Minutes 12-10-2004
Policy Committee
Minutes
Present: Jim Hicks, Linda Bastian, Jane Holman, Guy Sievert, Michael Warwick, Porter Raper, Kate Carney, Michael Sonnleitner, Taylor Hanna.
Guests: Ron Smith from IR, and Mary Lane Stevens, DE faculty, CA.
We acknowledged three new committee members: Michael Warwick, Philosophy—RC, Cheryl Scott, Dean of the Business and Humanities Division—RC, and Samantha Lelo, ASPCC president and student—CA.
Ron Smith from Institutional Research presented his findings regarding prerequisites and completion rates for Gen Ed courses. The committee had asked him to look at a broader population of students to ensure that the initial patterns of completion/non-completion held true—and in fact, they did (see minutes of 11/19/04 meeting). The committee believed the data to clearly show a positive relationship between successful GE course completion and preparation in basic writing, reading, and math (the higher the skill level, the greater the success).
The committee decided that we should share the IR study with the individual SACs (the data is broken down discipline by discipline, and course by course within those disciplines) so that faculty can reach conclusions regarding the completion rates of their students. This will also be crucial as we begin a college-wide dialogue regarding the possibility of a prerequisite requirement.
Following the presentation was a philosophical discussion about how students are best served: should we enact a college-wide policy that would direct less-prepared students to pre-college courses to boost their skills, self-confidence, and success in Gen Ed courses— or was it better to have a more open policy where students would experience the realities of college-level courses without those skills?
Michael Warwick argued there was a distinct possibility students are better served by keeping an open-door policy, and after giving students the information they need (such as the IR data showing the connection between preparedness and college success), we should then allow them to make their own choices.
Mary Lane Stevens (DE) and Kate Carney (ENL) both talked about their many years of experience working with this population of students: they stressed that many of them have unrealistic expectations when it comes to college (primarily because of their lack of experience regarding academia), and that it is far better to build students’ skills and confidence in pre-college courses than risk the failure students may well experience leaping directly into college-level courses.
The committee eventually reached a consensus that having basic skills was in the best interests of our students, but that we wanted individual disciplines to have the flexibility to opt out of any college-wide policy we might propose. With the flexibility of an opt-out default policy, the committee agreed that we would try to build college-wide consensus with the following policy proposal: PCC students taking Gen Ed courses must have basic college-level writing and reading skills best demonstrated by WR121 readiness (defined by placement into WR121 or successful completion of WR115). The committee also believed that basic math competency was equally important, and that the pre-college level of Math 60 readiness (placement in to 60 or successful completion of Math 20) would be appropriate for most courses.
Although there were committee members who questioned the need for any math competency, Linda Bastian reminded us that Math 60, an elementary algebra course, represented a 9th grade level of competency and that completion of Math 20—which would satisfy the above policy’s requirement—represented a mastering of 5th grade skills. There were also committee members such as Michael Sonnleitner and Linda Bastian who believed we needed a stronger math competency (Math 65 readiness) but they were willing to compromise on a Math 60 readiness.
So that the college community could have healthy discussion regarding this proposed policy, we decided to hold a series of forums around the district: one at each campus, (including SE) to hear what faculty, staff, and students thought. We will schedule the forums with the TLCs for late January/early February, and faculty representing specific campuses agreed to help host these informational. Porter will bring this plan to the EAC meeting on 12/11/04 for approval.
After the college has had the opportunity to influence the outcome of the proposed policy, we would like to be able to make a recommendation to the EAC by late winter or early spring ’05 so that the council might discuss the proposed policy then make a recommendation to the president at the end of spring term.
One concern widely expressed was the negative reaction from some administrators who may be concerned about loss of FTE for particular Gen Ed courses if the EAC should eventually adopt a college-wide policy. We decided to strategize about this potential reaction, but we agreed that if the policy was eventually passed by the EAC, we would need to have assurances from the administration that pressures regarding FTE would not be obstacles to enacting policy in the best interest of our students.
The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 7th at 2:30, also at the CWTC on Water Street.