Menu
Academic Governing Council
Current Work
The current work of the AGC is largely done through standing committees (see Bylaws) and workgroups organized around top issues. GRCC faculty and staff can also use the Issue Proposal Form. Issues that are considered and approved by the AGC are worked on during worksessions, committee meetings and through Blackboard®. Some of this work is described below.
Ethics
Contact: Mike Vargo
Issue - AGC investigates their role in the development of GRCC Ethics protocol and procedures. Attached are the Issue Paper and two supportive documents: The Ethics Statement prepared by the Process Based Management Ethics group and the Faculty Code of Ethics housed within the Instructional Materials and Methods documentation.
Sustainability Initiative
Contact: Gary Burbridge and Tom Smith
Presentation of Sustainability Initiative issue paper on reducing energy costs at GRCC through a program developed by Energy Education, Inc. On February 13, 2007, Gary Burbridge and the Sustainability Team led a discussion regarding the six objectives within the Education section of the GRCC Sustainability Plan (see Goal 1: Education).
Prior Learning Assessment
Contact: Judy Stark and Mike Kiss
This Powerpoint presentation outlines the features of the pilot. Here are questions for consideration.
Mission and Vision
Contact: Donna Kragt
The AGC executive team will lead discussion regarding the latest drafts of the Mission and Vision. Two drafts of the mission and vision are presented for your review and input. Please share this document to collect additional feedback from your constituents.
Children on Campus and in the Classroom
Contact: Fiona Hert
Issue - Currently delineated in Faculty contract- "Faculty members shall not allow unauthorized persons in their classes for more than one (1) class session. Unauthorized persons are those who have no evidence of having paid their tuition" (Article 6.E.1). From Academic Senate Minutes of October 18, 2006, “…the policy needs to be more specific – parents bringing children to the classroom is a good example – bringing a child to the classroom could fall under this policy to some of our students. The group agreed that addressing children in the classroom is something that needs to be done, liability is a big concern here, but also agreed that this policy could get sticky…”
Committee Action - The Committee Action Form, Children in the Classroom Examples, and Final Children on Campus and in the Classroom documents are on the October 10, 2006 agenda.
Academic Service-Learning Advisory Council
Contact: Wayne Sneath
Issue - The issue is the creation of an Academic Service-Learning Advisory Council. It is here proposed that this Council be formed and become a standing committee of the AGC. The formal connection with AGC is necessary because of the use of academic service-learning (ASL) throughout the curriculum and because ASL is one of the most systemic ways the academic area connects with and serves the community, and the way community partners connect with us to support student learning.
Prerequisites
Contact: Dana Sammons Laurie Chesley
Issue - Defining and enforcing prerequisites has been discussed at GRCC for years. The Provost asked the former Academic Senate to consider the issues and make recommendations. As a result, the Senate asked the Curriculum Committee to prepare a Position Paper.
Committee Action - Four support documents (AGC Action Form Prerequisites, AGC Prerequisites - Attachment A, AGC Prerequisites - Attachment B and PreReq Pilot Study-- June 2006) will guide the Prerequisite work group discussion as the group seeks eventual AGC approval for a policy regarding course prerequisites. Here's the slide presentation made on the AGC recommendations during the September 26, 2006 meeting.
Vote - Review the AGC Prerequisite Recommendations Summary before the October 10, 2006 meeting. Slides will be used to facilitate "Prerequisites - Feedback, Discussion, and Vote."
Raider Card Building Access Policy
Contact: Bob Partridge
Issue - GRCC Vice Presidents and CLC are currently attempting policy revision to increase full-time faculty access to buildings during off hours. Increased access has become possible due to the expansion of the Raider Card system. As a result, I have requested AGC discussion time to help create a test-case policy to increase full-time faculty access through the use of the Raider Card. Faculty input is necessary before any formal policy is implemented. This process could also serve as model for greater collaboration between AGC and the VP’s (CLC) in future policy decisions that impact academics in a direct way.
Action - The Building Access Raider Card 14.14 Draft and Key Raider Card Agreement help to outline a input item lead by Bob Partridge. Bob will introduce the proposed Raider Card Building Access policy and address concerns raised in the attached Issue paper. During our meeting AGC members will be able to provide input regarding the policy.
Process-Based Management
Contact: Donna Kragt
Process-based management is one of the components in the GRCC Performance Excellence Model. We have identified 101 key processes college-wide. These processes are organized under our five focus areas: Develop Learners, Manage Programs and Services, Lead and Manage People, Build Community Relationships and Manage Financial Performance.
Action - Beginning in Summer 2006, we are systematically improving all key process six at a time. Process teams work together over a 6-week period to document and improve each process. A report was provided to the AGC on September 12, 2006.
General Education Assessment
Contact: James Chesla
Assessment of General Learner Outcomes (GLO) was conducted at the orientation and exit-level during 2005-06. The General Education Assessment Team is also planning GLO Forums, as well as reviewing CARP at the GLO level. The AGC has asked for a report that includes the details of these assessments, as well as an outline of future plans.
