Equivalence at MPC Goals: 1.Articulate to the MPC community the expectations for granting equivalency to faculty applicants 2.Clearly define roles and.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Minimum Qualifications and Equivalence David Morse, Wheeler North Faculty Leadership Institute Spring.
Advertisements

Who Should we be Hiring? Minimum Qualifications? Recommended Qualifications? Dianna Chiabotti, Chair, Basic Skills Committee Michelle Pilati, Vice President,
Academic Senate Update Mark Wade Lieu President. Course Identifier Project (C-ID) Statewide Career Pathways (SCP) Lower Division Transfer Pattern (LDTP)
1 Equivalence to the Minimum Qualifications A Presentation for the State Academic Senate Fall 2006 Plenary By Greg Gilbert, State Academic Senate for California.
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty A Discussion of What Is and What Might Be.
Slide 1 Jail, Prison, or Parole? Assigning Courses to Disciplines Kevin Parker, Michelle Pilati, Randy Lawson.
Training for Implementation of CEC§ Creating AA-T and AS-T (SB 1440 Transfer Degrees) Spring 2011 February 1, 2011.
Information Competency: an overview Prepared by: Erlinda Estrada Judie Smith Mission College Library Santa Clara, CA.
18 Units in the Major: Too Many or Too Few? Beth Smith, Chair, Counseling Library Faculty Issues Committee Janice Johnson, Grossmont College Miles Vega,
Navigating Through the Challenges of Minimum Qualifications and Equivalency Randy Beach, Representative At Large Craig Rutan, Area D Representative 2015.
Coding to Ensure Quality – Deciphering Minimum Qualifications and Equivalence Dan Crump, American River College Michelle Pilati, Rio Hondo College.
The Disciplines List: An Overview Academic Senate for CA Community Colleges Leadership Institute Minimum Qualifications Placement of Courses in Disciplines.
Illinois Community College Board DUAL CREDIT: Proposed Rule Revisions & Updates.
The Pressure Cooker of Equivalencies and Eminence Adrienne Foster, West Los Angeles College Craig Rutan, Santiago Canyon College Paul Setziol, De Anza.
Co-op at PCC Sylvania Co-op Task Force Findings and Recommendations.
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges The Basis for Faculty Power: Title 5 Regulations and Education Code Mark Lieu, Vice President Jane Patton,
Adapted from a presentation by Mark Lieu Academic Senate for California Community Colleges - Leadership Institute 2006 Academic Senate for California Community.
A Presentation to Early Childhood Educators Spring 2010 The Academic Senate + You.
Michelle Grimes-Hillman, South Representative Cynthia Rico, South Representative FACULTY LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE JUNE 11-13, 2015 SAN JOSE Empowering Local.
1 Effective Senates: The Key Ingredients of Collegial Consultation Angelica Bangle, Chris Hill, Wheeler North, Beverly Reilly, Cheryl Stewart.
Bases for Academic Senates: What Are We And What Are Our Roles? Craig Rutan, Area D Representative Cynthia Rico, South Representative.
Hiring and Evaluation Processes: Building Future Successes Paul Starer and Lesley Kawaguchi Leadership Institute Hayes Mansion, San Jose, CA June 16, 2007.
Duke Ellington “A problem is a chance for you to do your best.”
EMPOWERING LOCAL SENATES Kevin Bontenbal, South Representative Stephanie Dumont, Area D Representative.
The Who, What, Where, and When of Equivalency Michelle Grimes-Hillman, ASCCC Curriculum Committee Chair Kale Braden, ASCCC North Representative Los Medanos.
Craig Rutan, Curriculum and Instruction Council Chair 2013 Fall Academic Senate Retreat.
Prerequisites and Content Review ASCCC Curriculum Committee July 2011.
1 Am I Qualified for this Job? (Minimum Qualifications for Faculty or Management at a CCC) Presented by Sandra Lindoerfer and Rich Ghidella Citrus Community.
Jane Patton, President, ASCCC Lisa Legohn, LA Trade Tech.
Criminal Intent – Innate or Learned? Why We Do What We Do Ian Walton and Michelle Pilati.
Setting High Professional Standards Eminence, Minimum Qualifications and Learning Assistance Spring Plenary Session 2009.
Minimum Qualifications, Equivalence and Faculty Service Areas Bob Cosgrove, Dave Degroot, Wheeler North Standards and Practices Committee Academic Senate.
