1st EPPC December Minutes
(530) 898-6201, Zip 020
M E M O R A N D U M
SUBJ: EPPC Minutes– December 4, 2008, K-209, 2:30 p.m.
Present: Berglund-Smith, Berglund-Smith, Brady, Brown, Challinger, Collins, Crotts, Edelmann, Ford, Geddie, Leigey, Lillibridge (Crotts), Loker, Meadows, Ponarul, Ryder Fox, Selvester, Shepherd, Sudduth, Tinkler, Way, Wyrick,
Not present: Berry, Chiang, Daly, Gatton, Scholz, Wright
Guest(s): Debra Barger, Tom Ferrara, Mary Stroup Gardiner, Kathy Kaiser, Eugenie Rovai, Jeff Trailer
1. Approve minutes of October 23, 2008.
The minutes were approved.
2. Approve December 4, 2008 agenda.
The agenda was approved.
Way: Program deadlines will be advanced from March 28 to March 01, effective with the 09/10 AY. Colleges and departments will be informed and the new date will be incorporated into the Department Manual.
Way: The GE Design Team will hold an open forum on December 12, 2:00—4:00 p.m., K207/209.
Way: Kathy Kaiser is seeking nomination for Faculty Trustee. A petition is circulating in EPPC now. Crotts added that 50 signatures are needed and the criterion for eligibility to sign the petition is that you must be a full time faculty.
Meadows: The Media Arts Students’ Exhibit is December 11, 7 p.m., in Holt 170.
4. Delete patterns in English Education Option – Action Item.
Spiegel noted that “areas of study” has replaced “pattern” in the groupings of secondary requirements.
Vote: Item passed.
5. Delete Single Subject Preparation Program in Social Science – Action Item.
Rovai noted that no changes were made to the document as it appeared and passed as an introduction item (October 23).
Vote: Item passed.
6. New Center: California Pavement Preservation Center (CP2) – Action Item.
Ferrara and Gardiner noted benefits accruing to the campus from the CP2 Center, including outreach, continuing education, and teaming of entities including Construction Management, the GIS Center, and Civil Engineering. The formation of the center will greatly improve the capability of faculty and staff at Chico in obtaining research and program support from traditional funding sources such as the Federal Highway Administration, National Science Foundation, and the American Concrete Pavement Association. The existence and function of the center will serve to “tie things together.” The administration of the center will not detract from faculty teaching; but rather will be supported through faculty buyout, sabbaticals, and guest lecturers. Current and potential sources (“client”) providing funding for the center were reviewed. $1.8 million @ $600.000 per year from Caltrans is in place for base funding for calendar years 2007—2009. This contract is administered through the Research Foundation and runs through December 31, 2009. The California Integrated Waste Board has funded $600,000 (two projects) in contracts running through spring, 2009. Seven patrons and other donors have contributed over $67,500 @ $5,000 per year per patron to the CP2 annual fund, and several patrons have committed to continuing support. Five undergraduate engineering students have been awarded $1,000 scholarships for AY 2008-2009. During 2008 we are part of a team with MACTEC to work in area of asset management. [MACTEC is a leading consulting firm providing engineering, environmental, and construction services to public and private clients worldwide] This is a $15 million 3-year program and we have already won one project. The CP2 center is pursuing “untapped research dollars nationally and internationally.” The center will provide support for classes which will be primarily online through Continuing Education. The center is in the process of proposing a postbaccalaureate certificate program through RCE. The program has been approved by the Graduate Council, and will be submitted to the Academic Senate in spring semester. The program will be offered through web based courses. Instructors will be paid with funds generated by the center; i.e., externally and not from campus instructional funds. Discussion concluded with concerns over the potential for the CP2 Center to “jeopardize state funding” and become a drain on providing adequate funding for other campus resources. Gardiner noted that this will not occur. The state is not cutting preservation projects, and, in fact, “this is an opportune time for this type of organization.”
