone off somewhere. Looks like Bugay will be filling in for Poertner.
     6:44: They're about to START.

Pinch hitter

     START. Clerk reads out actions: no actions taken.
     Invocation: Bill Jay. Says: 38 killed in hurricane, many without power. So he holds a moment of silence.
     The Pledge: Lang
     Nancy: urgent family matter took Poertner away. Bugay will fill in.
     Resolution: model classified senate award. Blah, blah, blah. Laura U got a "vision" award even though she's wearing glasses. More awards. Sherpa. Bramucci, Gaston, introduce.
     Erin Long comes up to make comment. Catastrophic leaves. They oughta be better.
     Woman barges in, comes up to podium. A Ms. Do. Something about her handicap, which is not apparent. Has some legal papers. Is she a crank? Nancy tries to shut her down; no luck. "You didn't turn in a slip!," she says, always the stickler for rules when it suits her, as the lady stalks away. (Were those tiny mouse heads I saw poking out of the top of her bag? Who knows.)

Board reports:

Jay: comments on parking. It took him a while to find a space.
Meldau: toured renovation of library at Saddleback. Impressed by quality of people "here." He's downright gabby tonight.
Milchiker: has much to say about the upcoming chili cook-off. Ceramic work by students, local artists, faculty--at this chili thing, I guess. Money will go to veterans memorial.
Prendergast: library tour was impressive. "Kinda interesting." Chancellor's opening session, too, was "kinda interesting." Usually, he's funny. Tonight, he's a knucklehead, kinda.
Padberg: at chancellor's opening session. Will be on Laguna Woods TV. Check it out.
Lang: couldn't make the Chancellor's opening session. "Intersected with our vacation plans."
Student trustee Larson: went on library tour. Seems pleased as punch.

Bugay: we do a lot of things really well. "I'm proud of where I work," he said. (He can be that way.)

Nancy P: will pull 5.8 from consent calendar. Advance 7.3.

7.3. That's the district-wide strategic plan presentation.

     IVC Prez Roquemore, Saddleback Prez Burnett, Bob Cosgrove, Lisa Davis Allen, walk up to podium. (Was that a mouse I saw, scurrying across the floor?) Slides shown.
     The bulk of this plan was developed over the summer time. Yadda yadda. Roquemore introduces two faculty: Cosgrove/Allen. (As Cosgrove walks past me, he steps right on my foot. Funny. Burnett and I exchange smiley faces.)

Lisa Davis Allen:
     Lots of hard work. Names of participants listed. (Not a crew that inspires confidence, I've gotta say. Almost all of 'em have a strong motive to placate the powers that be.)
     A very collegial experience, she says. Cookies and punch, no doubt.
     Accreds focused on strategic planning. Short-term and long-term. Gotta plan better.
     What is a "goal"? --An overarching concept used as conceptual tool used to determine policy and practice, she says.
     We move toward accomplishment of goals through objectives: "smart" criteria. Specific criteria. Measurable, achievable, etc.
     We developed 6 goals, 13 objectives, 73 action plans.

Goal 1: create district-wide culture...of mutual respect/collaboration..celebrates uniqueness of each institution. [Good grief. Any true conservative would vomit projectiles.]
Objective: chancellor will see to collaboration. Will periodically communicate goals, etc.
Goal 2: support innovations....
Objective: increase rate of completion....5% annually
Goal 3: maintain tech leadership, make future advancements
Objective: district will articulate its vision....

Mr. Cosgrove

Bob Cosgrove:
     We hope to get away from all these dealings with the ACCJC

Goal 4: increase effective use of resources by developing cycle of integrated district-wide planning.
Objectives: develop a model for the cycle...; review resource allocation process; will provide annual report that goes through goals. Want to base everything on evidence.
Goal 5: will prepare date-driven district decison-making processes that are collaborative, transparent, etc.
Goal 6: assess ed needs of communities and pursue joint venture partnerships.... This is particularly directed toward ATEP.
Objectives: collaboration to determine responsibility and use of ATEP

     A slide is shown: three circles. I hate these things. Two circles with arrow pointing at bigger circle, which is the district-wide planning council.
     Want info from the community (by Sept. 15). Direct to college Prezes or VC.
     Bob offers a quotation: "The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." Love that Bob. END.
     Bugay: we employed consultants for this. They went off and interviewed many people. Turns out we don't always have a positive culture of discussion between groups. Poertner has worked hard on this. College Prezes will lead by example. Etc.

