Voting Faculty Reps: one vote per division
SMT: Tadashi Tsuchida and Cindy Moss, co-reps  
Business; Kevin Sullivan,
Physical Education: vacant
Social Science/Creative Arts: Johannes Masare
Counseling: Jacqueline Escobar
Language Arts/Learning Resources, chair: Garry Nicol

Non Faculty Reps
Classified: Chuck Leach, TLC Instructional Aid

ASSC: Melody Hisatake, Commissioner of Finance

Ex Officio
VP Student Services: Loretta Adrian
Dean of Enrollment Services: Sherri Hancock  
Dean of Counseling: Jennifer Hughes
Matriculation Coordinator: Jennifer Hughes
Recorder: Angelica Gorostiza

 

2006/07 First Tuesday meeting dates 1:30-3:00 Room 5131: 9/05, 10/03, 11/07 (MAC), 12/05, 2/06 (MAC), 3/06, (no 4/03 meeting: spring break), 5/01

 

Notes for 10/03/06 meeting

 

Members present: Tsuchida, Leach, Moss, Hughes, Nicol.

 

1.            Read and approve minutes, May and Sept

 

2.        Report from Academic Senate: Review Fac Handbook for SLOs: Garry.  Action: Jennifer will consult with Regina on areas of Faculty handbook that need an SLO infusion.

 

3.        Jennifer:  Assessment, Review Retest Policy

Jennifer brought forward proposals from Mandy Liang regarding recommended changes in the testing policy. These included:

 

a) The current testing policy states that a student may retake the same placement test one time but the student must wait three weeks after the first test to retest.  The proposal is to specify this as 21 calendar days, including the initial test date.  No objections were voiced. 

 

b) The second proposal was to change the current testing policy that states that a student may not retake the placement test once a course in the sequence (English, ESOL, math) has been completed.  When researching practices at other community colleges, Mandy discovered that the Skyline policy is much stricter than the policy at other schools.  She proposes changing this to allow students to take the placement test if they completed a course in the sequence if five years have elapsed since the time that the student completed a course in the sequence. From time to time, situations arise in which a student successfully completed a course in the sequence many years ago. Our current policy would provide only two options for that student; proceed to the next course in the sequence or challenge the prerequisite if the student wished to take a higher level course. Allowing students to take the test would provide valuable information and may alleviate studentsÕ need to challenge prerequisities if they were interested in taking a higher level course. (e.g. student completed Math 811 five years ago. He has taken no math since that time. He now wishes to enroll in Math 120. He would only be able to enroll in Math 110 or challenge the prerequisite for Math 120. By allowing the student to take the placement test, it might alleviate the need to challenge and confirm the appropriate course in which to enroll.) After quite a discussion, the committee decided that a five-year lapse since taking a math course and then allowing the student to take the placement test could be problematic.

 

c) The current testing policy states that test results are valid for two years. Again, we have discovered that many colleges do not place an expiration date on test results. Mandy is recommending that we allow test results to be valid for a period of five years. This, however, would not preclude students from taking a placement test again (since the 21 days would have passed) if they wished to have a better idea of their current skill level. Members of the committee pointed out that math students can forget a lot in five years (thus their test results from 5 years ago may not be reflective of current skill levels), while ESL students could greatly improve their skills in five years (thus, their placements might not be reflective of current skill levels).  One suggestion was to identify different dates for how long test results could be valid, with different dates for English, ESL and Math. Another proposal was that we formalize making exceptions to the existing two year policy for special circumstances. Jennifer said she would talk to Mandy who will talk to colleagues at other schools to determine how they have determined dates for the that placements tests are valid for.

 

Action items for a vote for next meeting:

 

A.  Should the retest policy for the same placement test be clarified by changing Òthree weeksÓ to 21 calendar days, including the initial test day?

 

B.  In the case where the student has successfully completed a class in the sequence (English, ESL, Math), should students have the option to take the placement test to determine placement in English, ESL and math courses, provided that five years have elapsed since the course was successfully completed in the sequence?

 

C.  Should the testing policy be changed to allow placement test results to be valid for a period of five years, rather than the current two years?

 

D.  Should the matriculation coordinator, in consultation with a faculty area specialist, have the option to make exceptions to placement testing retesting policies? (It should be noted that the Matriculation Coordinator already does make exceptions (for example, when a student was sick the day of the test we will make an exception to allow the student to retest without waiting three weeks.)

 

4.Progress report on LynneÕs ÒProposed SolutionsÓ for the district for disabled student academic accommodations appeals.  Vote on structure of disabled student Academic Standards Committee

 

5.Report on student survey: cheating/plagiarism Cindy, Garry: next time

 

6.Report on Degree Audit Steering Committee Recommendations: Sherry

Jennifer presented a recommendation from a subcommittee of the Enrollment Services Committee to modify the initial recommendation #28 from the Degree Audit Steering Committee with respect to the GPA calculation for graduation and process for accepting incoming coursework from outside SMCCD. The recommendation has several important changes to the initial recommendation. These include:

 

1. Requiring students who wish to obtain a degree to bring in all coursework from a transcript and the associated GPA. The prior recommendation allowed students to select only those specific courses from a transcript that were needed for the degree. The concern was raised that our native SMCCD students must use all degree applicable courses in the GPA for graduation, so the same should apply for students who have completed coursework elsewhere.

2. Requiring students who wish to obtain a degree to submit all transcripts to enable the degree audit system to provide Òwhat ifÓ scenarios for a variety of majors that a student may wish to explore.

3. The GPA will be used in the calculation of the GPA for graduation.  However, honors and PTK will be locally managed by each college.  The prior recommendation was that the calculation for honors and PTK would be the same for all three colleges.

 

7.Matriculation advisory committee: Jennifer.

 

8.Review procedures for grievance appeals: Lori

 

9.Increase in grad requirements

 

10. Early Alert

 

11. Next agenda