June 02, 2016 Meeting
Agenda
Strategic Planning Committee Agenda
1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m., Thursday, June 2, 2016
Café Conference Room
1. IEPI Data
2. Program Review Criteria
Minutes
Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee
8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 2, 2016
Café Conference Room
Members Present: Primavera Arvizu, Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, John Carrithers,
Anthony Cordova, Agnes Eguaras, Greg Hawkins and Vicki Jacobi
Secretary: Brandy Young
IEPI Data
The SPC has selected the eight indicators that the college will adopt as goals for
the 2016/17 year. The goals will be presented to the Board on June 15, 2016. The indicators
will be uploaded to the Institutional Research website. Some areas of discussion regarding
next steps were:
– Further discussion will need to take place to decide who “does what and when.”
– When do the numbers get produced? Where does it go and who works with it?
– Build the process.
– How does all this information fit in with the larger picture of our planning efforts?
– How will we see the data and the trends and what does it mean to people?
– Display what the report shows us (website).
– Required now by the Chancellor’s office – it’s ongoing.
– These measures and indicators are also required for 3SP funding. Every October the
3SP plan is do for the year.
– Including data with program review may be helpful.
– It was recommended that detailed reporting take place on each indicator. For example:
Math Remedial rates – Numbers, list of activities (program review), resources that
were used, here’s the number before, the number after, how many students were impacted
and then a conclusion to inform the next cycle/iteration pushing it out to six years.
– Engage others – Math faculty, Governance Council, Divisions.
– Eric will identify who will be the main department/program associated with each
indicator.
– At the start of the program review process, those within the department/program
will be addressed.
– The table of indicators will be on the IR website. The indicators can be linked
to a report and the information behind the indicator. For example: Math Remedial –
5 year trends of the data and definitions. (Similar to the Strategic Action Plan objectives
webpage).
– Expand the functionality of the data so that it becomes useful in decision making
and informing/monitoring.
– Some of the recommended departments/programs identified for the indicators were
as follows:
– Indicators 1 and 7 = Basic Skills – Basic Skills program review – The individuals
involved would be Agnes Eguaras, Primavera Arvizu and Lori Sundgren. Look at the BSI,
Transformational Plan, and the QSF outcomes. Identify activities that should happen
in English and Math classes to improve as well as how Student Services would be involved.
Identify what resources are needed and include all of this information in the program
review.
– Indicators 2 and 8 – Office of Instruction and Student Services
– Indicator 3 – Office of the Superintendent/President – Should document in program
review what is currently being done to meet the Standards.
– Indicator 6 – Business Services/Administrative Services
– Indicator 5 – Budget committee/Administrative Services
Program Review Criteria
The Committee had a discussion on how to improve the Program Review process by introducing
updated criteria for ranking as well as feedback. It has been stated that feedback
from certain committees is needed in order to close the loop in the process. Some
key points of discussion were:
– There is a need to improve the value of the ranking of program goals.
– Ranking is a snap shot/a point in time.
– One idea shared was to come up with criteria at a detailed level then use the criteria
for ranking.
– Criteria should be tied to planning and outcomes.
– The criteria should be based on the plans we have in place; the Equity Plan, Facilities
Plan, 3SP, Strategic Plan, and others. What do all of these plans have in common and
what do they ask for?
– The annual program review process should have criteria to help more explicitly tie
the results to planning.
– There seems to be a disconnect between the program review goals and the goals of
the plans we have.
– More training should be provided to Program Leads to help them align their program
review goals with the goals of the plans.
– Funding should be based on the criteria that is decided upon by the SPC and the
Governance Council.
– Criteria should be based on institutional goals.
– Program review goals are not currently being reviewed. By the time the goal forms
are submitted, the deadline has passed. No feedback is given.
– A checklist should be used to review program reviews and goal forms for accuracy
and content.
– Feedback should come from the SPC, planning committees and administration offices.
All should be looking at draft program reviews.
– Feedback from committees should be completed by February.
– Each committee could fill out a progress report that could feed back to the program
review process.
– The goal form could have a checklist for each committee that it may pertain to.
If the program lead would like feedback from that committee they could “check the
box.” The program goal form and program review could then be funneled to that committee
for review and feedback. More than one committee could be chosen.
– Some of the more specific criteria may be used in comprehensive program review.
– It was stated that there is a challenge in ensuring the content of the program reviews
is meaningful. Some Program Leads still struggle with reporting out on SAO, SLO and
PEM data. Adding additional information to report out on may be difficult and training
will be needed. Comprehensive program review may be a better time to introduce committee
feedback. Looking at feedback over time could show trends.
– It was suggested that a web based form be used in order to track feedback and program
reviews.
– It was stated that IEPI funds may be used for technology, training and consulting.
– The Committee will have further discussion on how to utilize the IEPI funding.
Action Item: Discussion regarding committee feedback and program review criteria will
continue at the special subcommittee meeting on June 8, 2016.
OTHER
IEPI Plan – Professional Development and Activities
Darcy gave a brief update on the IEPI Plan and what action has taken place. The Professional
Development Committee met on May 19th. It was suggested that a subcommittee be formed
that included members from the Strategic Planning Committee, SLO/ASC and Professional
Development Committee. This subcommittee would start the conversation regarding what
activities should take place to meet the IEPI Plan goal of one year. It was stated
that the IEPI Plan will be posted to the IR website using the same table format as
the Strategic Action Plan objectives status reports. Each of the cells within the
table will include links documenting the activities that are taking place to meet
the IEPI Plan goals.
Strategic Action Plan Status Updates
Champions are currently working on their SAP objective status reports. These will
be sent to Brandy soon. Brandy will continue to upload the reports to the IR website.
Substantive Change for Golf Program
A Step 1 form should be submitted for the new Golf programs. Eric needs the information
from either the Office of Instruction or the Division Chair. Darcy will follow up
on this.
Integrated Planning Model Update
There was a phone meeting with JP Marketing. This project is underway. Darcy will
follow up with JP to see how the progress is coming along.
Next Meeting: June 8, at 8:00 a.m. in the Café Conference room
Respectfully Submitted by Brandy Young