College Council May 15 – Lightfoot’s unofficial notes

Posted on May 15, 2012 by Robb

Executive Summary

We met Jessica Nestelroad, our new student representative. Frank Nigro explained the program improvement and discontinuance process that has been used to evaluate the AgVet Tech program. He provided supporting documentation, too, that spoke to underlying issues. The PICs recommendation to discontinue the AgVet Tech program will now advance to Cabinet. Morris previewed the projected budget numbers that will go before the Budget Committee tomorrow. He praised the hard work of all the people who helped shave more than $270,000 from our expenses. We accepted several committee reports, and reviewed our summer meeting schedule to do the work required by accreditation. Cathy shared a seven-point rubric on evaluating how we are doing with Institutional Integration of SLOs. Marc reviewed a survey he will soon distribute to assess our recent area planning process.

SLO Rubric From Cathy and cover by Barbara Beno

Frank Nigro – Memo to discontinue AgVetTech S12

Supporting Documentation – Ag Vet Program

College Council – Raw Notes

5-15

Called to order at 3:03

Public Comment –

Jessica Nestelroad was welcomed as our new student rep, and an incoming officer on the Student Senate.

We have been asked to move 4e up and look at the program discontinuance.  Frank and Eva need to be at a 3:30 meeting.

PIC has gone through a newly adopted procedure.

Joe – The new, six-page procedure the plan is forwarded to College Council

Frank asked to speak to the process, he handed out AP 4020. PIC considered April 16 and returned on May 2nd.

Frank ran down the membership on who is on the committee. Two deans and four faculty members. He noted that at the top of page 5, the council gets a recommendation within two weeks. Hence the memo.

Frank said that the Program Improvement Committee looked at AgVet Tech 4/16, returned on 5/2 and were here today to answer questions.

Peggy – first she wanted to note that the committee that drafted the proposal. As with the area plans and annual review. We wanted to beta test this process before we went anywhere else with it. To see what it would look like when we took it through the process. At both of the meetings, they tried to get the committee to focus on the process and put things in or take them out. The spotted problems, and worked to address them. Peggy said that we didn’t know what it would look like when you put a program through this. This needs to be understood. For example, there was some consideration whether the curriculum committee—which does all the course approval—but that wasn’t in the process. So, they may want to talk about this. The committee that developed the process by looking at two programs is accredited. We wanted to look at that. The other was a program in career technical, that one was pulled back for now.

Cathy said there are two separate things, given that we have the guests for just 30 minutes, we should focus on the particulars of this program rather that the general questions of Program Review.

Prior to the meeting, I had pressed Frank on why this was selected. It appeared that the program hadn’t been identified as an at-risk program under the old paradigm. Frank noted that I was speaking of an old process. I said I realized that, but I wanted to make sure this wasn’t seen as a random act. Shortly before the meeting, Frank provided supporting documentation that had been used by the PIC, and it answered most of my questions. It showed that program had been on suspension, clearly indicated why this program had been prioritized for review and even why the recommendation was to discontinue.

Frank was forthcoming in answering all my concerns, and said he understood the PIC could pass along the supporting documentation in future reviews. I thanked him for his time, and said that I wasn’t trying to second-guess him-just understand the selection process. The supporting documentation does show that the program was not setting students up for a clear, straight path to certification. Students would still have to complete many hours on their own, and return for further instruction. One of the guests present indicated that it was hard for Shasta to respond to the changes that came often and quickly out of the accreditation entity. Eva said that the report indicated that there had not been a FT faculty since 2009, but to her knowledge, there may never have been a FT faculty. Peggy noted that the costs to comply with the state requirements were in excess of $130k. Peggy also noted that the committee intends to refine the process, and that they are tasked with one of the least popular tasks on campus.

The report will now advance to Cabinet, and may return to College Council if the Cabinet decides to act.

Morris – Discussing the May revise and Brown’s new budget. There were two scenarios. A flat funding and a reduction. The revise still has this sense. The best has gotten better, but the worse case reduction will get worse. 6.4 instead of 5.8. This means about two million in additional cuts with no buy-backs of deferrals.

Morris said it’s likely that they’ll have an on-time budget. They won’t get paid otherwise, even if the budget passed is unbalanced. That’s what’s coming down.

Ken said that it may be overly rosy, but in the May revise, Ken asked, is there any indication of how the budget might be increased if things do get better. Morris said that it looked like there would be an upward trend, if things go well, that would see us at 2008 budget amounts by about 2015.

Ken and Morris discussed what might be the increase, if such a thing were to happen.

Peggy noted that there are two different bills on the ballot. Looking at the number of signatures. There’s the Munger proposal, and one coming through the Chancellor’s Office. The one that passes with the highest votes is the one that will go into effect. Morris sees our problem as having our support go to the right measure. Brown’s measure is better for Community Colleges. The Munger Bill would be better for K-12, and the reporting requirements are burdensome.

Facebook is going public this Friday, there may be a delay because of the JP Morgan problem, but if Facebook goes public, the state may get a one-time infusion of $2 billion.

Morris said he thinks he’ll be bringing the projections to budget committee. He wanted us to see the unrestricted page, especially.

The income page, page 1. The beginning fund balance is healthy and is what is carrying us through. But if we go to the bottom of the third page, it shows a loss of $750k. This is good news, we budgeted a deficit of $668 k, we had on top of this an ongoing $500k cut, a one-time $200k trigger cut, the under-projection of the BOG fees. It could have been over $2 million in cuts. It could be a lot worse.

