|
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
M/S/P (R.Moyer/D.Beaulieu) to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2005.
III. OFF SITE EDUCATION:
L. Perez reported that Allen Petersen (formally of State Chancellor’s Office)
in conjunction with Gil Velazquez (formally of CPEC) are expected to oversee
the approval process for South Gate’s application for center status. She
distributed to the committee a list of items required for the application.
Petersen and Velazquez will visit the campus during the third week of July to
make a presentation about the process to those interested. She also stated that
by Fall South Gate will need an educational plan listing goals and educational
and space needs for the center. The South Gate plan should look similar to the
educational plan for the main campus. She is hopeful that Petersen and
Velazquez will assist in producing enrollment projections for the next ten
years, both for South Gate and the main campus. She further informed the
committee that focus groups will need to meet to discuss priorities and goals
for the center, however much of that information may also be obtained from
program reviews. Although certain goals for the center, such as Student
Success, will be the same as at the main campus, the objectives to achieve
those goals might differ—for example, more emphasis on learning communities at
South Gate. C. Rodriguez also reported on her 3-day tour with nine others
(including Ernest Moreno, Larry Eisenberg, Sylvia Scott Hayes, and Steve
Lefevre from the city of South Gate) back east to four states. The group
visited various educational institutions, including Baltimore City College,
Boston Harvard Square, Johns Hopkins University, MIT, University of Illinois,
Chicago and Northwestern, Marquette College and Immanuel College, all which
currently have mixed use of educational and retail space. She told the
committee that she came back with a strong belief that in order for the South
Gate MOU (which currently reserves 20 acres for academic use and 15 for retail)
to be profitable, the community needs to be involved (either through surveys,
focus groups, or even by directly asking the city council) in the decision on
the types of retail they would like to see at the site. Also, a clear
delineation between campus and retail space seemed to work best at the campuses
visited.
- D. Anderson informed the committee that she received a request from Dean Al
Rios for her department to offer more upper-level classes at South Gate. She
was surprised by the request, for it sounded to her that South Gate will no
longer only offer introductory courses (requiring students to take more
advanced courses at the main campus), but rather duplicate what is currently
offered at East. She claimed that this was problematic, particularly when
offering labs, as South Gate does not have equivalent facilities.
- L. Perez stated that in 20 years, South Gate is expected to be an
independent college, so Academic Affairs needs to study what can and cannot be
duplicated from East.
- C. Rodriguez corrected that those decisions are to be made by the faculty.
She also informed the committee that Larry Eisenberg requested from East
clearer ideas of what the South Gate program and the facilities for the new
center will look like.
- D. Beaulieu stated that the old Educational Plan already lists action items
for South Gate. The aim was to serve the imposed figure of 12,000 student
headcount (a figure he always objected to for he can foresee the center moving
even beyond that.) He further suggested that the lost of accreditation by
Compton College may further shoot South Gate enrollments up. He warned that
East would not want to regret later a site in which too much limited acreage
was given over to retail. However, he is also encouraged by how the South Gate
community seems to be a little more receptive this year to the idea of an
academic site.
- L. Perez stated that South Gate enrollment projections, based on FTES and
not on types of classes, will probably come by the end of summer. She will also
ask the Senate to assist in setting up forums to talk about South Gate’s
educational plan (as any Accreditation team will want documentation that input
was provided). The last South Gate educational plan was only for three years.
It included no input from subcommittees, as none (except EBPAC) existed. Today,
she believes the process will not be as difficult, because now East has a
template. She further added that programming for South Gate is only the
beginning of a long process.
IV EDUCATION PLAN:
L. Perez informed the committee that ELAC’s educational
plan is due to expire in 2006, and the college needs to create a new one along
with the South Gate educational plan. K. Daar reminded the committee that she
distributed the Educational Plan at the beginning of the Spring semester, and
asked committee members to review the plan and to give suggestions on what still
needs to be done, however no one has yet responded. L. Perez stated that it
would be helpful to review line items and decide which action items should be
retained or deleted from plan.
- D. Beaulieu stated that few of the items from the previous plan have been
implemented, so it shouldn’t be difficult to recreate efforts from the past. He
claimed that in the past, facilities overwhelmed the college. L. Perez was doing
two jobs (facilities and educational planning) at the same time. At some point,
he stated, the college will need more people to work on the plan (whether they
be reassigned faculty or designated administrators). He further added that
currently there is a dearth of reassigned time for faculty, and as the college
implements items listed on the previous plan, time and resources need to be
taken into account.
- C. Rodriguez suggested that perhaps some of the people listed on the current
plan as overseeing an implementation step did not know that the step was even
assigned to them. She further added that greater efforts for accountability is
needed (supervisors should be asking for updates on a consistent schedule, etc.)
- D. Anderson suggested that some of the action items listed may not been
implemented due to opposition expressed during its implementation. She stated,
as an example, that it looked like the action item for implementing English
advisories for transfer-level courses would be done (as one person followed
through and stayed with the action item), but in the end it was not implemented
due to recent disagreement expressed by some on applying the advisory to all
transfer-level courses.
- D. Beaulieu stated that the advisory issue at least led to student success
discussions, and now we are close to some kind of proposal. In creating the new
plan, he would hate to see action items that already had so much thinking and
half-acting applied to them be halted just because we have to think about the
item again for a new plan.
V STUDENT PREPARATION:
R. Gust suggested for the committee to ask Nadia Mendoza from the Early
Assessment Program and Reading Institute of Academic Preparation to give a
presentation on CSULA’s assessment of high schools students, and
ensure that East is not duplicating assessment efforts. K. Daar will forward the
recommendation to the Matriculation Committee.
VI. STUDENT SUCCESS:
D. Beaulieu reported that the makeup of the District
Student Success Steering Committee will probably be 7-10 individuals and four
workgroups on verbal, quantitative, learning (time management, etc.), and
college knowledge skills. These groups will report back to the Board, but will
not act as a top-down imposition on the colleges. Membership still needs to be
determined. East’s Student Success group (an EPSC subcommittee) can work in
tandem with the District group, and the college’s discussion on how to better
remediate in math and English will benefit from the District discussion. K. Daar
also stated that the Student Success committee should be more formalized and not
just made up of people who expressed interest from the preceding Senate
discussion. Other key representatives from the campus, including non-credit (who
had agreed to participate, but was never informed that the ad hoc group from the
Senate discussion had recently met). EPSC needs to do a better job advertising
the committee’s existence to the campus community. Meeting adjourned 3:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen Daar
EPSC Co-chair
|