     Nancy: Anything to pull from consent calendar? 5.8, 5.12
     Vote on consent calendar: unanimous.

7:26: Prendergast asks why counsel A,L,R&R gets more money. Good question, dude.
     Bugay: they "review" their rates annually. Increased 'em. We've used this firm, have been pleased with their services. You can vote for or against.
     Approved unanimously.

The Board Prez

6.1: final budget of both student governments. Start with Saddleback.

Saddleback College:
     Prez of ASG at Saddelback: Joseph Hessine?
     Two things have changed: allocation to scholarships is one. There's another, dunno.
     The kid is good, but rattles on a bit too quickly. None too clear, though no doubt accurate and relevant.
     Scholarships and awards: $106,000. Actually more...
     Essentially, budget has same structure. Same foci. Any questions?

     Lang: thanks for fine presentation. Unlike IVC report, you didn't have headers showing comparative years. (Students start to stare at each other.) Question about rollover grants. Line item. About $90K. Blah, blah, blah.

     They vote: yes, unanimous

Irvine Valley College:
     Mr. Allen w/ Vice Prez (didn't catch her name). They look seriously young and cute and lost. Allen looks like he just now got out of bed.
     Highlights of changes: increase of beginning fund balance. Higher revenue than expected. So will be funding more things.
     Beginning $158K. Lots of rollover from prior year.
     This is OK, but the kid rattles on too quickly.
     $355K comes from bookstore.
     Total use of funds: $594K
     $232K goes to co-curricular!
     Questions? None.
     Vote: yes. Unanimous.

7:43:
     District final budget. Deb. Fitzsimmons comes up to present. Has important contributors stand up for recognition. (Beth Muller, et al.) "Great fiscal team." She really seemed to mean it.

Overview:
$555.8 million budget (half a billion)
     Workload reductions will occur in community colleges. That's 6.2%. Doesn't apply to basic aid districts. If we were under SB... that would be 8 million...
     Tax revenue will be lower or flat. So will get less basic aid moola.
     85-89% salaries/benefits at colleges. Acceptable range.
     Shows basic aid trends. Up and down over years. Wise to use for one-time only.
     $40.4 million for future projects (of basic aid). Roll-overs no longer allowed. That hurts.
     If revenue projections not met (and they surely won't be), then reductions will be triggered. Basic aid districts have more vulnerability. Esp. in Categoricals.
     State chancellor's office priorities: categorial restorations, COLA, growth.
     New activities (planning) prompted by Accred will be good for us.
     Fitzsimmons seems to do a great job. But what do I know.
     Questions?
     Prendergast: moves the budget
     Carries unanimously. (I see a mouse running past the podium. It's been dashing all over the front area of the Ronnie Reagan room.)
     Burnett comes up to present proposed "Ronald Reagan: A Saddleback College Tribute"
     At that point, the mouse climbs upon the Reagan bust and shits on it (in my imagination)
     Burnett: we couldn't find all the stuff about Reagan & Saddleback over the years. That's just not right. Goes through history of Reagan and district. 1968: then-Gov Reagan dedicated Saddleback College.

8:00 p.m.
     Pictures shown. "We're a college town!" says dead paper. Lost the original copy of paper. Good grief.
     1970: Letter from Reagan to district.
     1986: Letter: congrats to Saddleback on 20th anniversary. We see letter.
     A video: 1992. Reagan appears, talks about Saddleback College. First-rate faculty. 25 years of excellence, he says. Nice little video. Thanks, Ron.
     "That's very special," says Burnett.
     2008: we named this very room after Ronald Reagan. (Yeah, check out that bust with a turd on it.)
     We have many more artifacts. 1968: one of RR's quotations: "Function of education: each individual grow... fulfill potential ... our job to provide that opportunity...great rewards for the community."

     A nice, elderly lady named "Joyce" comes up: mentions the "little mouse." (She cringes.) Was afraid it would climb "up your leg," she says to Burnett, who mock freaks. A good laugh is had by all. But not that mouse, I bet.
     Padberg says: this item says "various memorabilia" to give to Reagan library. Too general for her.
     A worthy project. A bit too nebulous to support, says Nancy. Motion: to table for next meeting. Maybe a subcommittee can work on this so we can have our own Reagan display here.
     Burnett: most of what we have are copies anyway....
     Lang supports motion to table (to next meeting). [I almost interrupted to recommend that we hand over that funky bust.] Vote is unanimous except for Milchiker's "no."

