What the heck is C-ID?

What’s all this Course Descriptor/Course Identification business and why should I care?

Prediction:  Eventually every course that’s on a TMC will have C-ID numbering and descriptors

Summary:  Your courses have to be approved at the State level, in terms of meeting the C-ID descriptors, before your TMC can be used for transfer.

Well, if you aren’t part of the TMC (Transfer Model Curriculum) process you probably don’t care and even if you are, you might not care.  It was a mystery to me until I started working on the Anthro AA-T.

Simply put, the C-ID system is a set of common course “descriptors” that are supposed to guarantee that a student taking a particular class (given a common course identification number in the C-ID system) is getting the same basic curriculum everywhere in the state.  It’s the new CAAN system, but it has way more buy-in from the CSU’s and it’s here to stay.

Within our own district (which is not really a microcosm of the whole but is in some ways it’s own insular world), we have long pondered common course numbering.  The system that the new TMC process is using is called C-ID and it assigns 100- and 200-level numbers to lower division coursework, just as we do at OC.  Yay, OC.  But, other colleges throughout the state (and within our district) use the number 1 as the starting point for lower division courses – or even, oddly, sometimes the numbers 300 get in there (for lower division work!)  I can certainly understand why some committee, somewhere, decided to set forth a standard set of numbers, and that’s part of what the C-ID system is (it’s also much more).

The C-ID “descriptors” are actually statements about what should be in the course, its description, and its actual outline.  Learning outcomes are specified within the C-ID system.  Put in the most blunt manner possible, you can call your course “Intro to Whatever” but when it goes to articulate at the state level so that students can use it to transfer, it better look remarkably similar to the courses already in the C-ID system.

Yep, I mostly just used the C-ID descriptors and added to them for the Anthropology outlines and they seem to be doing fine.  I’ve done this since I came to the community college system, and it’s always worked.  No matter what you think you want to emphasize in a class, if you stick closely to what the C-ID descriptors say and use virtually the same language, your course will articulate.  You can add more content, but don’t take away content – cover all the described material.

Also, don’t bury the required content in a lot of other content or your course will look like a different course and won’t articulate.

Most of the time, most courses at OC articulate because we are all studying the C-ID rubrics and following them.  The courses also articulate because Shannon Davis does the same thing for us.  Curriculum Committee tries to be very helpful in this area too, but when you look at the sheer number of courses and how complex the system is, there’s no way that even the Curriculum Committee can be expert in your field.  You should really know the descriptors in your field.

Now, this is the dicey part.  Before a course can be part of a TMC, it must already be approved at the State level for its match with the descriptors.  Ouch.  When I learned this in August, I immediately went to work on the four courses in Anthropology that have descriptors.  If a course doesn’t have descriptors, you don’t have to submit it for approval to the State/CSU team, but if it has descriptors – as all of the core TMC courses do – you have to submit it for approval.

So, while my AA-T is done, it will only be when the State/CSU team of anthropologists reviews my descriptors for the four courses that my AA-T can be useful to a student.  Depending on the discipline, it’s taking 1-3 months for this to happen (and if my observations are correct, it’s taking longer and longer as the reviewers get more and more swamped with 116 community colleges submitting so much curriculum).

Upshot:  even if your TMC wasn’t approved yet, you should have heeded the announcement in August and gotten your courses updated.  Most of you did that or are doing it right now and hopefully that’s complete.  We’ll certainly be looking at such issues at PEPC and perhaps issuing advisories or something.  We have to do something to make sure we meet the TMC pattern goals.

In perusing what’s gotten approved at the State level, I can’t help but give a shout-out to Chris Horrock for being one of only two colleges in the system to get that Symbolic Logic class approved for Philosophy (so far).  Talk about a fast response!  If you’re not knowledgeable about symbolic logic, you should know that there are a lot of students who love, love this subject despite its grueling nature.  There are people who think that it’s as important as math in transfer, and it certainly leads to jobs in the computer field (I run into former students all the time who say that symbolic logic was the key to their current job success – although many of them ended up taking the course elsewhere, as OC hasn’t always had the right arguments to get Symbolic Logic into the schedule; the TMC process will change that).