Minimum Qualifications, Equivalence and Faculty Service Areas Jon Drinnon, Michelle Grimes-Hillman, Wheeler North Standards and Practices Committee Leadership.
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges ­– Leadership Institute 2008 Basics for Effective Senates Shaaron Vogel Wheeler North Academic Senate.
Prerequisites Changed My Life ASCCC Fall Plenary Session November 2013 Greg Burchett, Riverside City College John Stanskas, San Bernardino Valley College.
Minimum Qualifications and Equivalence Carlos Arce, Yolanda Bellisimo, David Morse Standards and Practices Committee Academic Senate for California Community.
The New Mission Frontier: The Community College Baccalaureate Degree Pilot John Stanskas, ASCCC Executive Committee Jolena Grande, Cypress College Jackie.
Placement of Courses in Disciplines Dan Crump, American River College Michelle Grimes-Hillman, Mt San Antonio College ASCCC Curriculum Institute, July.
INSTRUCTIONAL ACADEMIC STAFF PROMOTION DENISE EHLEN, ASSEMBLY CHAIR CURT WEBER, PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR.
Local Leadership: Do You Know How to Hire Effectively? Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Leadership Institute.
2010 Faculty Leadership Institute Local Senates & Curriculum Committees Richard Mahon, Area D Beth Smith, Treasurer.
GIVE YOUR CURRICULUM PROCESS A TUNE-UP: MAKING CURRICULUM PROCESSES EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT John Freitas, Los Angeles City College Michael Heumann, Imperial.
Minimum Qualifications, Equivalence and Faculty Service Areas Dave DeGrout, Cheryl Aschenback, Jon Drinnon Standards and Practices Committee Academic Senate.
2011 ASCCC Curriculum Institute Marriott Mission Valley, San Diego July 14-16, 2011 Assigning Courses to Disciplines: Curriculum Opportunities Dianna Chiabotti,
Hiring and Evaluation Processes Greg Granderson & Pat James Hanz.
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty in the California Community Colleges April 21, 2016 Spring Plenary Session John Stanskas, ASCCC Secretary Sylvia Dorsey-Robinson,
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty in the California Community Colleges May 5, 2016 CTE Leadership Academy John Stanskas, ASCCC Secretary.
PRESENTERS: DR. DAREN OTTEN YUBA COLLEGE JOHN STANSKAS SAN BERNARDINO COLLEGE FACILITATOR: DONNA DAVIS BUTTE COLLEGE Workforce Taskforce Recommendations.
Minimum Qualifications and the Disciplines List Michelle Sampat, Mt. San Antonio College Lisa Cook, Laney College John Stanskas, ASCCC Executive Committee.
The New Mission Frontier: The Community College Baccalaureate Degree Pilot Review of Resolutions John Stanskas, ASCCC Executive Committee Cheryl Aschenbach,
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty in the California Community Colleges May 5, 2016 CTE Leadership Academy Pre-Conference Session John Stanskas, ASCCC.
Navigating Through the Challenges of Minimum Qualifications and Equivalency John Freitas, Treasurer Craig Rutan, Area D Representative 2016 Faculty Leadership.
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty in the California Community Colleges April 13, 2016 Webinar John Stanskas, ASCCC Secretary.
Advanced Writing Requirement Proposal
Explaining and Communicating Faculty Purview over Curriculum to Board Members and External Stakeholders Larry Galizio, Community College League of California.
Minimum Qualifications and Equivalence
Dual enrollment WEBINAR May 22, :15 – 3:00
HLC
Rebecca Eikey, ASCCC Area C Representative Ginni May, ASCCC Treasurer
CTE Minimum Qualifications and Equivalency basics
Prerequisites and Content Review
Assigning Courses to Disciplines: Curriculum Opportunities
Untangling the knots -Minimum qualifications, Placing courses within disciplines, and other fun stuff Rebecca Eikey, ASCCC Area C Representative Sam Foster,
10+1 Governance and Union Issues: Similarities and Differences
Erosion of Senate Authority Over Curriculum?
Faculty Leadership Institute, June 17, 2017, Sacramento Sheraton
Standards, Equity, Access, and Practices (SEAP) Committee
Trustees and Curriculum streamlining
Spring Plenary Session, Westin San Francisco Airport
Cheryl Aschenbach, ASCCC Secretary
Presentation transcript:

