The Faculty Council met as scheduled. Items approved included:
- Faculty recommendations regarding roles and responsibilities under reorganization for the Deans, most-particularly as they pertain to scheduling and faculty evaluation.
- Formulating a standard assessment statement to be used on Form 335 unless the Department desires a more detailed plan. Adjuncts should have a copy of the 335 for each course they teach. As the college becomes more informed in the assessment process, I foresee adjunct needing to become more involved in the creation and execution of the assessment plans for their courses and programs.
- AP 663, Appeal of Academic Decisions, was approved and forwarded. One key related factor is the need for each faculty member to be very explicit in their syllabus regarding course schedules, required submissions, and grading criteria.
The Council President and the Vice President for Academic Affairs discussed challenges in the developing 2009-2010 HACC budget. Basically, there is a significant shortfall between what has been proposed and expected revenue. This is a work-in-progress, but one potential action item may be to raise and rigidly enforce minimum enrollment for each section. As we approach the summer and fall semesters, we may experience significant challenges both for full-time faculty achieving their minimum course loads, and in section availability for adjunct assignment. Each Department is undergoing a review process and development of courses of action to address this challenge. Each adjunct faculty member needs to be in communication with their Department Chair to be and remain informed, and be timely and flexible in responding to requests for input.
Dan Moseler
February 20, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
“Raising and rigidly enforcing minimum enrollment” as a way to save money (by not having to pay so many adjuncts?)could have a domino affect. You can pick whatever the cut-off number is, but since I don’t know what it is, I’ll use the number six. Say a typical prerequisite-type course has only six enrollees and it’s cancelled. Then say the next higher-level course also has six enrollees, and it too is cancelled. Had the first course not been cancelled and had the students passed and wanted to move on, then, instead of six for the next level, there might have been twelve. So, by canceling the first course for low enrollment, we potentially also lose the second course to low enrollment.
We are a school. If money must be saved, turning away students seems an odd place to start.