I hope this tiny example helps you see how the TMC/C-ID process affects us.  And here’s a challenge to the historians:  take a look at what your discipline is up to, statewide.  History has 6 courses with descriptors – but only one course where I see finalized descriptors (the website is always a little behind reality – so let’s take that into account).  This struck me as interesting because philosophers have been busily making sure their courses articulate (even though their TMC was approved only 6 days ago).  The History TMC has been around for awhile.  What’s up with that, historians??

So, let’s issue a challenge to those disciplines who are behind in the C-ID process:  submit your curriculum and get it up to date!  Anthropology was so late in developing its descriptors that comparative data is not yet available (but should be in January or February, so we can play tag).  If your discipline was an early adopter, you’re already ahead of the game, so please, please take advantage of that (as Chris has done) and get your curriculum ready to go!

P.S.  I’m guessing that our historians are already busily at work getting this done, but from my side, I see the state approvals when they post – and I see what the Board approves.  I absolutely love hearing about your progress in this area (and there’s now a box on the Program Review form for you to say more – because every discipline has a slightly different story here).


Tags: , ,

Geo Challenge Results!

WHO, I ask, does not love geography?

Our students certainly do (and our students are, of course, The Students of the World):


Or, in this competition, the students of 15 local high schools who competed in Oxnard College’s Geo Bowl, organized by Prof. Chris Mainzer.

Please see the Star Free Press article for great pictures and more details.  I’m going to spoil it a little.  Here are the winners:

The final results:
1ST PLACE:  Jake Perl                                      Newbury Park High received $400.00 cash certificate*
2ND PLACE:  Alexander Paul                            Camarillo High received $300.00 cash certificate
3RD PLACE:  Brendon Miles                             St. Bonaventure High received $200.00 cash certificate
4TH PLACE:  Scott Anderson                           Rio Mesa High received $100.00 cash certificate 
*Cash certificates were donated by “” for purchase of geography supplies for each winning high school
GO RIO MESA!  I mean, isn’t it great that Ventura High – one of our county’s oldest high schools placed third?  And is it really any surprise that Saint Bonny (as we affectionately call it) and Newbury Park High were neck-in-neck?  (Well, yes, it is something of a surprise and that’s why it’s so much fun).
Thanks to all who participated and made this annual and enduring event so much fun.
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 20, 2012 in Our Students!, Outstanding!


What’s up ahead? Some things to read…

Trying to predict what the California legislature is going to do next is not easy, but it’s not impossible, either.  Someone will probably be right about what they’re up to.

One thing is certain:  this legislature (and the one before it) has certainly gotten into the habit of proposing and discussing myriad laws that attempt to manage (even micro-manage) many aspects of education, K-12 and college included.   One author has compared it to the use of a remote control:  the legislature thinks that if it writes a bill, the CLICK! the situation changes.  The article in its entirety can be found through your portal account (I’m assuming you have a VCCCD account) by clicking on library resources and then JSTOR.  Here’s a quote from that article by Mr. Cuban about legislative school reform:

“It’s become a garbage can in which to toss every bright idea and private bias that non-educators have about school reform.”

I like that he mentions how the bright ideas get tossed in the “garbage can.”  That’s because bright ideas, even though they’re bright, need to take shape in a different place that in Sacramento.  Sacramento is showing, though, that if we don’t implement our own bright ideas, they are more than willing to legislate them for us, thereby often denaturing the idea and dimming it by many lumens.

