June 08, 2016 Meeting
Agenda
This is a special meeting of the SPC. The topic of discussion will be Program Review Criteria and Feedback Loops.
Minutes
Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee
Special Meeting – Subcommittee
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Café Conference Room
Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Agnes JEguaras, and Mark Williams
Secretary: Brandy Young
Continued Discussion – Program Review Criteria and Feedback Loops
A subcommittee of the SPC has been developed and will meet over the summer to continue
the work on creating criteria for program review. The objective of this idea would
be to fix the problem element of ranking program goals and to close the loop in program
review. It has been stated that the current process of ranking is a “snap shot in
time” and is not as useful in tying planning to budgeting decisions for administrators.
The goal is to have criteria for all planning groups that would provide feedback to
program leads and also score program reviews and goals using a rubric. This feedback
and scoring would provide the administrators with meaningful information.
Points of discussion were:
– Progress has been made to improve the program review process.
o The annual timeline was compressed to 12 months.
o The program review templates/forms were updated to be more inclusive of non-instructional
programs by generalizing the fields within the form for a broader base of data reporting.
– The original process was designed to provide copious amounts of feedback to program
leads. Division Chairs and VPs were to provide feedback to program leads after reviewing
all program reviews within their areas. Once these two points of contact happened,
the program reviews would be scored by the Governance Council using a rubric with
criteria that was approved by the Governance Council and developed by the SPC.
– The SPC is a recommending body; a subcommittee of the Governance Council. The SPC
develops processes and takes these processes as recommendations to the Governance
Council for approval/disapproval. A concern was expressed that the SPC should not
implement new processes without approval of the Governance Council.
– It was stated that program review feedback has been minimal, but it has been minimal
because people have not been following the process as intended.
– A proposal was made to create a matrix that would show all planning committee ranking/scoring
of program review goals. This would decentralize the
ranking/review process. This would provide guidance to administrators when making
budgeting decisions.
– The matrix would list out all major planning documents and those who are involved
with those documents. Some areas would be:
o Professional Development – Professional Development Plan
o SLO/ASC – SLO Guide
o Distance Education – Distance Education Plan
o Academic Development Committee – Basic Skills Plan
o Curriculum
o SSSP
o Access – Equity
o Success
o Technology Committee – Technology Master Plan
o Other
– These areas would use the same criteria that the Governance Council uses.
– The rubric that is used for scoring will be strengthened with updated criteria.
It was suggested that two individuals be included in the conversation for their expertise;
Geoffrey Dyer and Vicki Jacobi.
– The criteria will be based on the planning goals of the committees and the institution.
– Scores from planning committees will be entered in to a matrix that can be used
for budgeting and decision making.
– The matrix can be web based, (created by JP Marketing). Funding for development
may come from IEPI funds.
– The details of who would maintain and coordinate the efforts of the planning committees
and data collection for the matrix have not been decided upon.
Next Meeting: July 6, at 2:30 p.m. in the Café Conference room
Respectfully Submitted by Brandy Young