Equivalence at MPC Goals: 1.Articulate to the MPC community the expectations for granting equivalency to faculty applicants 2.Clearly define roles and responsibilities in the equivalency process  Division and Department Chairs  Equivalency Committee  Human Resources Personnel

Where We Are Now:  Review by AAAG Progress So Far:  Draft expectations developed by the equivalency committee  Forms reviewed and revised by the equivalency committee  Approved by the Academic Senate Tasks for the Future:  Communication to the MPC Community  Review and revision of MPC Board Policy Equivalence at MPC

 A district may hire a person who “possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent to the [state] minimum qualifications.” “The process, as well as criteria and standards…shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by …the [local] governing board and the [local] academic senate.” (Title 5, section 53430) What is Equivalency?  We are currently reviewing our “criteria and standards”

Why Is Equivalency Important?  One way to ensure the quality of instruction  Budget-minded legislators and/or regulators can “attack” certain credit courses and suggest that they be moved to non- credit or community service through the qualifications of the instructor  Best strategy is to have rigorous hiring and equivalency policies

Kinds of Minimum Qualifications 1.Disciplines requiring a masters degree  Mostly transfer  Specific requirements developed by the BoG in consultation with the State Academic Senate 2.Disciplines not requiring a masters degree  Mostly CTE  Associates + 6 years experience or Bachelors + 2 years exp.  Specific requirements developed by the BoG in consultation with the State Academic Senate  Remember, all degrees—masters and non-masters—require both discipline (the major) and general education aspects.

A Note on Disciplines Not Requiring a Masters Degree (CTE)  Spring 2010 ASCCC Resolution  “There is no equivalent to the AA Degree”  This resolution failed resoundingly  Many in the CTE fields do not have AA Degrees  Proponents argued that college faculty should have college degrees

Minimum Quals Do’s and Don’ts  Does enable one to be hired by the district to serve as faculty  Ensures discipline knowledge  Doesn’t mean the applicant has the ability to teach or serve  Covered by the hiring process  Doesn’t mean the applicant should be hired  Does mean that discipline knowledge is but one part of what a successful faculty member needs

Kinds of Equivalency  Full Minimum Qualifications  Encouraged by the state Academic Senate (ASCCC)  Desired by MPC Equivalency Committee  Enables faculty member to teach throughout the discipline  Always used for full-time, tenure-track applicants  “Single Course”  Title 5, Section 53430: "No one may be hired to serve as a community college faculty unless the governing board determines that he or she possesses qualifications that are at least equivalent to the minimum qualifications specified."  ASCCC maintains there is no such thing as a "single course equivalency  2003 legal opinion by Chancellor’s Office General Counsel Ralph Black

More on Single Course Equivalency  Still offered by MPC  Called “Selected Courses Equivalency”  Used for adjuncts, never for full-time  MPC is rural and cannot always attract fully qualified applicants  MPC must still address its mission  MPC Equivalency Committee would like to grant as few of these as possible  What differences in expectations between full equivalency and Selected Course Equivalency should be established?

What about Eminence? The idea that if somebody is “eminent” they can be hired as faculty  No longer exists in Title 5  Definition is problematical = a big can of worms  ASCCC Spring 2009 Resolution  Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges conclude that eminence may no longer be used as the sole criterion to qualify faculty when evaluating minimum qualifications during the faculty hiring process;

MPC Interpretation of Eminence Eminence is recognized as professional experience  Candidates with appropriate professional experience (2 to 6 years) are eminent in their CTE disciplines  “Eminent” candidates should be able to demonstrate how aspects of their professional experience are equivalent to  GE degree requirements in CTE disciplines  Major degree requirements in Transfer disciplines  All candidates must have taken at least some GE courses

MPC Criteria and Standards Expectations focus on differences between:  Full Equivalency and Selected Courses  Process  Discipline expertise  Disciplines that require a masters degree (transfer) and those that don’t (CTE)  How applicant obtained the GE portion of the degree

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency General Considerations Person responsible for most of the application paperwork The applicant The department or division chair Courses the instructor can teach All in the discipline Only those specified on the application Additional requirementsNone Must demonstrate that a search for a fully qualified or equivalent candidate was not successful Discipline or major part of the degree Full Equivalency according to the “Minimum Qualifications Handbook” Expertise more narrowly focused than implied by the minimum qualifications Differences between full and specific courses equivalency focus on process and discipline expertise.