Committee Action - Report to the AGC provided on September 12, 2006.
New Course Approval Process
Contact: Steve Abid
Issue - The procedures for the Course Approval Process were in need of revision in order to facilitate greater departmental and cross college input. Many hours of time at multiple levels including school meetings and Deans Council were being spent in the review of new course approvals. Many times meeting time was reduced to “wordsmithing” the CARP. The composition and editing of the CARP which could have been facilitated with the assistance of the
Committee Action - The committee proposes the Final Draft of the Course Approval Process. AGC will vote May 9, 2006.
Decision - AGC approved the New Course Approval Process and New Course Approval Committee (subcommittee of AGC) Make-up. A New Course Approval page has been added to the AGC site.
Grade Grievance Process
Contact: Steve Abid
Issue - There are problems with the current Academic Grievance Process. The Academic Grievance Process is lacking in clarity and efficiency. This process is also lacking in impartiality. A new process should also reduce the time spent on cases without merit. This issue impacts all students with a grade complaint and the faculty to whom the complaints are directed. In addition the respective Department Heads, Assistant Deans and potential Ad Hoc Committee members would be impacted.
Committee Action - The Deans’ Council subcommittee reviewed the existing policy with the goal to make it more clear, efficient, and impartial. The committee reviewed the grade grievance policies of League for Innovation Vanguard Community Colleges, as well as the recommendations of the American Association of University Professors. The committee also discussed its collective experiences at GRCC with the existing Academic Grievance Process. The committee recommends adoption of the Grade Grievance Policy as revised. Draft 5 is now available.
Academic Foundations Program
Contact: Cindy Martin
Issue - At first glance, we might say that just those students who enroll in the AFP program (in most cases, those students who matriculate with an ACT composite score of 15 or lower and those whose Accuplacer scores place them into at least one AFP course) are the only students affected. The hidden scope of this problem, however, is the impact that our AFP program as a whole—that is, how we identify our developmental education students and how we support their learning once they’re identified─impacts the entire institution. If students are failing, dropping out, or are not establishing successful learning and success strategies in their AFP courses, they will drop out, or fall behind as they move forward into college-level coursework. A proposal was also submitted.
Committee Action - The AFP Proposal Synopsis will be discussed at the March 28, 2006 AGC meeting. The AFP Goals and Objectives will be discussed at the April 25, 2006 meeting.
Academic Integrity
Contact: Laurie Chesley
Issue - Academic integrity/dishonesty is one of the most discussed topics in higher education today. Statistics on the frequency of academic dishonesty are staggering. Most obviously, faculty, students, and administrators are impacted by this issue. However, when academic integrity/dishonesty is not addressed in a thoughtful and systematic way by an institution of higher learning, the reputation of the institution as a whole can be impacted.
Anecdotally, many faculty and administrators report wishing that there were greater clarity about the College’s policies and procedures related to academic integrity/dishonesty. The fact that this issue placed #4 AGC survey demonstrates its importance to faculty and administrators. Arguably, it is difficult to become a Learning College if academic integrity is not upheld; academic integrity is essential to learning.
Committee Action - Issue will be scheduled for consideration at the March 14, 2006 AGC meeting.
Title III Grant Proposal
Contact: Judith Larsen
Issue - The Title III Planning Team is preparing to submit a federal Department of Education Title III grant proposal. The focus of the proposal is to improve academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability in order to increase student retention and graduation rates. The grant awards an average of $300,000/year for up to 5 years. The Title III development team is seeking affirmation from the AGC to pursue the institutional goals outlined in the Title III proposal.
Committee Action - Issue will be scheduled for consideration at the March 14, 2006 AGC meeting.
IIPD Revisions
Contact: Bill Jacoby
Issue - The Instructional Improvement and Professional Development (IIPD) Committee has been meeting with the new GRCC Foundation staff person, Judith Larson, to enhance the guidelines for IIPD applications, submission, review and award issuance. Now, the guidelines need to be formalized and some documents changed as a result of the guidelines changes.
Committee Action - The IIPD Committee asks that the Academic Governing Council of GRCC approve the attached guidelines and forms changes.
Decision - Guidelines and form changes approved as submitted during the February 28, 2006 AGC meeting. Decision Form submitted and approved by Provost 3/13/06.
Dissent - None
Update - Revised guidelines were considered by AGC on February 13, 2007.
LET and Assessment as Standing Committees
Contact: Kate Byerwalter
Issue - The assignment of standing committees within AGC to include already existing committees, such as the Learning Environment Team, and Assessment Team. The LET, Assessment team and the AGC are affected by this issue. All faculty are impacted by the work of these committees, so AGC needs to be connected with them to be aware and involved in the decisions made.
Committee Action - Discussion of merging LET and Assessment efforts with AGC was held during the February 28, 2006 meeting. A motion was made to include these two teams.
Decision - AGC voted to add the LET and existing General Education Assessment Team (see February 28, 2006 minutes).
Dissent - None
2672 page hits and 2331 unique visits since 02-14-06
Updated on 20-DEC-07
Edit this page
| View text only version