We are budgeting a loss for next year, too, looking at $1.5 million. Morris said that we are looking at a structural deficit, but we don’t want to overreact in case there is a better-than-expected revenue picture.

The projected starting balance is still $9.5, and this is a good place to be starting. We need to thank the managers and the people who work under them. The original loss was projected at $2 million, this has been shaved to $1.5 million.

Note the third pages, the reduction in operating costs $270k, is due to a lot of hard work. Morris said that people have been helping out and coming together as a team.

Note that there’s a $116k reduction. It’s on the inter-fund transfer. The lease-revenue bonds the rates are dropping and the refunded them. We were able to adjust where the savings happen. We elected to front-load these over the next three years. Joe started this and Morris has carried it forward in anticipation of the next three years being the toughest.

The process is that the Budget Committee is going to review this tomorrow and bring it back to us next week.

Move to 4a – The annual reports coming in, more to come.

The first one is the accreditation steering committee. What we will need to do is to accept the report. Lisa moved to accept. Sue Loring seconded. Approved.

The Budget Committee report was M/S/A.

Facilities didn’t arrive. Will be tabled until next time. Sustainability will be coming, management council and invest in our people.

Item 4 – Annual Area plan – we still don’t know about the Ipad costs or the Life Science Cabinets.

Meeting schedule – summer

Joe handed out materials that will inform our discussion.

This timeline will be our trip to the Integrated Planning Manual.

Having Dr. Conrad back on campus June 18-20. We will try to finalize a rough document that will come to College Council on 6/20. This will be a 15-20 page document.

The thought is we will review the changes, and bring it to Academic Senate and at Flex to have it adopted by September by the board.

There was discussion how much and when we’ll need to meet this summer. The calendar Joe shared is just for the District Integrated Plan, but there still needs to be separate Integrated Planning Manual 2012.

Joe will develop a summer calendar, and circulate.

The league has given us 135 pages to review on law changes.

Under “other” – Bethany S gave Joe some frequency word cloud. It’s our mission statement. EDUCATION and STUDENTS and SKILLS and OPPORTUNITES are the biggest words.

The second one has to do with our four goals, the college name was removed. STUDENTS was the biggest word. The goals seem to be centered around our students, Joe noted.

This was run through WORDLE.NET

Cathy – Has a proficiency rubric for SLOs.  The rubric proficiency statements, there are 7 in all.

Cathy noted that we need to be tracing SAOs (activity/area – things that don’t involve faculty)

Item #2 involves “widespread dialog. “This means it should show up in Flex, and meeting minutes.

Item #3 that our records come forward, out of program reviews and area plans, the SLOs are a part of this

Item #4 – appropriate resources need to come forward. We are doing this.

Item #5 – comprehensive assessment reports exist, and are completed and updated regularly.

Item #6 – Course SLOs are aligned with student learning outcomes.

Item #7 – Students are aware…. The evidence is that it is in the first day handouts. So, Cathy says that we’re good with this.

Joe noted that we have allocated personnel and tracking software.

Cathy said we can’t show that we can’t show we’ve done this for a year. Cathy was pleased that Frank mentioned PLOs in his report.

Joe said that Marc had prepared a survey to get feedback on the area review process.

Marc distributed the instrument, and asked for any suggestions. The instrument has been reviewed and refined, and Marc would like any additional prompt suggestions before it goes out.

Joe said this is good that is shows we are assessing our planning process. Marc said he’d be willing to send it out to the entire school. Peggy noted that we have six academic areas, and wasn’t sure the survey needed to be distributed so widely. There was discussion on the breath of distribution. It depends on who was included in the planning process.

Kevin was concerned that we are doing the survey before we’ve finished acting on all the items in the budget requests. We’ve not finished. The response of some council members is that only two items were left, and should be acted upon soon. If we wait too long to do the survey, people will be heading out for the summer and the response rate will be lower.

The Council made suggestions. Marc will get this out right away and give people two weeks to respond.

Meeting adjourned at shortly after 4:30 pm.

Posted in Budget, College Council, Shasta College Program Discontinuance | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Program Discontinuance Materials – For Discussion

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Robb

This is the updated procedure. NOTE: The AP on DocuShare is outdated.

This is this document provided to me, revised in March 2012.  AP 4020 Program and Curriculum Development FINAL

REVISED as of March 2012

Administrative Procedures of the Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District Determination of Programs for Review: Programs may be recommended for review by a dean or the Chief Instructional Officer at any time.

Recommendations from individual departments or advisory committees will be brought to the appropriate division dean to bring forward. All Programs recommended for voluntary discontinuance will be brought forward by the appropriate division dean. Programs which do not meet a pre-determined benchmark may be selected for review by PIC without being brought forward by a dean or Chief Instructional Officer. Established benchmarks must be approved by the Academic Senate and the Chief Instructional Officer in consultation with the Deans. Any program being recommended for review must be supported by data. Possible Criteria for discussing programs will include qualitative and quantitative measures. These criteria include but are not limited to: Alignment with Educational Master Plan and Mission Balance of curriculum including CTE, Transfer and Basic Skills.

Replication of programs in the region

Possibility of conjoint programs with other community colleges

Effects on local industry

Effects on UC/CSU transfer

Need for workers in the region in the skills taught in the program

The impact on the transfer student’s ability to complete specific lower division subject areas and general education requirements

Success rates

Persistence of students in the program

Productivity and efficiency

Student achievement rates in terms of graduation, transfer, or job placement ARCC data outcomes

Program review recommendations

CTE specific data that is required for Title 5 curricular review and Perkins IV reporting

Influence on related programs and services

Significant reduction, elimination of program income or diminished student enrollment

Cost of the program

The review process is meant to be an inclusive process.