On our State Academic Senate side, it is with pride that I can cite a series of papers that should be of interest to Oxnard College Faculty:  Practices that Promote Equity and Diversity is one example.  The State Senate has taken a strong view on collecting data to ensure that our state resources are spent equitably, with a view to aiding students in certain demographic categories.  While this paper mentions “ethnicity,” at the most recent plenary session, a resolution was adopted to emphasize socioeconomic status instead, because, guess what?  Rich kids do much better than poor kids, regardless of ethnicity.  This move away from focus on ethnicity (and what some people still call race – that word is still in some of our laws) and onto a key demographic variable (socioeconomic status) is a good move.  This paper, even if you only read the first few pages, gives you a lot of sometimes needed intellectual ammunition to promote Basic Skills and related programs.

From our statewide group of mathematicians comes this beautiful paper on what is expected of entering college students, in terms of math.  It is probably not what you would have expected to see:  it provides a groundwork for innovative math pathways and many schools are changing their approach to math (not because of this paper, necessarily, but because math teachers work hard at understanding how to teach math).  At OC, this is resulting in many changes (all born of very hard work from our math faculty), and there are more to come.

Finally (although I’d love to list a lot more papers!), here’s a crucially important paper on enrollment management.  It’s from ASCCC.  It advises local Senates to develop enrollment management philosophies and to address issues in their districts/colleges.  There is no more important issue at this particular point in time.  The paper leaves it open as to what kinds of policies local Senates should adopt, but this difficult topic should be broached – and in our Senate, I’m thinking sooner rather than later.  Now that we get a reprieve from talking strictly about money, the question of enrollment management (and how it relates to priority registration, class offerings, class caps, support services, mix of courses and so much more) needs to be addressed.  Please try and glance at this one!

Going forward, all of this homework will help us construct a wise Educational Master Plan.






Registration Priorities – AP 5055

When registration priorities were last discussed, Oxnard College was in the midst of the program discontinuance/budget crisis of 2011.  We didn’t spend a lot of time on this document.

In the meantime, the State of California has passed a new bill of its own, signed into law, the intent of which is to address some of the same issues (students with too many units drop in priority).

However, several things about AP 5055 need to be discussed.  There are three places on our Campus that should be having conversation about this policy:



Student Success.

In investigating how other districts and colleges handle registration priorities, I’ve learned a lot.  One issue that is of concern to an increasing number of districts and colleges is that local students receive priority registration, so that classes do not fill up with students from other areas.  Why is this important?

First, in our county, we are actually operated by law as an entity created by the citizens of Ventura County who, by Measure S, are supporting our wonderful campus improvements.  They are paying that Bond back.  They, and their children, deserve education.  As more and more colleges become impacted, and classes close early, giving some priority to students within certain zipcodes is a good alternative.

As Oxnard College’s FTES/workload cap is reduced, so that we can only serve a fraction of the students we used to, we need to accept and understand that our students do indeed go to Ventura and sometimes, Moorpark, and we should try and make sure that they get their classes at those two places as well.  Our students need to be able to get classes, that’s the bottom line.

So, I’ll be running around with copies of  AP 5055 and suggesting a couple of changes:

a zip code priority (to be combined with the unit priority)


moving high school students in our zip codes into a higher priority.


The current policy places high school students last (we have an exemption, apparently, for our middle college – which may be enough; but I think we should discuss it).

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 17, 2012 in Uncategorized


The Fall Plenary Session

Dear Colleagues:

I did my homework and so the Plenary Session made lots of sense to me.  There’s a lot in this post, and most of you will want to skim it until an item catches your eye – everyone is affected by the changes of the last year – and the upcoming changes.  I am in no way expert on the resolutions or work of our State Academic Senate, but I did get to:

1.  (briefly) meet our new State Chancellor, Dr. Brice Harris, and listen to him speak.

Impressions:  He’s very open and definitely knows how to work with faculty.  His mission (as it should be with all Chancellors) is to empower the community colleges.  He is one of our main voices vis-á-vis the state legislature; it is through our resolutions that we advise him of our positions.

