Student Development Committee

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

TH 112 Cascade Campus

Submitted by Mary Severson

 

Attendees

Members:  Kelly Marks, Tony Greiner, Linda Reisser, Wendy Palmer, Laurie Bales, Mary Severson, Leah Gibson,

Guests:  Leslie Riester, Mark Fennell

1)   Children on PCC Property Policy Draft Revisions

There was some discussion about whether the policy should address the children of faculty and staff as well and children of students.  Because we are the Student Development Committee, we have limited the scope to the latter.

Mark Fennell, PCC’s Risk and Safety Manager, provided information about the college’s insurance coverage.  PCC is self-insured for $500,000 per incident (which the college has to pay out) and has excess insurance coverage for $4.5 million beyond the first $500,000.   Mark provided the following information about liability and possible claims against the college:

      Premise Liability – when PCC becomes liable due to an injury or property damage arising out of PCC’s premises or out of PCC’s operations (ie. someone tripping over a tear in the carpet or a light fixture falling onto someone).  PCC is built for adults and not necessarily for children. Classrooms, offices, and general college spaces are not childproof or child-friendly (outlets are accessible, railings are high, breakable or dangerous items are within reach of children , surfaces are hard, cabinets are not latched, equipment may not be properly secured, tables/podiums/desks may tip or fall, etc).  A child could be injured more easily than an adult.

      Negligent Supervision – this is damage or injury caused by inadequate or distracted supervision.   The policy on children presumes that a parent, guardian, or attending adult is the responsible one to supervise.  However, when a child is permitted in a classroom, the faculty member (and PCC) also assumes responsibility for that child.  If a suit is filed, the Faculty member, Division Dean, Dean of Instruction, President, PCC, and the Board Members most likely will be named in the lawsuit.

      Discrimination – the practice of allowing children into classrooms at the individual discretion of the faculty member increases the potential of a discrimination lawsuit. If a faculty member allows one child into a classroom in one situation, but does not allow another child into the classroom in another situation, a civil rights violation suit may be filed against the Instructor.  This type of case (US Civil rights violation) is more costly than bodily injury tort claims.  Instructors may have to retrace every child they have or haven’t allowed into a class to see if there is a pattern of discrimination of any kind.  Lawyers for PCC have said it’s not a matter of “if” this will happen, it’s a matter of “when”.

Leah Gibson, a Cascade student representative, said that students at Cascade are not happy with the childcare situation at Cascade campus.  They want a childcare facility on that campus.  They also want to be able to bring children to class when necessary because there is no child drop-off center.

Kelly Marks reported that she and Katherine Persson (Rock Creek Campus President) attended a student forum at Rock Creek.  Students there also want more childcare and a drop-off center.  Many feel stuck if childcare falls through.  Some students felt that the student parent should be able to decide whether or not a child can attend class, not a faculty member.  They also discussed the responsibility that parents have to provide childcare for their own children

Mary Severson received a number of emails and comments since the last SDC meeting, which she shared with the committee.  Email comments are posted on the SDC website.  HR wanted us to know that underage individuals are sometimes hired by the college, especially in the kitchen.  These employees are exempt from the policy.  Under 2.0 SCOPE, we need greater clarity about who is included and who is exempt.  Under 3.1 we will delete the directive to look for a parent or adult when an unaccompanied child is found. Also, John Garner submitted a paragraph regarding children on the shuttles and busses – this will be added as item 3.3. 

Committee members discussed whether to ease up on restrictions in the classroom, and whether to allow Instructors to use their own discretion in allowing children in the classroom.  The committee felt that this was not in the best interest of the college or of children and decided to keep the “3.2 Restricted Areas” list the same as in the April version.

Kelly Marks will make the necessary revisions and the draft will go out the SDC members for a vote before the June EAC meeting.  It will be presented as a revised recommendation.

2)  Computer Literacy for Students discussion

We discussed the computer competency recommendations from our April meeting.  There has been some concern that an additional assessment at admission would be a hindrance or roadblock for new students.  Also, at the EAC meeting, a question was raised about whether students need to be assessed for basic computer competencies or more advance skills – there may be a greater need for intermediate rather than beginner skills.  Here are some of the thoughts:

• Members felt that the computer competency testing would be a proactive approach. 
• The real roadblock or hindrance is the lack of knowledge if students don’t know how to use a computer. 
• Students need basic computer skills in order to pass D.E. level courses in writing, reading, and math. 
• The free workshops would not create added expense for students. 
• A short test, rather than the 75 minute version, would be the best. 
• Voluntary compliance with course recommendations hasn’t worked.
• The college could explore longer orientation sessions with computer classes attached. 

A few changes were recommended to the Computer Literacy Discussion Points document.  That page is an addendum to these minutes.  The committee is not ready to make a formal recommendation at this point and will carry the topic over to the 2006-07 academic year.  We need to discuss the issue with Admissions staff, Testing staff, and other interested groups.

Computer Competency Skills (Addendum)

Mary 2006 SDC Discussion Points

The task of the Student Development Committee is to consider whether an assessment of computer and literacy skills should be required of PCC students.  We are not dealing with “how” any recommendation would be implemented at this time.

Rationale for need:

• Students need basic computer literacy skills in order to be students at PCC.  Basic skills include things like: using a mouse and windows, keyboarding, creating a document, and printing, saving, emailing, sending attachments, using a web browser, and managing files.
• Computer skills are as fundamental as skills in writing, reading and math, for all students in all programs (prof/tech, transfer, pre-college).
• The College now uses email as an official communication tool.  College & program information is increasingly available only online. 
• Admission and New Student Orientation are offered online.  Fewer students complete those tasks in-person.
• COMPASS placement testing is offered by computer.
• Early registration is available only through MyPCC.  Students need to set up their accounts, search the class schedule, and register for classes all by computer.  They will also need to use other MyPCC features such as email, course tools, discussion lists, announcements, Panther Tracks, etc.
• Faculty are teaching more basic computer skills in classes and have requested that students learn those skills elsewhere as a prerequisite.
• CRC’s are not able to tutor/train all of the students who need help.  They see students who struggle, can’t complete assignments, and drop out.
• A list of recommended basic computer competencies was developed several years ago, but is not enforced in any way.

Initial thoughts on computer competency skills (not yet a formal recommendation):

1)      Students should be assessed for basic computer competency skills upon admission to PCC.  The assessment could be included with current placement testing in WR, RD, MTH.

2)      Computer requirements should be met during (or prior to) a student’s first term of enrollment at PCC.

3)      Free workshops should be offered to students who need to gain basic computer competency skills.  The free workshops should be funded by the Student Technology Fees.  In addition, specific courses may be identified (such as CAS 121, 133) for students who need particular skills.  New courses may need to be developed.

4)      Computer tutoring services need to be created.  Recommend that Student Success Centers incorporate computer tutoring along with writing, reading and math.

5)      Need expanded new student orientation, increased tutoring, workshops before each term starts.