Program faculty will have the opportunity to advocate for their program prior to the initial recommendation by PIC.

 

After reviewing programs, the committee will submit a written recommendation with its findings to the Office for Academic Affairs and the College Council within two weeks of meeting. The PIC process can result in three possible recommendations. A program may be recommended to continue, to continue with qualification, or to be discontinued. All recommendations will be reviewed by Cabinet and taken under consideration by the President for a final decision.

***

 

The items below are on DocuShare, but they appear to be outdated. I’ve left them here for a historical reference. A quick comparison shows that the program discontinuance has changed markedly.

Links to current board policies and administrative policies

Administrative_Procedures_Master_Updated_11-17-2010

Board Policy Master Updated 18 Feb 2010

The pertinent passages can be found regarding Voluntary Discontinuance AP 4020 pages 139-141. (These represent the previous policy.)

 

Posted in Shasta College Administrative Policy, Shasta College Program Discontinuance | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Institutional Goals Approved – Area Plan Budget Requests Acted Upon – Lightfoot’s Unofficial Notes of 5-8

Posted on May 8, 2012 by Robb

College Council – Meeting of 5-8

Executive Summary

The Council approved for Cabinet review the Art Department’s request for lighting, the Dental Hygiene department’s request for QA meetings, the math department’s request for 4 calculators, the Life Science Department’s request for lockers (subject to a limit of $3,500 and approval by the budget committee) and Transportation’s request for a code scanner. They did not approve Financial Aid’s request for remodeling funds, and the Council is waiting on more price information before acting on the request for iPads.

The bulk of the meeting was on discussing and approving the Institutional Goals. The discussion is documented below.

The four goals are:

  1. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will use innovative best practices in instruction and student services for transfer, career technical, and basic skills students to increase the rate at which students complete degrees, certificates, and transfer requirements.
  2. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will use technology and other innovations to provide students with improved access to instruction and student services across the district’s large geographic area.
  3. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will increase students’ academic and career success through civic and community engagement with educational institutions, businesses and organizations.
  4. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will institutionalize effective planning practices through the implementation, assessment, and periodic revision of integrated planning processes that are transparent and participatory and that link to the allocation of resources to planning priorities.

 

Raw Notes

Minutes – approved as amended

No comments

Morris reported out on the cost projections from the budget committee on the Area plans –

$ – Art lights about right

Dental Hygene will be less than projected

Only 4 calculators needed in math, so this will be less.

No confirming cost on life science lockers. They will acted on later.

Fin Aid – accurate, but declined by budget since the money was expended this year.

Code scanner – correct amount.

Other discussion on budget items – iPad costs, still being discussed

Dental Hygiene – related to benefits. We saw this as one-time, they were looking to an ongoing expense. They also asked if there were repercussions on only doing this for one group of faculty.

DH could not say this would be the cost for a subsequent year. Morris said that he was asked by – They wanted to know what was meant by “feasibility.”

Peggy said that she does not know how many other groups would be involved in norming.  But that DH needs to have like patients come in.

Joe said feasibility is verifying the dollar amount and to see if other costs are involved.

Morris said it may have been that the DH people thought we meant much more by this term. He is conveying that they wanted to know what we meant by feasibility.

Marc said that in Fall we’ll have proposals come in and we’ll have different proposals with different conversations. We’ll know more come fall, and we’ll be better able to answer this question.

Joe said this is an example of where we may need that vocabulary that accreditation is developing.

Joe asked Morris if Budget was suggesting approval. Morris said that we need to wait on Life Science and the iPads, as we need more information. Dental Hygiene is still gathering information.

Sue said her recollection was that we had approved these items,  and that we were sending this to budget for confirmation. Morris agreed, but part of their review is to bring back questions.

Joe looked at the minutes and they say we sent on to budget for feasibility …. Then it would come back to us to make a recommendation to Cabinet. Marc said that we need to be accurate with our terms.

Joe said that we may want to approve the ones that have been scrutinized and just wait on the others.

There was a discussion of the Financial Aid request for work that was done this year when we’re looking at next year’s budget.  Kevin said that they had requested the money to allow the needed work to happen all at once, saving the school money. He said that Financial Aid had to take money out of other lines, such as printing.

Caryn moved that we send forward a recommendation for Art, Dental Hygiene, the calculators and the transportation.  (This means we did NOT approve the Financial Aid stuff.)

Ken said that he would hope that the DH program can somehow make a contingency on the norming for incoming new faculty who have not been a part of this.

Sue suggested a friendly amendment to approve the locking cabinets, too.

The amended motion was for all except the iPads and Financial Aid.

That’s our recommendation to Cabinet. Marc asked if this means that the Cabinet will discuss it at their next meeting and get back to us.

Joe said yes.

On to the Institutional Goals

Joe said that the seven pages are the notes, summarized, from the meeting.

Joe asked for comments on the proposed Draft Institutional Goals.

Cathy asked what the process is to be. Joe wanted to get this approved today. She said she thought something was missing, and that was the cultural aspects of the institutions

Joe said that he sees this as falling under their IR number 3.

Heather Wylie said that they specifically chose the term “Civic Engagement.” It’s not only career, it’s cultural, civic engagement, participatory democracy.

Marc asked if there were ways of measuring this.

Heather said yes… number of projects, contact hours.

Joe said we should step away from #3 for a minute and turn to #2. He likes how this show us using technology to reach out in many different ways all across our large geographic area.

Sue likes the concept, but the present wording makes it seem like we have yet to do this, when we have been doing it.