     6.4: unanimous. 6.5: unanimous. 6.6: etc.
     6.8 directing basic aid money away from BSTIC to Fine Arts building, I think. [CORRECTION: SEE END OF POST.] Unanimous. (I'm surprised they didn't direct it all to that goddam speech program.)
     Yadda yadda.....

Reports: blah blah blah.
No comments or questions. This gang is focused on getting home.

Finally, 8:0, reports from constituent groups

An attorney was there

Saddleback College Ac. Sen Prez: blah blah
Faculty Association: no report
IVC's Ac. Senate Prez (LDA): have finalized our lecture series, etc. Sept. 22, we'll have distinguished academic lecture: Robert Young, star of Father Knows Best (well, no, not that one). Something about Paradise and middle age.
Randy Peebles: nothin'
IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore: one of our faculty was selected as winner of win-tale design, license plate. Also: commemoration of tenth 9-11 anniversary.... At Performing Arts Center. Nancy Padberg will be offering remarks on behalf of the board. Sandra Hutchins, et al. Growth: it is flat. Parking lots are full, growth is flat. Last year, we were running 3% unfunded. Had to bring that down. Productivity values quite high. 525 is state average. Probably 540 or 560 when things settle at IVC.
Saddleback's Burnett: we're up a bit in headcount. Our productivity is also up. Mentions "Tod stadium" jokingly.
Bramucci: the MOE apps--we've just updated. He got all wonky. Don't know what he said.
Deb. Fitzsimmons: nothin'
IVC Classified senate: gone
. . .
8:36, meeting over

[UPDATE: turns out the trustees went on their Library tour from 4-5 and then got back to their closed session at 5:00.]

CORRECTION: I do believe I grossly misdescribed item 6.8 of the agenda. Here is the actual item (which was approved):

Accreditation follow-up "Open Forum" on Wednesday

     August 29, 2011– IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore has put out an email inviting folks to “an Open Forum to discuss the 2011 Accreditation Follow-Up Report.”

Date: August 31, 2011
Time: Noon – 1:00 p.m.
Room: A210

     Point persons are Kathy Werle and Lisa Davis Allen

     Roquemore notes that “The latest draft of the report can be found on the Accreditation site: HERE, but it appears that one must have the right passwords to enter that site. 
     Further, the link that appears at the site doesn’t work (as of now, i.e., 1:08 p.m.). Update: fixed, 3:05)

Why Kaplan boosterism at our colleges?

Community College in Maryland Rebuffs Kaplan U. (Chronicle of Higher Education)
     The president of Hagerstown Community College, in Maryland, has sent a stern No Thanks to an entreaty from Kaplan University to jointly encourage the college’s associate-degree recipients to complete a bachelor’s degree at the for-profit institution, reports the Herald-Mail, a local newspaper. The Hagerstown college’s president, Guy Altieri, told Kaplan not to even imply any partnership or endorsement. Then he added: “We tell our students, quite frankly, that there are much better transfer options for them to consider. In summary, we do not believe Kaplan’s partnership offer is in the best interest of our current or former students.”

From a Saddleback College Press Release:
     Dr. Tod A. Burnett, President of Saddleback College, “We are proud to collaborate with Kaplan University, which offers many benefits to help students complete their bachelor’s or master’s degree while staying in Orange County. With the help of our wonderful transfer center counselors, this partnership with Kaplan University is a great opportunity for our students, alumni, and employees.”

See also:

• False Claims Act lawsuits [against Kaplan]

• Kaplan Pays $1.6M to End Whistleblower Suit and Other Disputes (Inside Higher Ed)

IN THE NEWS:

• Republicans Against Science (Paul Krugman, NYT)
     Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us….

• College Presidents Are Bullish on Online Education but Face a Skeptical Public (Chronicle of Higher Education)
     Delivering courses in cyberclassrooms has gained broad acceptance among top college leaders, but the general public is far less convinced of online education's quality, according to new survey data released this week by the Pew Research Center, in association with The Chronicle....

• The New York Times held one of its “debates.” This one is: Are Research Papers a Waste of Time?

Sunday Funnies

*
Click on image to enlarge.

We (yes "we") are committed to expanding the Early College Program

Lillian Gish

     Relative to strategic planning, just how committed are we (in the South Orange County Community College District) to such programs as “early college”?
     Well, goal #6 of the draft of district-wide goals (part of the three-year plan to be presented to trustees on Monday—as a matter of information) is this:

But, of course, the district plan is now explicit about granting a degree of autonomy to the colleges, which have their own goals. In part, it is the job of the district to further those goals.
     So let's turn to the colleges.

