Meeting Notes - November 10, 2009
De Anza College
IPBT Notes - November 10, 2009—4:00 – 5:00 PM
Present: Anderson, Bradshaw, Bryant, Cadge-Moore, Espinosa-Pieb, Hearn, Irvin, Kubo, Lee-Klawender, Mowrey, Pereida Pham, Qin, Schroeder, Singh, Tomaneng
Visitors: Diana Alves-de-Lima, Mary Kay Englen, Rich Hansen, Wendy Low, Cheryl Woodward
I. Approval of Agenda and Meeting Notes: The agenda of November 10, 2009 was approved as written, and the notes of November 3, 2009 were approved with the following change under Section II--about the Transfer Rubric to read:
Transfer Classes–possibility of working to fit multiple criteria–transfer to a particular major?– GE focus needs to be added. “How many multiple areas does it fit?” If it meets multiple levels, raise its score?
II. Current Process and Timeline: C. Espinosa-Pieb described the directions that have been given to the instructional deans relevant to their division meetings being held to discuss budget reductions plans. It was noted that Dec. 1, 2009 is the deadline to have these plans turned into the Chancellor’s Office—which accelerates the urgency in gathering the required information. (Brian Murphy and Christina Espinosa-Pieb will attend those division meetings—if invited.)
Because the college mission statement is so broad when considering it for CORE criteria, other options need to be looked at—as stated from C. Espinosa-Pieb. Directions were given to look at course management—relying on the faculty (working within their departments) to drive the course determination process.
Some of the IPBT members asked regarding the possibility of having the Academic Senate provided “over-arching guidelines” in helping to define the process. It was stressed that each department should develop their own criteria (rubric)—faculty driven—for their area--because each department is unique—and a “one-for-all” “magic instrument” will not work. “Keeping passageways open to students” was a “focus” reminder voiced. A query was made pertaining to looking at “cost efficiency” as a possible guideline used with the course management process; however, this factor was discouraged. Everyone was reminded that any reductions should NOT reduce FTES.
Two sample rubrics—as “optional to use” documents were distributed. (Program Nursing and Rubric To Determine CORE status of CTE Programs.)
C. Espinosa-Pieb stated that hard decisions would need to be made—and those decisions will affect classes, programs and people. She continued to say that it is important that the governance committees take responsibility to keep their folks informed as to what is going on, and to encourage their people to get engaged in discussing budget reductions solutions.
III. Division Course Lists: C. Lee Klawender informed the team members that all of the instructional deans received a list of all of their division courses--to assist them with their course evaluation process. She displayed on the overhead projector a sample template from the Bio/Health Division—Rubric to Determine CORE Status of Courses within a Department—that could be used as an example.
IV. Review of Program Review from Spring 2009: This untitled document that summarizes the IPBT comments on Programs Reviews was distributed.
V. Good of the Order: C. Lee-Klawender announced that she would be attending the upcoming State Academic Senate Conference and would be involved with state budget issue discussions.