Marc noted that the data says there are gaps, that it is unequal.

Sue said that she likes the wording, overall.

Number four is in response to our need for integrated planning.

Kathyrn asked how this will be connected to the document she is working on.

Marc said that #4 we really stopped short and looking at measurable things that are in our control. We didn’t talk about placement or jobs.

Sue expressed concern that having a goal such as the planning goal is something we ought to be doing anyway, and that pointing out that it is a long-term goal may be seen as a negative.

Joe said that he has seen schools with an institutional goal such as this.

Peggy said that we have to own our past problems with planning, and this is a way of owning the problem.

Joe summarized to say 1 and 4 as written, 2 needs a descriptive word before access, such as expanded. Marc suggested equitable since that AJACC standard.

Joe asked for more comments, Heather said that the phrase “civic engagement” in the goals.

There was a discussion on how to best reword this.

Cathy said that goal on improving partnerships is clear, and that amending it may well muddy it. She said that my (Robb’s) suggestion of a 5th goal would allow it to be clear.

Marc asked if there was a 5th goal.

Marc asked where civic engagement would best fit. It will probably be in #3.

Heather said that civic engagement may include involvement with groups beyond just established civic organizations.

Heather said that the term civic engagement is being increasingly incorporated and adopted as a goal. She said that we might be remiss if we don’t use it in our statement.

Ken modified #2 to add equitable access …. Innovation …. Cultural and civic …. #3 expanding …. Local business, industry and organizations.

Kathryn …. Using that language will make it hard to write the document (EMP) to…. Innovations in Civic and Cultural engagement…. Kathryn says that grammatically you’ve changed the intent. It means that it is the way you intend to do it, and only in that way.

Morris said that the proposed rewording will narrow this. He hates to see us limited in this way. The way it is proposed.

Ken withdrew his motion to allow for a different wording of the institutional goals.

Heather said that she had seen this as being worded as “…. And civic engagement.”

Bethany – seems like 1, 2 and 4 it seems like there is no “how” we’ll do it. Maybe we should just nix the part that speaks to the method. Just end it with student success.

Sue said that one of the suggestions from the consultant was that they be broad but also have some specificity … to lose the how would lose some of the intent in working with K-12 and business organizations.

Sue proposed… Shasta …. Will expand its engagement with local business….

Heather said that how the mission statement was done was to “expand local and global partnerships…”

Marc asked if this is clear enough to the CTE people…

I expressed concern that we retain the cultural awareness with the inclusion of the word cultural I noted that our school will have to make a determined effort to keep some of our cultural resources, such as the community band. New repeatability rules are quite possibly going to kill it off, choirs too. We must make an institution commitment to keep these, and as we all cycle off the committee there should be (I think) a commitment to these activities.

Don said that it may be better to refer to community activities rather than “culture,”which may be a lighting rod term. Band and choir are still community activites, and we are a community college. I agreed that this may be a better approach.

Other discussion on this point …. Kathryn said that innovation affects instruction in best practices.

Joe made some summary observations about what he had heard, and offered this as a suggested revision of the pertinent institutional goal:

Shasta Tehama  Trinity Joint Community College District will increase students’ academic and career success through civic and community engagement with educational institutions, businesses and organizations.

Cathy withdrew her original movement, and moved goal #1 as written, goal #2 with improved, goal #3 as Joe said, and Goal #4 as written.

Unanimously approved.

The four goals are:

  1. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will use innovative best practices in instruction and student services for transfer, career technical, and basic skills students to increase the rate at which students complete degrees, certificates, and transfer requirements.
  2. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will use technology and other innovations to provide students with improved access to instruction and student services across the district’s large geographic area.
  3. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will increase students’ academic and career success through civic and community engagement with educational institutions, businesses and organizations.
  4. Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District will institutionalize effective planning practices through the implementation, assessment, and periodic revision of integrated planning processes that are transparent and participatory and that link to the allocation of resources to planning priorities.

This is big, as Joe said. We’ve been working for three to six years laying the groundwork on this.

This goes to Cabinet. Someone asked if the board approved the goals. They don’t. They see the entire EMP, and not just piece-by-piece. It will be up for approval by the board when all our work is done.

Lisa announced a candlelight visual for Karen Duenas. It will start at 6 pm Friday…

 

 

Posted in Accreditation, Budget, College Council, Educational Master Plan | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

College Council – Surveys, Master Plan, and Allie Zatarin Wins An Award – Lightfoot’s Unofficial notes of 5-1-12 meeting

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Robb

Executive Summary

The initial discussion was about this week’s meetings with Doctor Conrad and then our Friday retreat to work up our goals. We all need to have read the EMPs by that point to be effective. (These are draft documents.) The sort of responses we give may be to question where data is given to support statements, or if important things were omitted.

Educational Master Plan Timeline – revised – pdf

Most of today was a discussion of whether we should repeat a survey that had been done last year, or to revise the instrument and do a fall survey. We decided to do a fall survey.

Kevin called out attention to the fact that Shasta Student Senate representative Allie Zatarin was one of two students to be recognized at the Statewide Student Senate gathering for her outstanding work.

Raw Notes

Meeting called to order at 3:03 pm

Approval of minutes – two weeks’ worth, not most recent. These were approved.

Joe greeted Kathryn Guessner, and Allie Zatarin, who is taking the place of student representative Gaurpreet this week.

Reports – EMP and Accreditation – Joe shared the schedule for this week.

Joe asked if we wanted paper copies of all the documents we’re seeing, or pdfs. There was a brief discussion on the pros and cons of this, and Joe said that we could give him our thoughts. We’ll review our process on this when we get into Fall.