     #5 of IVC’s collegewide goals is the following:

To provide programs and activities that promote economic development and partnerships with the community.

     That’s a goal, so I guess it is supposed to be vague, and it is.
     As you know, among people with degrees in Education, one's “objectives” are supposed to achieve one's "goals," and that's the thinking of IVC's planners. IVC’s 2010-11 Strategic Planning Objectives include VI and XIII:

VI. Increase enrollment in courses in Lifelong Learning, contract and workforce development courses.
VIII. Expand the Early College Program.

Not Lillian Gish

     Well, that last one—that’s pretty explicit. Judging by our stated "objectives," then, we are explicitly committed to "expanding" the EC Program.
     Here’s what else we learn about objective VIII:

(Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7; and District Goal 1)
Rationale: The K-12 schools in the effective service area are typically ranked in the top 10% in the state based on California’s Academic Performance Index. Students graduating from high schools in the effective service area typically have 4-year university acceptance rates that are much higher than the statewide average. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Partnerships among IVC, K-12, and 4-year institutions seeking to work within this service area, will be a necessity in order to increase enrollments. [My emphasis.]
Strategy A: Implement the Early College Program at another local high school. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Elizabeth Cipres)
Strategy B: Explore the establishment of an Early College Program in the Irvine Unified School District. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Elizabeth Cipres)
Outcomes: The continued expansion of the Early College Program within the Tustin Unified School District; the establishment of an Early College Program with the Irvine Unified School District and El Toro High School.

     Saddlebackians seem to do these things differently. I found a draft of Saddleback College's 2011 EDUCATION MASTER PLAN, which offers a set of reasonable-sounding “values” and several plausible-sounding “Strategic Directions,” none of which clearly demand the pursuit of something like Early College.

* * *

     On occasion, members of IVC's Academic Senate Rep Council break into discussion about strategic planning and such, and, when that happens, the atmosphere is tense and uncomfortable. Senators (and not only I) have suggested that the existing strategic planning (etc.) process is overly-complex and difficult to understand. It doesn't help that it is shot through with the odd (and largely preposterous) vocabulary of the educationists, what with their "instructional delivery," "action steps," and "goals vs. objectives." I do believe that some have suggested that, for those reasons among others, faculty find participation in the planning process, um, unattractive.
     Well, whatever the reason, the committees that have produced many of the goals and objectives in our district are dominated by administrators. And, at IVC, it works like this: administrators are given their marching orders by Craig.
     Wait. Aren't IVC administrators pretty autonomous? —Well, no. Not so much.
     Voila.

For those who missed it: Glenn drops from an airplane @ 13,000 ft.

Read: IVC President Glenn Roquemore Leaps With Army Golden Knights

Our "strategic plan": a creature of the inane educationist playbook?

     The agenda (available here) for Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees (BOT) includes an “information item” (7.3: development of district-wide strategic plan [2011-2014]), which includes a draft of that document. (It’s a three-year plan.)
     Check it out. Arguably, this document is important. Very important.

* * *

     I've begun to read it. I want to say: nothing will ever be right in education until we banish educationists and their idiotic jargon.
     (And I want to say this as well: “poor writing—the only kind found among educationists—is poor thinking.”)
     Here’s the logic of the development of this document—taken right off the page. It’s a marvel of delusion and self-mystification:

First step:
   Identifying CHALLENGES (of next decade). (This is a “DIALOGUE” using “RESOURCES”)

Second step:
   Developing district-wide GOALS [“or institutional goals”(?)] … that articulate … INTENTIONS and AMBITIONS … related to … meeting CHALLENGES

   GOALS are achieved through OBJECTIVES identified in the District Strategic Plan – and the colleges’ Strategic Plans

   In future, district-wide goals will be a CATALYST for, and REINFORCEMENT of, the colleges’ planning [I imagine that this is conceived as a major step in the right direction. I don't mean to question that.]

