Hi, everyone and sorry for the late notice. Here’s the story.
About a week and a half ago, Amanda Loos and Mike Heathfield, as leaders of the Faculty Council and Assessment Committee, respectively, got an email from our VP (John Hader) saying that they were invited to a meeting to have a discussion about Reinvention with some reps from District to have a “Reinvention Conversation.” The invite went on to say, “The purpose of this session is to obtain feedback from staff about the Reinvention Initiative and areas which may not have been addressed yet. This will be a great opportunity to listen to specific recommendations from the HWC community.”
Discussion ensued among HWFC members (and between HWFC and the Assessment Committee) about a number of issues, with the primary one being whether we should attend at all. Finally, at this week’s HWFC meeting, we reached consensus that we should probably go, if only to pose our lingering unanswered questions as raised on the Lounge and in the Reinvention Faculty Forum that we hosted. We also decided to ask for clarification about why the update was not a faculty wide event and limited (again) to a narrow and obscurely selected range of faculty.
Basically the response was that the District Reps wanted to limit the number of people present “to allow for a conversation” to occur. With that said, I’m pretty sure that any and all interested faculty members (up to 15 to 20, anyway–which I am now told includes 7 already, leaving 8 to 13 spots) who either RSVP to Hader or just show up at 2:30 upstairs will be able to participate. For those who are not able to attend for various and sundry reasons, below you will find the tentative list of questions that I’ll be bringing to the meeting on behalf of Faculty Council. Please make any suggestions for revisions, deletions, or additions in the comments. You can expect an update here sometime tomorrow, at the latest.
~How, where, and when FT Task Force members will work?
~What will a PT role on a Task Force will entail (in terms of hours, location, load, etc.)?
~Faculty are concerned that the definition of student success being utilized and so institutionalized by the Reinvention Process is too narrow and not indicative of what it actually means to Succeed at the City Colleges. Will there be opportunity within or in conjunction with the Reinvention process to consider (and recognize) other forms of success, or alternatively make clear that the the established goals are some of and not the only forms of success realized by students?
~Can you clarify the administrative understanding of (and commitment to) the role of faculty in curriculum decisions with respect to standardization across the colleges and decision making (e.g., mandatory use of e-write, elimination of Chemistry 100, de-integration of English 100 and Reading 125)?
~What is the administrative perception of the weight of student responsibility and motivation with respect to our success with our students, and what are the plans for getting students educated and involved in the pursuit of the Reinvention goals?
~Who has responsibility for capturing data on jobs and job placement and how does the responsible party plan to go about doing it?
~What are the plans for closing the hole in our knowledge about the students who leave (and transfer) without degrees? Might this data be gathered by doing follow-up surveys of random samples, tracking transcripts, etc.?
~Faculty are very concerned about the temptation/attempt to try to quantify the human experience and/or learning and measure an educational institutions success by “output” of credentials when the credential is a symbol of institutional recognition of student success (and not of institutional success). Has administration considered undertaking qualitative research about student experiences to more validly investigate the institutional success in fulfilling its mission?
~Can faculty be confident in the administrations continued support for established and soon to be established partnerships with various groups and entities?