Joe described the process of what this week will entail, each of us reviewing the EMPs that have been submitted, and then having the opportunity to meeting with Doctor Conrad, absent Joe, to talk candidly about our perceptions, questions or concerns.

Peggy said that there were about 10 volunteers who had offered to read, but were not a part of the process. She said it would be good to include them, having them read in on this.

Cathy asked where we’d be meeting, to see if there would be a projector present to use to collectively examine the documents.

Joe said that the timeline is giving us our marching orders. There was a discussion of the tasks coming up. Joe said that there will be some activities related to this when we return for Flex Day, too. Joe said that he expects to do one last revision, with community-wide input to look at our polished draft. He sees 10 groups in 10 rooms that can look at each EMP. It may turn up ideas that fit elsewhere, such as the strategic plan.

Discussion/action of potential survey needs. Marc brought handouts of the Porterville survey and our most recent survey.

Marc directed us to the summary results of the scaled survey that we did almost a year ago today. He said it would be wise to do this again, to see if there is a change from last year. But we don’t need to do this.

The other survey is Porterville College’s accreditation standards survey. Many of the questions align well with accreditation standards. They have used it for five years or so and been very satisfied. The question Marc put to us is whether we want to do a survey this month.

Cathy asked what the purpose last year’s survey was, and Marc said he’d have to look at last year’s minute to be accurate. His recollection was that it was a quick survey to see the institution’s perception of the College Council.

Marc said the question is whether we want to have surveys that are done quickly to answer specific questions, or if we will do surveys that require more thought and deliberation. We presently do some of both. I asked Marc how much work it would take, and he said to do the same survey would not be much work. I spoke in favor of redoing the survey.

Cathy note that the planning process is still not clear at Shasta, so it’s really impossible for them to give an informed answer.

There was a discussion on the survey, and its deficiencies. Cathy suggested that we wait until Fall to give simplier survey we used last year.  There was a wide-ranging discussion on the advantages of waiting until the faculty had learned more and participated more in the planning processes. Sue asked what the purpose of the survey is—why are we doing it? Marc discussed the goals of doing a survey, to see how the council sees itself in terms of knowing more about planning that it did a year ago at this time.

During all the above discussion, it seemed like last year’s survey would be of limited use. So, the Council voted on the earlier motion (to repeat last year’s quickie survey again in fall), defeating it, to clear the way for a different motion that better reflected the best use of a survey.

Morris then suggested that we have an annual survey that looks at progress on accreditation issues. I asked Marc what he would recommend for such a survey. He said it would be a combination of our current, vetted, staff survey, the Porterville survey, and any questions or issues that an ad hoc committee would determine. There was further discussion of what sort of questions might appear. This was approved that we have a fall survey using an instrument that Marc and others will design.

Morris then asked Marc about a follow-up survey on our beta test of area planning. Marc said that he knows this needs to be done and will be done.

Cathy asked for clarification of what the goal of the survey was. She said that she thought Marc had asked for last year’s survey to be done again. And that this had now been shifted to a more global, Fall survey. She asked if Marc felt we still needed this information. He said he’d seen an opportunity, and thought we might capture it. Cathy asked if we would be missing anything without this, and he said he could live without it.

Joe publicly thanked everyone for all their hard work. He asked that we convey how impressed and pleased he is back out to the people who worked on the EMPs.

Marc said he was impressed, even moved, when he read all the plans.

Joe asked Kathryn to talk about how she sees this coming together. She said she is waiting for the goals before she begins writing in earnest.

Peggy said she is impressed how the EMP groups met and accomplished so much. She cautioned that the document not be wordsmithed in Fall and so lose the single voice.

Kathryn said that she thinks it needs to be written in a positive way. It needs to be informed by research but not feel like it is a research report. It needs to have more heart.

Joe noted that there were no new Board or Administrative Polices to be read.

Kevin announced that the statewide Student Senate nominated two outstanding student Senators and our own Allie Zatarin … was one of the two.

Pat Demo reminded all present that the Day of the Teacher is May 10 in the Quad.

-30-

Posted in College Council, Educational Master Plan, Students | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

College Council – Area Plans Budget Requests – Discussion – Beta Testing The Process – Lightfoot’s Unofficial Notes 4-24-12

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Robb

College Council Notes 4-24-2012

Executive Summary

The requests for funds that came out of the area plans were reviewed, and the emphasis was on how our process should work. Staff requests were excluded, as were ongoing expenses. The list was pared to under the $20k put forward. The discussion below looks at how the various items were included in the final six advanced. The items were sent to budget for feasibility, and include Life Science Lockers, Art lighting, Code Scanner for Transportation, Financial Aids remodeling, 6 inspires and 1 iPads Math,  costs for Dental Hygiene to perform norming sessions. (I believe this is correct. I didn’t have a chance to double-check this. I will post a link to the official minutes, and you can check that when they are approved and posted.)

ISLOS- Cathy Anderson reported that the SLO committee is requesting that the college produce posters to promote one of our ISLOs for Critical Thinking and self-efficacy.

 

Raw Notes

Meeting called order without a quorum present at 3:08 pm.

Joe said that #2, minutes, will be tabled since they have not been distributed.

Joe had an EMP report. The retreat next Friday. Doctor Conrad will be coming Thursday and all day Friday until 4 pm. We’ll be setting up meetings with her Thursday and Friday morning.  This is to answer the questions of individual council members.