2.  Attend a mini-version of the Leadership Conference, which was very helpful.

3.  Meet our State Exec Board and confer with Wheeler North (our state expert on procedure) on our recent issue involving a 6-2 vote in our Senate, and whether that passed the motion or not (it did – I’ll be reporting at Senate and perhaps blogging about that; my initial intuition was correct but Wheeler lacked my hesitancy because he really knows his stuff about procedure).

4.  Meet most of the rest of the Exec Board and many of our State level Senators (what amazing people they are).

5.  Meet people from all around the State and have many conversations about so many things, all of which was extremely helpful;  Moorpark and Ventura are the two other colleges I know best, but they are not (by any means) the only two other colleges in this great state!

6.  Go to break-outs on various issues (Minimum quals, Program discontinuance, Accreditation and much more) and vote on resolutions regarding our future.  In particular, there were three resolutions regarding Math and its role in blocking/impeding the pathway of California Community College students, particularly those who are Black or Hispanic (or, viewed from another perspective:  those of lower socioeconomic status).  While there was absolutely no solution to the problem offered, the problem is clearly looming large and so many factors enter into it.  English is in a much better situation (not so much of a bottleneck).

In the process, I learned a lot about how to use our local Senate to meet our needs, to protect and improve programs (good Program Evaluation processes are key), and how to avoid some major pitfalls that would certainly result in warnings or worse from WASC.

Indeed, our new PEPR form (under revision by PEPC) adds an absolutely essential ingredient, one that the accrediting commission will certainly be looking for in the next round:  some sort of evaluation of programs/faculty in terms of compliance with SLO’s.

Did you know that in some districts and colleges, Boards of Trustees and Chancellors are advocating that compliance with SLO rules be added to a faculty’s formal evaluation process?  Further, did you know that in some colleges and districts, having bad evaluations can be a cause for termination?  Neither is true in our District (we have a GREAT union; thank you, local AFT 1828).  I learned that in many areas, the union and the Senate overlap and must work together, and it is way better to do that amongst ourselves than to allow Chancellors and/or Boards to impose conditions upon us.  We are fortunate to have both a Board and a Chancellor (right now) that wants us to do just that (work things out among ourselves).  I’d say that about half the colleges I know about are in the same happy boat with us, and about half are in the unhappy boat.

Both the ASCCC and the AAUP stand firmly against any such interference from administration in our academic affairs, in our classrooms.  At the same time, the law is clear:  we must give proof of results (learning outcomes).  As standardized tests become more and more the route to external evaluation, we can resist this trend only by inventing meaningful local processes of evaluation.

Evaluating a program as to its collection of data about SLO’s and its general improvement of standards is quite different than evaluating an individual faculty person.  We hope that the second thing will never come to pass (how long we can hold off on that is anyone’s guess, it’s certainly something that many members of the general public want to see happen).  This year, you will be expected to provide a lot more detail about your program’s SLO’s (made easy, we hope, by eLumens – if you’ve stayed on track in eLumens it will be very easy indeed).  Naturally, you’ll want to complain about the extra analysis and narrative (if you are a lead faculty person – the rest of you can relax), but keep in mind that the alternative (having it added to that evaluation form during our next contract negotiations) is not at all a better solution.  It is the worst solution.

I also learned that there are a host of other areas where faculty are going to be expected to implement change:

7.  Professional Development has new issues that we need to address, including issues regarding protection of Sabbaticals (oddly, release time for Senate is not under scrutiny in the same way; right now it’s general Professional Development and Sabbaticals that are under scrutiny).

8.  Every campus is pondering its ratio of CTE to Transfer to Basic Skills courses and every campus has difficulties in this area.  There are no clear guidelines or precedents, it really is up to the local colleges, their planning bodies, and their administration.  In the absence of clear guidelines from PBC, we can continue to expect our administrators to solve our local planning on their own.  We need to make PBC a strong planning group and give it a way of airing these issues among faculty.  Yes, there’s a possibility for contention (that’s not a bad thing, by the way), but it should not be “management vs. faculty” over these issues.  It should not be CTE Dean vs. Liberal Studies Dean.  It should be faculty, amongst themselves, making recommendations (and where needed, giving minority reports, as clearly, a purely democratic process or majority rule will not resolve the intellectual and value problems that are currently in front of us).

