CHAPARRAL

The Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) met the first week of April and I offer an update on the work it is do­ing on budget issues, accreditation, curriculum, and the disciplines list, the items that I think are the most impor­tant.

At the top, of course, were budget items. The ASCCC unanimously passed resolutions calling for restoration of funding to the several categories that were cut—staff development, CalWORKs, and matriculation. These resolutions place these items high on the agenda of the ASCCC Executive Committee and call upon local senates and student associations to join in the efforts. I also attended a break-out session on implementation and by now have shared this information with the GCC Senate. Rather than become cynical on budget issues, we need to use all of the avenues open to make our voices heard. The Lobby Day that the Guild has organized is certainly an important part of the package, but we need to implement other strategies.

Also at the top of the agenda was Draft B of the accreditation stan­dards as revised by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The ASCCC, working with the AAUP and other groups, including one of chief executive officers, was able to get some revisions to the original proposal. I would be happy to show Draft B to anyone who asks. Before I proceed, let me also say that we are lucky that we are did not agree to be a test case for these new accreditation standards. This next time, we will be evaluated on the old standards. But the standards will be changed and we do need to shape what happens down the road.

Rather than elaborate on what was gained, I think we need to consider issues that are still in question. A core concern is the use of "the institution's stated student learning outcomes" in the assessment process.

I hope the question you have just asked yourself is "What does that mean?"

That is the question the ASCCC has asked. The language suggests that student-learning outcomes need to be established, but it is not clear whether these outcomes would be defined by class, by course, by division, or by some other unit. It is also not clear who would develop the measures.

All of this becomes important because in later language the new standards stipulate that faculty evaluations should be based on these "student-learning outcomes." Now that should make your hair stand on end.

We also want to ask whether all our work can be reduced to measures. How do we quantify progress in the area of critical thinking skills? We can and do evaluate students' work and make judgments about improvements, but I am reluctant to assign that progress a number. Now maybe some of our quantified data could help, but then we return to the question of who will be in charge of this task?

The issue of establishing competencies also raises budget issues. After the data are all collected they will need to be processed. Will our existing staff be able to handle these reports or will we need to hire more people?

I just think of the wonderful work that Ed Karpp has done to provide GCC with reports and fear that we may drive him to an early grave. Of course, these expenses will be postponed until new standards are implemented, and maybe the state budget will be better then. But we cannot bank on that.

There are other issues raised in the standards, but at this point I can say that it looks like there will be a Draft C.  Past President of ASCCC Linda Collins reported that she had talked with members of the Accrediting Commission, and they indicated that they were willing to continue dialogue on concerns raised by the California community colleges. (Of course, we do make up a majority of the institutions they evaluate, and the ASCCC has already begun to look for another agency to provide the accreditation evaluation.) A Draft C also means there will be more time to consider the proposed changes. And the ASCCC has asked for the data that the ACCJC used in arriving at its new standards.

Before I move on, let me add that provisions in the new standards also troubled the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges. Although I did not receive a copy of their letter, I do know that their correspondence led to some changes and that the ASCCC, after reviewing the CEOs' language, approved it.

Finally, the budget and accreditation were not the only issues on the ASCCC agenda this time. The ASCCC approved a number of changes to the Disciplines list, and the details of those changes have been forwarded to divisions and will be added to our list this summer. It also turned others down. In addition, several position papers were approved. These include "Academic Literacy: A Statement of Competencies Expected of Students Entering California's Public Colleges and Universities"; "Faculty Professionals: Responsibilities, Standards, and Ethics"; "Part-time Faculty: A Principled Perspective" and "Toward a Perspective on Workforce Preparation and Economic Development." If you would like to see any of these please call the Senate office. &