Friday’s retreat will be from 12-4 pm. The goal of the retreat is to come away for our goals for the Educational Master plan. We will still be meeting next Tuesday. We will be working at reading all the reports for the Educational Master Plan.

Marc said that we make some data summaries so that the 10 reports we received are condensed.

At 3:11 Morris and Pat arrived, giving us a quorum.

Marc said that he has copies of all 10 from the teams, and if Joe agrees, he will send all these out to us. Joe said this is fine. They had held off distributing this to allow us to focus on the area plans that are before us today.

Joe asked if we’d have some data sets, and Marc said that the condensed reports will include these. There might be 4-5 bullets a table or a chart. “Those should point clearly to what we identify clearly as 5-7 institutional goals.”

Joe said that he thinks we can get this done quickly because, since we know about our mission, that the goals should emerge quickly. Joe said that we’ll be doing this starting next Thursday, and we’ll have a timeline to share.

ANNUAL AREA PLAN AND AREA REVIEWS – our main reason to meet today.

Joe distributed notes from the Administrative Services Council of their meeting of 4/23. It revised the rankings of the committee.

Morris said that the revisions were made because they checked that the code scanner would work with 85% of the district’s vehicles. They only ones it won’t work with are near the end of the end of their life span.

Joe said that the student services made one recommendation/request.

Also, Joe said he sent out the list of the instructional council, but he was disappointed that these weren’t ranked. He was inclined to kick it back, but there isn’t time to kick it back.

Joe said, as we look at these requests, to think about how we are going to prioritize these requests, this is a beta test, but come Fall do we want to go through 200 requests and prioritize them. This may be a job for the other three committees that review these.

Joe commented that the FT hiring should not be a part of this process, but it is OK for them to bring it up since we have hiring processes.  Also, requests for student clubs probably don’t belong in this process.

The information will come out of the plans, but the plans and needs rankings won’t be in the prioritization process for replacing FT hires.

I expressed concern that the process needed to allow us to make the case in the area plans that we need to be able to clearly know how the ranking or rubric would be done in the FT hiring process. Morris noted that there is a form for this that lists what needs to be addressed and considered.

Sue asked how this would work if an area plan included requests for development of something new. These hires, too, would be prioritized separately. But it would still need to be requested.

Caryn asked how current, then, the supporting documents would be if the hiring process were separate and occurring later.

Marc noted that the FT hiring paperwork, currently, is submitted in September.

Cathy said that it might be best, then, to mention a needed hire but not have an actual request in the area plan.

Doug said that we have two parallel processes. The information needs to be consistent. But you don’t have to have the full justification for the hire in the area plan, it just needs to be included.

It was noted that the hiring process, at present, indicates a need must be established in the area plan.

Marc noted that in the tear sheets there were five areas of potential impact needed to be included, there were facilities, staff, technology, equipment….

The advantage of this is it may allow us to have discussions on what categorical funds are available, special funds that might be capital outlay and would lay outside the general fund.

Morris said that if these were done in the different areas, then it would help feasibility discussions.

Doug commented that Technology has in the past taken all of the area plans and teased out the technology requests to see if there were complimentary requests, which give them weight and avoid duplication. This speaks to frequency and basic assessment of costs. Eg. If two departments had a $20k request, and both could be serviced for $25k, then that would be a consideration.

Marc asked if College Council should send forward to budget what we’d like to fund, or is it to have Budget telling us what we can fund? Joe commented that he had established the amount available at $20k this time.

This will not include ongoing costs, just one-time costs.

Sue described what she thought we would do is to rank requests and send them to Budget. It might not be that the #1 item were picked, if it were too costly. (Eg, items 3-8 might be possible within what is available.)

Morris commented that what we’re doing here is a beta test. It may be that the budget committee is more for a matter of feasibility.  He said that we may not want to have a dollar amount up front. Many things can impact this, negotiations and more. We can learn through this planning process and how we can do it better next year.

Joe noted that the accreditation terminology is to evaluate what we did and suggest improvements.

Caryn asked how we do feasibility and then rank.

Morris said that what Doug described that technology does is a model. It may be that the various committees contribute to this process.

Joe said that we don’t want to discourage ideas coming forward that are worth looking at.

Morris said you don’t want to staunch creativity.

Joe said that as we look through the list, we see three facilities requests. The Art Gallery seems to have had a bid at some point in the past. The Life Sciences have requested a Herborium, and this seems to be round numbers.

Cathy asked if the requests for some department budgets, business-as-usual requests, don’t need to be in area plans. She asked where the line should be drawn. EG. Our list includes cadavers. Isn’t this an ongoing expense. Morris clarified that this is actually a request for tanks to help save costs on cadavers. This would be new.

Caryn indicated that the drawers for the cadavers had been funded through another avenue, and so this request was removed from our list and the day’s discussion.

Morris said that the intent is for new things.

Cathy said, after further discussion on the cadavers as examples, that she was trying to understand what would be included in these plans.

Caryn asked if the area plan would include things that represented increases. Do you need to request the existing things each year?

Joe said it could be done that way.

Cathy asked if this is what integrated planning means.

Marc said that our college expenditures need to be pegged to college-wide plans. Eg. A hire is a college-wide expense, but white-board markers are not.

Cathy asked if this is 100% of this expense is for this sort of stuff.

I commented that it might be necessary to have it clear what sort of ongoing expenses are to let us know how scalable, or easy to cut, it is.

Ken said that the model he saw in Riverside how they handle staffing requests. It is transparent and integrated, and thinks it is worth looking at.

Doug returned to Cathy’s question of how we cost things so that we could do things differently in ways that would save us money. Eg, toner cartridges as opposed to a workgroup printer with toner.  The challenge is that these may show up in different budget lines, at present.