On this same topic, I learned about a lot more variables than I had ever thought about before.  That’s what happens when you stick 50 involved faculty in one room, with leaders who are well prepped, and then have a long, fairly well moderated conversation.  Most of us sat silently and let people who had done research or a lot of thought have the floor.  It was overwhelming to be packed with 16 hours or so of such knowledge but I am getting used to it.  For an anthropologist, there’s a lot to notice.  But at the Senate, there’s no difference betwen CTE and non-CTE, Counselors or Instructors, Basic Skills and Transfer, etc.

9.  Every State mandate is underfunded, but unless a campus can show dire fiscal emergency (which can in turn jeopardize accreditation, as we are learning from the San Francisco City College situation) the campus still has to comply.  The question of what is an Ed Plan and who can sign off on one is hotly debated.  There were no resolutions regarding this question.  Here are the various personnel currently signing off on Ed Plans (which come in two flavors:  regular and comprehensive, only a regular ed plan is mandated by the Student Success Act):

Counselors (all varieties)

Counseling assistants (classified personnel)

Instructional Faculty (lots and lots of instructional faculty advisement, to the point that some instructional faculty want their union contracts to reflect this as a new category of work).  In our case, if instructional faculty are advising (and they are, particularly about AA-T’s in their own fields), we would have to decide firstly whether this was an ordinary office hour activity (which it appears to be), and whether our office hours will be sufficient in the future for this task as the TMC rolls out; and secondly, whether excess hours in advisement count toward our 87.5 or whatever that number is of extra hours per semester).

10.  Transfer Model Curriculum, its impact, etc.  Obviously, not everyone is going to have TMC.  What does this mean for everyone else?  As new legislation goes forward, enumerating (for example) that “the 50 most popular courses in the State shall do X” or “the 20 most popular majors shall do Y”, we need to realize that whether we like it or not, the State is mandating divisions on campus.  Traditional, non-AA granting CTE programs are well advised to have certificates, and low unit certificates are in our future.  We did pass a resolution regarding the advisability of low unit certificates, but with no numbers regarding what constitutes a low unit certificate.  Whether these can actually be transcripted is another issue, one that the State Chancellor’s Office will now be asked to weigh in upon.  Certainly, you can’t expect to have a 3 unit certificate!  Some colleges/districts are so far ahead of us on this one, it’s obvious that their Scorecards (we all have Scorecards now) will give them higher grades than OC will get.  New certificates at OC need to be budget neutral (we’re not talking new classes, necessarily, but if so, certainly that means an older class will have to be less frequent in rotation).  Keep in mind that if your certificate is CTE, it has to follow the program review and other requirements for CTE – regardless of host discipline.  Not all certificates are CTE (Peace Studies, Non-Violence Studies are not, to my knowledge, whereas Conflict Resolution studies is a CTE certificate that enables a person to begin a career pathway as a mediator).

