| It
seems like just yesterday Glendale College switched to the 15-5-15-5-5
calendar pattern. We all knew the decision was driven by
economics, not academics, but we knew it was essential to serve the
large numbers of "Tidal Wave II" students in our community.
Year-round use of our facilities is tough on the employees, the
students and the buildings themselves, but the alternatives are to offer
fewer educational opportunities. In the "old" days, we
had two semesters and one summer session, and I know I'm not the only
oldtimer who remembers that easy pace.
Meanwhile, some folks (primarily administrators?) want to revise
the current plan to some weird pattern I can't even describe. It
doesn't appear to serve any particular educational value, nor does it
enhance our ability to offer options to students.
While we all realize that five week sessions are intense and
demanding for faculty and students, virtually everyone in these two
groups has a choice: instructional faculty are not
required to work winter or summer, and students may choose to
attend only full semesters. Student Services faculty have always needed
to rotate assignments during non-semesters in order to serve students
properly, so presumably the length of the non-semesters is fairly
irrelevant for them.
Lab courses and other disciplines which simply cannot complete a
course in five weeks currently have the six week option for winter
(beginning this coming winter session) and have already been allowed to
offer longer courses during the 5-5 summer sessions.
So, the academic issues are reasonably well balanced with the
numbers of students needing to attend college.
In reality, the current calendar's negative impacts are
probably most heavily felt by our dedicated classified employees who
must provide constant services to students and who have lost any sense
of "down time." This is also how our buildings and
grounds may suffer, since there are few opportunities to do major
maintenance projects.
One other "negative" is the problem of grade
availability following a session. However, since many of our
courses are non-sequential, perhaps the sequential courses need to be
offered only when grades from previous courses can be made available.
For example, fall/spring/second summer session could be a pattern for a
three-course sequence. This affects counseling and students, so it
needs consideration, but it should not drive calendar change decisions.
Despite the flaws of the current calendar, we must remember that
it keeps us competitive with surrounding community colleges, almost all
of which utilize this calendar. It also protects our adjuncts who
teach in multiple districts. At least by keeping the calendar
similar to those of surrounding colleges, adjuncts have a slight chance
to enjoy a break from all
their jobs at the same time. If Glendale changes again, it plays
havoc with adjunct schedules and work opportunities.
It's good to know that our Guild negotiators have simply
said "no"
to calendar change for 03-04. But what about the next year?
We should stay informed and watch for the next effort to (yet again!)
reorganize our work lives.
Without substantial proof of improvements in student access and
success and employee satisfaction, I would oppose further changes in our
calendar system.&
[back to the top]
|