Joe said, moving forward, imagine that the EMP is done at we’re a this point next year and we’re looking at adopting two or three goals and 30 little action items. Joe noted that the list of the demands coming out of the area plans might help inform our action items. Joe said that is how this is related to the planning. Joe said that some of these requests don’t need to go through this process, he would hope. This is a beta plan. He would, for example, note that the Business Club doesn’t need to come to this group and so it would save the Business Dept. time not to have them make such a request.

Joe gave us another example that there may need to be a plan to refresh classroom equipment. But that didn’t pop out. Consider Stephen Covey’s process, if it were “perfect,” how would we be doing it.

Cathy said that faculty, new technology, remodel, would all show up in the area plan. But someone needs to know which processes these different requests would entail. In other words, where do these requests “go?”

There was discussion on whether the request for an “appropriately sized” bus should be here or not. It would make sense in that it would be evaluated alongside of other requests, and if, say, the bus were approved it might knock out all the other requests. This is a new approach in that it is a smaller bus, more economical.

Joe asked whether we need to have threshold or cap dollar figures on this list. It is hard to do this.

Cathy asked if we could go through this list and see if it should be on our list.

There was a discussion of whether, say iPads really need to be budgeted at $900. It was noted that when you add a case and apps, it may be about that. It also raises the issue on whether these should be personal devices, that can be taken home, or district devices. Faculty have different needs in that they may take a laptop home and develop a class, where classified need permission since it is paid time.

Marc said we should imagine that we’re working with college goals to make these decisions.

Joe reviewed the list, to remove ongoing expenses and staffing. He said this still leaves about $60k.

Sue said that if you eliminate the bus and other items, as noted above, we’re at just over $20k. Joe said it is about $26k.

We looked at what needed to remove, and the club isn’t a departmental expense, nor does it seem to fit the goals.

Dental Hygene discussion – They are to be commended for the effort to norm, and this is something that SLOs are driving us towards.

Joe said that our discussion is to what to recommend to cabinet. Marc said that it is what we do to budget. He noted that this expense is the closest to the goal of increasing student success.

The art request for lighting seemed to be a safety request. Joe noted that this may need to have a feasibility study to see if it really can’t be in house and if it is a real risk. If it is truly a safety item, then that will bump it up.  Joe said maybe it could be a yes, question mark.

Sue asked if we are going to prioritizing today. Marc said that what we may be doing today is to advance things for feasibility.

Sue noted that we are at $26k, and the art gallery may fall off just because it will be outside the $20k.

The locking cabinets seem to be a priority to protect valuable items.

Jumping to financial aid – they improved applications, now their workload has increased and they are having problems with their lobby area. They have created a dedicated workspace for veterans. The counters have been put in place. This has had a good response. They are seeking $3k for construction, which has happened, they had to rob funds from elsewhere. This can be reduced to $2,300.

Transportation – looked at it, pays for itself in a year to a year and a half.

Sue complimented the Transportation and Communication for their documentation.

Caryn noted that the iPad may need an ongoing expense for a data package.

Ken noted that you can get a wi-fi model without a data package.

Cathy noted that Math didn’t put a cost on a graphic designer for posters, even though this closely fit their SLOs.

Sue asked about ranking. She asked, what if the art lighting came back as $14k, and then we have to re-rank. Morris said that for this year, it may be best  to just advance it to budget.

Ken moved that the six items he named, since they appear to fall under $20k, to advance them to be reviewed for feasibility by budget.

ISLO

Cathy noted that there had been discussions to print posters to have critical thinking described and encourage discussion surrounding self-efficacy. This came out of the SLO committee. The idea was that we be immersed in these two topics for at least one year.  The book study idea was discussed, and the SLO committee liked this.

There was a discussion on how this could be done and assessed across the institution. Marc said that it may be that we identify incoming Freshmen and then survey their learning several years later.

Sue – Program review process – seem to be a lack of a place to include qualitative data. Sue said that she thinks that there is value in qualitative data. Sue said the forms do speak of data, not just limited to quantitative. Marc said that he has been a part of this conversation, and as this process moves forward, there will be places to put this online. The volume of qualitative data can make the process very time-consuming, and so Marc had encouraged the faculty member to be concise.

ANNOUNCEMENT – Our new VP will be here on our May 4th meeting.

 

 

Posted in College Council | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

College Council – Vision Statement – Lightfoot’s unofficial notes of 4-17-2012

Posted on April 17, 2012 by Robb

Executive Summary

Our New Vision Statement…..

Shasta College is a nationally recognized model community college engaging its communities through innovation in student learning and growth.

Also discussion on the Educational Master Plan progress.

 

Meeting in order at 3:02   – 4/17/12

Marc described the changes he suggested to the minutes.

Accepted as corrected.

No comments, no reports.

Joe went to the bottom of the agenda to allow more time for the discussion of the agenda items. The proposed changes to the Board and Administrative policies were M/S/A.

Sue noted on the courses and course withdraw date should go to the Senate. Kevin said that it did as a discussion item. Sue said it was more informational than presented as a policy for consideration.

Sue said that an administrative procedure should be adopted by the Senate. Sue said that she did have a concern with the 20% date as opposed to the census date.

Joe said that this AP is a first reading, and it can be delayed while it is acted upon by the Senate, just so long as it makes it through in time for fall.

There was one course for the summer that lacked a SLO, and this was fixed. Peggy was at 68 for the fall that did not have the SLOs. We’re down to about 25, and they have until 4/25. These are being checked and double-checked. If they don’t come in, then Peggy will cancel the classes and there will be no appeal. Doing the final assessments by the end of the term will be tricky.

