IEL TASK FORCE MEETING NOTES (draft) 1/18/05

IEL TASK FORCE MEETING NOTES (draft) 1/18/05

Present: Roxanne Beloit, Ellen Brown, Don Brunner, Toni Cummins, Karen Driscoll, Joe Dunlap, Marcus Jorgenson, Pat Lamb, Mike Mires, Scott Morgan (chair), Joanne Murcar, Pam Praeger, Jacque Rainer, Dixie Simmons, Colleen Straight, and Linda Uhden.

Guests: Carol Green, Terri McKenzie and Adrienne Tabar.

The meeting came to order at 2:30 p.m. in the Falls Conference Room at SFCC.

Review of January 4 Meeting Notes: Scott asked Joanne Murcar if the minutes from the last meeting are correct for the TECC mission subjects that were covered. Joanne will check and answer by 1/19. Joanne’s suggestions were received and incorporated.
IEL Ffaculty Issues (from a prior meeting): Pam Praeger asked for clarification on a few of the issues presented by Jacque Rainer regarding teaching on-line classes and course syllabi.

Jacque Rainer indicated that Colville has a number of faculty that have taken the course with Dana GarvelJane McCarville and are interested in teaching on-line. Pam explained that the procedure is 1) go through approval process, which means getting departmental approval; 2) if accepted, the instructor will be put on a list; and 3) instructors will teach when they reach the top of the list (this list maintained by WAOL). Pam asked that instructors contact Kyla Bates or Darrell Mihara.

Jacque asked about availability of class syllabi. Jacque explained Northern Counties’ instructors need these to make sure they are "in sync" with the SFCC instructors since the IEL instructors have been strongly encouraged to teach exactly what is taught on campus, especially lab classes. Also, IEL instructors are meeting outcomes standards. This is difficult without the class syllabi. Pam said syllabi are instructor specific, and IEL faculty were encouraged to consult with SFCC faculty. Pam suggested looking at outcomes on the M drive. There was a question about whether the M drive is available to the IEL faculty; that will be determined.. Also syllabi are instructor specific, and IEL faculty were encouraged to contact and consult with the relevant SFCC faculty if they want to get a copy. Pam stated that there are three voting members from IEL on the SFCC Curriculum and Graduation Requirements Committee (two faculty and an administrator) as well as Dixie Simmons.

Student Services Issues were discussed with a panel including Terri McKenzie, SCC, Carol Green, SFCC, and Adrienne Tabar, IEL.

Terri McKenzie made the following statements:

Terri’s recommendations based on how to best serve the students.
Terri passed around a Matrix of Student Services issues which includes:

Limits of accreditation, records and student care.
Internal state issues.
Internal politics.
Aaction items are directed by application/registration process.

Carol Green explained the following points:

Carol and Terri have discussed one-stop application and registration. and tThe matrix was a first attempt at identifying the points of contact that the student has with the institution and any challenges associated with combining procedures and processes.
While the IEL’s interest is in gaining flexibility to serve students, technology and administrative procedures limit flexibility, and in some instances, create burdensome processes.
Carol stated that while the IEL’s interest is in gaining flexibility to serve students without unduly burdensome processes, current technology and administrative processes often limit flexibility and in some instances create burdensome processes
Carol shared the cConcerns of herSFCC staff: :

Application/admission process; registration dates and times; non-credit registrations; advising; assessment; financial aid; and transcripting. Key concerns include different registration dates, different steps leading to registrations, different assessment cut-off scores and different advising. offered.
What is the standard?
Are we treating students three different ways (SFCC, SCC, and the IEL)?
.

Carol identified communication ias an ongoing problem and noted that the student services leadership a especiallyt betweenSFCC had expressed concern about what appears to be a decline in communication between ABE and SFCC. In addition, Ddisability support services need better communication are not as coordinated as they need to be between SFCC and the IEL, as does counseling. The chair of the counseling dept. at SFCC expressed feeling less connected to SFCC students at IEL cites. The international program staff wondered if there could bneeds better e better collaboracollaborationtion between the IEL ESL program and the SFCC IIntensive Language program.

Adrienne Tabar discussed the following issues:

three-way agreement among the institutions
seamless registration among the institutions
flexible and equitable access to financial aid

Other IEL issues include:

Federal authorities care about policy – colleges differ in the way those policies are applied.
Transcripting – SCC and SFCC differ in the way incoming credits are evaluated and when they are posted.
Administrative processes differ such as tuition due date cannot be the same day since the computer system cannot handle the load.
There needs to be communication between ABE/ESL and the district Intensive English Language program.

Adrienne explained how disciplinary action is taken at the IEL. Terri and Carol explained how the campuses are able to resolve many problems with a phone call.

3. What is in the best interest of students? Note: The minutesmeeting notes should reflect that some of these comments were made by Adrienne and others were general responses to questions asked.

a. tThree-way agreement with no gaps.

b. sSeamless registration including advising, assessment and registration.

c. pProcess for transfer students.

d. Fflexible and equitable access to Financial Aid.

e. nNeed staff/budget resources.

f. rRe-hosting may not solve all issues. CIS is not a priority may not be possible

g. sStaff need to have a more gracious response rather than "cCall or visit the other college."

5. Budget Issues: Pam discussed the budget issues with providing resources such as library services to the Northern Counties. Budgets were cut by the IEL; therefore, SFCC received fewer funds for these services,. wWhile IEL had expanded its sites needing support.

Scott Morgan pointed out that the reallocation of resources is not part of the IEL Task Force directive.

Carol Green reportedsaid that Ellen Brown has put together a document showing all the implications and areas to consider when implementing a new program.

6. Agreement: A discussion followed regarding whether or not an A6 agreement exists between the colleges. Scott pointed out that District 17 is not accredited—the colleges are as such. He suggested the committee return to the Oregon example and get out the A6 policy and the proposed SFCC/IEL agreement and review them at the next meeting. Pam will email the agreement to the group.

Next meeting: February 1, 2005, 2:30-4:30 p.m., SFCC, Falls Conference Room.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

O:\wkfiles\Chief Operations Officer\IEL Review\IEL Task Force\Meeting Notes\IEL Task Force meeting notes_011805_2.doc