Third step:
   Developing district-wide OBJECTIVES to identify the INITIATIVES to achieve district-wide GOALS. (Objectives require COLLABORATION and COORDINATION [among various parties])

Fourth step:
   Developing ACTION STEPS to describe ACTIONS to be taken to achieve district-wide OBJECTIVES

     The English language allows its speakers to communicate wonderfully. It is a magnificent thing. Obviously, in some settings, technical terms must be coined and used. Hence, the “mass” of the physicist and the "point" of the geometer.
     But some fields—the notoriously unimpressive field of education is a standout in this regard—seem to generate technical terms unnecessarily, promiscuously, absurdly.
     Educationists will actually stare at you in disbelief if you reveal ignorance of the alleged distinction between, say, “goals” and “objectives.”
     They are clueless. In my experience, they don’t even seem to know that they’ve adopted technical terms. So they impose this idiotic usage on everyone they meet. They manage to be both bullies and dolts.
     Now, suppose that one is reasonably well educated. If so, one will likely be struck by the educationist’s insistence on “the distinction between goals and objectives.”
     Luckily, we have dictionaries. Among other things, dictionaries tell us what we mean by the words we use. An “objective,” according to my dictionary, is “a thing aimed at or sought; a goal." —No surprise there.
     A “goal,” on the other hand (according to my dictionary), is “the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.” Yup.
     Let’s compare these meanings, shall we?

(objective:) a thing aimed at or sought; a goal VS.
(goal:) the object [i.e., the “thing”] of a person's ambition or effort [i.e., what one seeks]

     These words are usually pretty close in meaning. Obviously.
     Now, I did a little looking, and I came across the website for San Diego State University College of Education. SDSUCE’s Department of Educational Technology (EDTEC) provides a glossary of terms.
     Here’s the alleged “Difference between goals and objectives”:

Goals are broad objectives are narrow.
Goals are general intentions[?]; objectives are precise.
Goals are intangible; objectives are tangible.
Goals are abstract; objectives are concrete.
Goals can't be validated as is; objectives can be validated.

     Obviously, this is not “the difference between goals and objectives.” It is, rather, the difference between these things when one adopts educationist jargon.

* * *

     Well, OK. If this odd way of thinking and speaking helps, then fine.
     But I’ve never known it to help.
     And here’s a case in point. Read the “strategic plan.” Ask yourself (for instance): how are the participants in this process aided by structuring their thinking in terms of the technical distinction between:

The narrow, precise, tangible, concrete, and “validatable” (“objectives”) VERSES
The broad, general, intangible, abstract, and “unvalidatable” (goals).

—Conceived as the first (the “objectives”) achieving the second (the “goals”)?
     This is so confused, I don’t even know where to begin.
     I’ll leave that for another occasion. (No doubt some of you are way ahead of me.) Let me just say that I long for the day when I can arrive at a meeting in this district in which people just think and speak in plain English:

What is our task? (This ain’t rocket science.)
Will our task change, include more, include less?
Do we anticipate that circumstances will make our task more difficult?
What are our greatest failings and our greatest strengths in pursuing our task?
Etc.

     Now, I know that many who are involved in this strategic plan “development” (many are administrators) are bright and sincere people. My guess is that at least some of them are not (entirely) bedazzled and bedeviled by the above abysmal educationist architectonic.
     But I’m here to tell you: if these people have succeeded at all—and maybe they have—it is despite the nonsense with which this project is saddled from beginning to end.
     And don’t forget: everything in the colleges and the district will be done in terms of this document.
     Isn’t our job hard enough? Must we be forever thwarted by the poor thinking of embarrassing pseudo-experts?

Well, here they are. Presented as "info" Monday night.

FURTHER READING:

• Educating Researchers (pdf), Arthur Levine (2007). An excerpt below:

     This study asked a single question: Do current preparation programs have the capacity to educate researchers with the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out research required to improve education policy, strengthen education practice, or advance our understanding of how human beings develop and learn?
     The answer is that a minority of programs do, but most do not.
     There are three major obstacles to creating and sustaining strong programs:

1. The field of education is amorphous, lacking agreed-upon methodologies for advancing knowledge, common standards of quality and shared mechanisms for quality control;
2. Education doctoral programs have conflicting purposes and award inconsistent degrees; and
3. Research preparation programs are under-resourced, with inadequate funding and insufficient faculty expertise.

     The result is a body of research of very mixed quality, more weak than strong, with low readership by practitioners and policymakers and low citation rates by scholars.
     As a nation, the price we pay for inadequately prepared researchers and inadequate research is an endless carousel of untested and unproven school reform efforts, dominated by the fad du jour. Ideology trumps evidence in formulating educational policy. And our children are denied the quality of education they need and deserve. (P. 71)

• The Awful Reputation of Education Research (pdf) Carl F. Kaestle (1993)