It seems very likely that the UC system will soon look at TMC the same way the CSU’s do.  There is a strong movement to get rid of the “preference for local students” at the CSU and UC levels (coming from community college instructors).  We passed a resolution asking the State AS to investigate the impact of changing this incredibly important aspect of our current transfer model.  Only one person spoke to the issue of “many students can’t afford any college but their local one” but I am certain that issue will be brought up again if this resolution is brought back in a stronger form (and I believe it will be).  This would have enormous impact on Oxnard College students (if they no longer got preference at CSUCI, for example).  In the meantime, we need to remember that while it is likely that CSUCI and CSUN will not disallow our regular AA degrees for transfer, they may certainly decide to give preference to those possessing an AA-T or AS-T.  If we combine these various matriculation requirements in a bundle, we can foresee a future in which CSUCI might retain a preference for OC students (using our AA-T’s and AS-T’s that they’ve agreed to) but only if we lobby for it and actually produce enough AA-T’s and AS-T’s.  The State Senate affirmed the right of every local college to continue to award AA’s and AS’s of its own choosing, including maintaining dual degrees (both an A.A. and an A.A.-T in the same subject).  This is in light of many colleges (often under pressure from administration) to end their local AA’s as soon as the AA-T is in place.  Sometimes, though, it is faculty themselves who decide to end the AA in a discipline as soon as the AA-T is in place (for the obvious reason that with many subjects, if you’re not clearly planning to transfer, you might as well choose another major or for the reason that it is overall cheaper and faster for a student and therefore more likely for a student to succeed if they do the AA-T or AS-T).  We will be deciding this for OC, so stay tuned.

Why keep an AA, you might ask?  Well, those students take Health Education and Physical Education (that’s the main difference) and may also take more electives.  They are spending their financial aid money (if they’re on financial aid) at a faster rate than the current financial aid model allows, so should we encourage that?  Please keep in mind that 30-35% of OC’s students are not on the kinds of financial aid that limit units so severely – so we need to serve them too.  What if a student wants the old style degree (for whatever reason)?  Both degrees transfer (but one may give a student a leg up in an increasingly crowded transfer situation – and that’s the AA-T or AS-T).  Moorpark has, I believe, elected to remove the AA once the AA-T is in place.  It makes for a cleaner catalog and a clear path to transfer.  It also makes disciplines “look” different – only 20 disciplines will have AA-T’s.  I think we need to wait until students understand the changes more thoroughly – and, as a second result from attending plenary, I believe that we have a central and all-encompassing agenda item to consider:

How do we keep students aware of and abreast of all these changes?  

Remember how the principal used to come on the intercom in high school and announce all kinds of things?  The portal is supposedly doing that now (I think it is a weak substitute for the human voice).  Many faculty are claiming that they don’t have in-classroom time (or the knowledge) to teach their students about articulation, transfer pathways, financial aid and so much more.  I think there are many, many solutions to this (and that with just a tiny amount of creativity – such as moving one quiz online or using clickers for roll call or whatever else you can think of, you all can find the time to teach your students about transfer and career pathways, or to have someone else come into your classroom to help you teach them).  Naturally, we also need student workshops, tutorials in the library, posters (most colleges have so many more posters up than we do!), portal announcements, widgets on D2L homepages, better use of webpage – on and on.  We need better connections to the ASG.  We need to put some things at the top of our syllabi that perhaps we have not thought to prioritize before (and go over them on the first day of class).  We need to encourage students to use our office hours to learn more about transfer and career pathways.  

Well, that’s it for now from the plenary.  Most everyone I talked to found the plenary to be exhausting (we were working on a Saturday on a holiday weekend, of course); most people who are new are working 7 days a week and long hours (it was good to know I’m not the only person who has devote an excessive amount of time to learning the ropes).  It’s Sunday and I’m thinking maybe I’ll relax a bit before the Accreditation team arrives bright and early Tuesday morning…maybe play some ping pong.




Post-Thirty Celebratory Thoughts (and some notes from the Plenary)

Every one of us who did a single thing to help pass Prop 30 – including voting! – deserves a big thanks and a celebration!

For a long time, there was a .25% sales tax to support education (Arnold passed and supported it), and no one even noticed it was there.  It expired January 1, I believe, and so we needed Prop 30 just to maintain the level of funding we already have.  Yes, it involved some new taxes (of the 1%), and it passed!

But it does not solve all our problems.  

What does it mean for Oxnard College?  We had an Accreditation forum on Wednesday morning, so I was able to ask Dr. Durán what his initial intentions were about our recommendations for AP 4021 Program Discontinuance at our college.  He said that he had no plans to bring forward any programs for discontinuance under AP 4021.