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency General Considerations Person responsible for most of the application paperwork The applicant The department or division chair Courses the instructor can teach All in the discipline Only those specified on the application Additional requirementsNone Must demonstrate that a search for a fully qualified or equivalent candidate was not successful Discipline or major part of the degree Full Equivalency according to the “Minimum Qualifications Handbook” Expertise more narrowly focused than implied by the minimum qualifications

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency General Considerations Person responsible for most of the application paperwork The applicant The department or division chair Courses the instructor can teach All in the discipline Only those specified on the application Additional requirementsNone Must demonstrate that a search for a fully qualified or equivalent candidate was not successful Discipline or major part of the degree Full Equivalency according to the “Minimum Qualifications Handbook” Expertise more narrowly focused than implied by the minimum qualifications This is new Not yet implemented

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency General Considerations Person responsible for most of the application paperwork The applicant The department or division chair Courses the instructor can teach All in the discipline Only those specified on the application Additional requirementsNone Must demonstrate that a search for a fully qualified or equivalent candidate was not successful Discipline or major part of the degree Full Equivalency according to the “Minimum Qualifications Handbook” Expertise more narrowly focused than implied by the minimum qualifications MPC Equivalency Committee has carefully granted full equivalency only to those applicants who have clearly obtained the equivalent to a masters degree. This is new Not yet implemented

MPC Criteria and Standards Expectations focus on differences between:  Full Equivalency and Selected Courses  Process  Discipline expertise  Disciplines that require a masters degree (transfer) and those that don’t (CTE)  How applicant obtained the GE portion of the degree

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency For disciplines that require a Masters degree or equivalent The GE part of the degree Completion of a GE program at the Associates or Bachelors level Completion of a GE program at the Associates or Bachelors level For disciplines that require an Associate degree (Assoc + 6 yrs exp. or Bach + 2yrs exp.) Expectations for the GE part of the degree Completion of, or full equivalency to the GE part of the degree Methods to obtain equivalency to the GE part of the degree GE courses plus or minus professional experience Expectations of Full and Specific Course equivalency are the same in this section

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency For disciplines that require a Masters degree or equivalent The GE part of the degree Completion of a GE program at the Associates or Bachelors level For disciplines that require an Associate degree (Assoc + 6 yrs exp. or Bach + 2yrs exp.) Expectations for the GE part of the degree Completion of, or full equivalency to the GE part of the degree Methods to obtain equivalency to the GE part of the degree GE courses plus or minus professional experience No equivalent to the GE program for the masters disciplines

Full Equivalency to Minimum Qualifications Specific Courses Equivalency For disciplines that require a Masters degree or equivalent The GE part of the degree Completion of a GE program at the Associates or Bachelors level For disciplines that require an Associate degree (Assoc + 6 yrs exp. or Bach + 2yrs exp.) Expectations for the GE part of the degree Completion of, or full equivalency to the GE part of the degree Methods to obtain equivalency to the GE part of the degree GE courses plus or minus professional experience Equivalency to the GE program for non-masters disciplines

Roles and Responsibilities  Division and Department Chairs  Understand equivalency expectations  Read applications carefully  Endorse qualifications of applicants via signature (we’d like improvement here)  Equivalency Committee  Approves applications to assure equitable and consistent implementation of processes  Communicates final approval or disapproval to HR and Divisions  HR Department  Distributes appropriate forms  Brings applications to equivalency committee  Advises applicants on the need for equivalency applications  Does not make decisions on equivalency applications

Equivalency  This is a subtle and complex process  It needs your careful consideration and thoughtful comments  Thank You!