Vote: Item passed.
7. Resolution – Collegiate Learning Center (CLA) – Introduction Item.
Way reported that after “spirited discussions” on CLA in the Academic Senate, the Executive Committee was requested to draft a resolution opposing CLA. Jeff Trailer spearheaded the draft that is submitted to EPPC as an introduction item.
Discussion in EPPC culminated in a set of observations/concerns/recommendations for the CLA task force to consider in rewriting the document as an action item for the next EPPC meeting.
*Other campuses: Cite concerns and resolutions from other campuses.
*Cost: Cost in terms of time spent in implementation and monetary cost. The experience at Chico might be offered as representative of cost at other campuses. (It was noted that we might not focus too heavily on monetary cost because should monetary support become available then we would lose our “excuse”). We might consider including some directional language to the CSU administration and Statewide Academic Senate that it’s time to stop this “funding loss” and “think out of the box” and note that other tools; e.g., MAPP, CAPP, are out there and might be considered. (Note was made that CLA is an essay test and, as such, may be a better tool for assessment than MAPP and CAPP which are multiple choice.
* Two-year commitment: Our two-year commitment to CLA will be fulfilled with the spring, 09, testing of seniors. Consequently, “there may be no reason to continue.”
* Competition / discord: Rather than achieve its stated objective of measuring “value added” and provide a mechanism for self-improvement, CLA may foster discord among campuses by serving as a basis of comparison among campuses--“pit campuses against each other” – albeit a shallow and insubstantial basis for comparison.
* Public use: Public perceptions of CLA results are in all likelihood very problematic in terms of realizing “value added” and consequently CLA results will essentially become a “very faulty instrument for use in selecting colleges.”
*Focus on application rather than content: The content of the test is not the problem. The problem lies in the administration of the test. The application and methodology are so bad that any pretext of achieving any measure of realistic, scientifically based results is totally undermined. “There is no scientific validity.” It is a fraudulent representation of assessment. We should focus on its deficiency as a purported tool of assessment, and not dwell upon content and budgetary issues.
*Endorse the GE paragraph: The (5th) “Whereas” – “…With respect to General Education, local campus assessment professionals are developing an assessment plan which is…” should remain a prime component of the resolution.
*Assessment focus: We are not protesting nor opposed to the concept of assessment. We strongly support assessment, and seek valid instruments for measuring assessment. Should CLA be discontinued, faculty remain strong proponents of assessment; but “just not bogus assessment” as CLA is perceived to be.
*Stewardship of public good: We are expected to think and perform in a manner that labels us as proper stewards of the State of California and mindful of the wise use of (increasingly scarce) funds.
*Rearrange order: The final “Whereas” – “The California State University, Chico has in place an ongoing and rigorous internal and external accountability system that demonstrates the quality of programs…” was noted as the strongest statement among the “Whereases” and should be emphasized by positioning it as the first “Whereas.”
*Determination of “value added”: The testing company has made the determination of what constitutes “value added.” All tests decide what “value added” is. We, who must live with the results of the test, have no input into the “value added” concept. If we designed the test, we would shape the “value added” concept.
The discussion culminating in these bullets included several related concerns and observations. Just exactly what is “value added”? It must be clearly defined and agreed upon. A test that might be perceived as indicative of ranking must follow the same experimental design at all testing sites (campuses). Other forms of assessment as well as a “homegrown” assessment should be investigated. The faculty of many, if not most, other CSU campuses are woefully uninformed about the CLA process on their campuses. We should “put everything you can put into it (the resolution) that might make help make it worthwhile.” The intended audience ranges beyond just academicians.
Vote: Item passed.
The taskforce for rewriting the resolution as an action item will include Jeff Trailer, Rick Ford, Paula Selvester, Lyndall Ellingson, and Maria Sudduth.
There were no “others.”
The meeting adjourned t 3:30 p.m.