Please remember that there are other ways to reduce programs – but only one way to actually discontinue them.  All over the state, programs are being discontinued for budgetary reasons.  In many colleges, high cost programs are facing a dire situation.  Some colleges have a series of high cost programs (let’s say, more than $5000 per FTES) and then, other criteria must be brought to bear in order to decide which of those high cost programs will have to go.  Even with Prop 30, this is a reality for many colleges.

Sometimes the decisions look (apparently) easy, in terms of programs.  For example, a program that’s really expensive, serves few students and is in some way outdated or duplicated within the region is at high risk.  Let’s say Vending Machine Repair (yes, that’s really in the “Green Book” for California Community College equivalency).  Let’s further say that once upon a time, Vending Machine Repair attracted lots of students, but now that vending machines are largely digital, the skills in the VMR program are not much in demand.  So it has few students, and two faculty people.  It’s expensive.  Should it go while something else, such as Architecture, which in our hypothetical is a new program, growing in students (although still not a lot of students) stays.

These are the questions that faculty all over the state are having to address.

But at Oxnard College, I believe I can safely say that Dental Hygiene isn’t going anywhere, and that both Dental Assisting and Television will be staying (even if they need to have some cost-saving structural changes or program-improving other changes made to them).  Now, everyone has time to bring about change.

The problem of TIME is key.  Faculty are notoriously SLOW in changing or responding to change.  (Um, yes, that’s because we are busy TEACHING).  The State of California is throwing fast balls at us at a rate never before seen.  The current legislators have the view that “If the teachers won’t do it themselves, we’ll do it for them.”  This is not good.  We need to get out in front of the demands of the legislators (who are, after all, representing the thoughts and ideas of the various interests that reside in their districts).  This was a big theme at the plenary session and I’ll be writing more on that.  A short way of putting it is this:  you are teachers and so am I, but right now I am being paid for that proactive work (along with the rest of the Exec Board – you all need to learn how to take advantage of us and direct the work we do!)

In the meantime, though, I want to return to what has become a favorite theme of mine:  Athletics.  Now, anyone who knows me, also knows that aside from anthropological interest in sport (which I have in abundance), I am not a sports fan.  I am not athletic.  I have to say that when I actually know some of the people who are playing on the field, that changes for me, and I do love to play ping pong and badminton.  I love to watch equestrian events.  That’s about it.  If I had to choose a major sport to view, it would be baseball.  I know the World Series was played recently but I have no idea who won (was it the San Francisco Giants?  Is there such a team?)

Anyway, as you can see, Athletics is not my field of expertise.

But, over the years, and especially in the past year, I have become a huge fan of Athletics – as a discipline, a program and a community college essential.  Unlike the disciplines protected by TItle V, Athletics doesn’t need to go before our Board of Trustees (BoT) to be discontinued.  Jonas Crawford knows this, and his athletes know this (I was so proud of them at the last board meeting – they gathered respectfully and quietly outside the meeting, so that the Board saw them, but they did not approach the mic – because they all know it’s not a BoT decision).

Yes, I am leading up to something.  I believe that our Academic Senate should pass a resolution in favor of changing our local mission statement to include protection and support of Athletics.  An AS President is supposed to remain neutral, in general, and yet going to the Plenary made me realize that this neutrality applies specifically to the way meetings and debates are run.  Michelle Pilati, our wonderful State Academic Senate President, gives workshops, explains, gives data, and yes, states positions that she believes are in favor of our Colleges (as a whole body).  Naturally, she encourages debate and accepts defeat gracefully and collegially.  Everyone has a position.  The State AS President only votes when there is a tie, and if one is paying attention, it is fairly clear which side Michelle will come down on if the resolution is that close.

Thankfully, where faculty are involved, there are very few close resolutions.  I’ll speak to some of those in a later post.

In the meantime, I want to get everyone thinking about the upcoming Planning Year.  The District has to write a new Educational Master Plan.  California’s Master Plan is 50 years old and being heavily eroded to the point that either it has to change or we have to admit we’re not following it.  Not following the Master Plan vacates it and makes it meaningless.  New legislation – just in the past year – has vacated parts of the Master Plan, while not so acknowledging that this has happened.  Is this a temporary deviation from the plan?

I believe it is permanent, and I believe that eventually, the California Master Plan for Education will be amended.  That’s my prediction.

In the meantime, colleges (and districts) are left in the lurch.  Do we attempt to follow the law or the Master Plan?  We actually have no choice:  the law is what must be followed.  But in what way do we change our planning?  You may remember that our own BoT not only passed a resolution in favor of Prop 30, but its individual members spent time in advocacy for it.  This resolution allowed each of us to advocate for Prop 30 to the limit permitted by laws involving teacher advocacy; it actually encouraged us to do so.  Do we want to build such practices into our planning?  Perhaps.

By all this, I am trying to get to a central question of what we should be teaching and what we should be doing.  Why does California try to guarantee education for all of its citizens in the first place?  It’s not to make them into little worker bees.  It’s to build good citizens and a strong socium.  It is to enact basic principles of a fair, equitable and democratic society.  This is done is so many ways across our curriculum, I couldn’t possible enumerate them.  But I do believe we have to change our curriculum, our outlines, our objectives, our teaching styles to make sure that this central function is part of everyone’s program.  Some programs (Political Science is the obvious one) have far more involvement in the specifics of this mandate, but look at Dental Hygiene through the same lens.

Dental Hygiene serves as many as 30,000 people (mostly children) in the Oxnard area every year, giving them free or near-free access to dental care.  My number may not be quite right, but I’m pretty sure I’m close.  20 students (or so) times 15 patients on a practicum day times 100 such days gives that number.  This is a huge contribution to society and to the principles of sharing and compassion.

In other words, I am not joking when I suggest that math people learn all about the rest of campus and the local community so that word problems can involve local issues.  The students in Math R105, under the leadership of Prof. Mark Bates, did an amazing job looking at success rates and core issues among our own students regarding transitional math.  Everyone needs to be involved in shaping the future of California community college education, and that can happen only when more of us know what the real issues are (yes, it involves MONEY, but that’s not enough to know!)

In the next six months, VCCCD is going to write its new (six year) Educational Master Plan.  The body tasked with doing that is DCAA, and yet, the body that’s started the process and set up the framework is DCAP.  If you don’t know what those acronyms mean, shoot me an email or make a comment here and I’ll do a glossary on this blog.  Jim Merrill, Teresa Bonham and myself sit on DCAA.  Dr. Durán and I sit on DCAP.  Once the District EMP is done, then OC will rewrite its own EMP.  I’ve been spending a lot of time looking at EMP’s from around the state, studying them, and marveling at just how much a good EMP can do to improve a college, to give it direction – and to ultimately revise mission and vision statements.

RIght now, OC’s mission statement is a bit out of synch with the District’s – but theirs will probably change before ours will (just based on the planning model).

Let’s advocate and lobby for a district-wide mission statement that embraces what we do at OC and supports it!

Let’s eventually pass a second resolution encouraging the board to do what other boards have done and declare that Athletics is part of the mission of the community colleges.  Hopefully, as corollary of this discussion, it will become clear that the various college Foundations should support the areas of the mission where funds are lacking.

And as to all the other issues facing us:  we can be proactive, as I am advocating we be, with Athletics.  Do not think it’s just Athletics that should be on our radar!  That’s why I am encouraging all of you (teachers, readers of this blog, students, administrators, anyone at all) to help form an Academic Senate agenda for Spring that will aid us in protecting and improving our joint mission.

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 12, 2012 in 10 + 1, ASCCC, Athletics, Plenary Sessions


Interesting Reading

The deconstruction of public education in California:  an article “The Slow Death of California’s Public Education System” by Andy Kroll.


Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2012 in Background & Viewpoint