Marc asked if we’d see the work of the writing teams at the next meeting. Peggy asked Joe if he wanted to manage the flow of this information so we were not overwhelmed.

Joe noted that yesterday that the Adminsitrative Services committee met for the first time on 4/16. This will be the body to prioritize area plans and program reviews that came in for purposes of budget requests. The rankings will then come to College Council, and the council will decide how to allocate between the areas.

There was a discussion of the EMPs and how they will come to us. Sue asked that we get some of this as early as possible for discussion. I asked Joe what our actions will be in regards to this information. Our job is to respond to our general impression before it goes on to Kathryn Guessner for a single-voice narrative.

Marc asked if we are able to do program reviews in 2 weeks, if there’s an early May budget meeting. Morris said there would be.

Then, after budget sends this back to us, it comes back to College Council before going on to Cabinet.

Peggy commended the EMP writers, and Marc was complimented for all the information he was asked to provide.

There was extensive discussion on how to craft a vision statement that best describes our long-term hopes. The terms ‘community,’ ‘innovation,’ ‘student success,’  ‘inspire,’ and ‘engage.’ The relative merits of putting students before community was explored.

Shasta College is a nationally recognized model community college engaging its communities through innovation in student learning and growth.

 

Posted in College Council, Educational Master Plan | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Vision Statement – Lightfoot’s Notes – 4-10-2012

Posted on April 10, 2012 by Robb

Executive Summary

The bulk of today’s meeting was on crafting a vision statement that will serve Shasta College for the next 18 years. The discussion brainstormed words and ideas we’d like to see in this statement. Vision statements are usually brief and inspirational. Sometimes they can be deliberately vague. But ours needs to be attainable moreso than worrying about it being measurable, one council member argued. There was discussion on whether the statement needs to be long enough to make a statement about who we are, what makes us unique, and whether it can inspire us.

See list of keywords below.

College Council Agenda

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

3:00-5:00PM

Room 2149

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES – April 3, 2012

3. COMMENTS (This portion of the meeting is reserved for Shasta College faculty, staff, or students wishing to address the College Council on any matter not on the agenda. No action will be taken. Speakers are limited to three minutes.)

4. REPORTS

a. Budget Update (Morris Rodrigue)

 

5. DISCUSSION/ACTION

a. Accreditation

b. Educational Master Plan

c. Shasta College Vision

 

6. OTHER

7. ANNOUNCEMENTS

8. ADJOURNMENT

Next Meeting: April 17, 2012 (Board Room)

 Discussion – 4-10-12

Order at 3:11 pm by Joe Wyse

Minutes tabled because. They’ll go out in time for next week’s meeting.

Budget update – has been recent emails on this. No report

Cathy Anderson – “Other” noted that ISLOs are defined but have not begun assessing any of them. Cathy wants to begin the critical thinking and self-efficacy.  So, not only will it be assessed in each class room.  Cathy and Shelly will coordinate the effort, but the movement should be something

Joe said that this seems to be a request to have on next week’s agenda a discussion. It might be a FLEX day activity to discuss how Critical Thinking is to be engaged or “done” on campus.

Joe discussed Cathy’s suggested that the ISLOs should be something that we are immersed in, campus-wide. The reason she mentioned this is that the math department is engaged in a critical thinking project, but it needs to be much more than that. Joe said this sounds like it’s a good idea, but do the ISLOs focus on student outcomes?

Peggy said that she wasn’t kidding when she suggested a contest. She said there was a campus she visited had signs all over the campus that had values, and you couldn’t leave the campus without knowing their values.  Peggy said that we could have signs up on self-efficacy, and we would get students and staff to know what this means. We don’t want the person on the street to go “huh”? It needs to be ingrained in the culture.

Sandra said that we need to see how things align, how we all contribute to this.

Joe was wondering if professional development is a part of this. Cathy said that there’s not a specific place on the form for that question. Sandra said that there is a place in her lexicon where ISLOs are defined.

Joe referred to the form he handed out, that listed seven ISLOs that all students who graduate will demonstrate these skills. Cathy said that our students will only benefit that we be engaged in the things we expect our students to be involved in. Peggy said she’d like to see something developed that would fit on a button.

Joe said he doesn’t know why accreditation is a separate agenda items. Joe said that four of the nine working groups have submitted bullet points.

Our consultant, Eva Conrad, thinks we’re making progress. Peggy said the library has theirs, financial aid, counseling. The four have been forwarded on to the consultant.

Joe said that there is progress happening.

Joe’s main goal for today is the mission.  Joe shared some slides that came from Doug Meline.

The slides show the relationship between the long- and short-range goals.

Joe was asked what the difference is between mission and vision. It’s where we want to be l, ong-term.

Goals/objectives – goals broader, objectives more specific

Joe said we have had objectives. What we got “hammer on” was the lack of long-term planning.

Joe handed out another document, “Planning Handout (DRAFT)”

Joe handed out an additional document to inform our vision discussion.

Joe reflected on Cathy’s question from a prior meeting as to whether the vision has to be measurable.

Doug said that the measurability is less important that attainable. (He later added in a follow-up email that what he wanted to convey is that focusing too much on measurability, in a vision statement, can throttle creativity.) **See his post-meeting amplification/clarification below.

Continuous improvement – Doug suggested -  Dynamic

The words on the whiteboard –

Recognized (national?) model

Excellence/premier

Community

Leader/innovative

Proactive

Sustainability

Student Success / Student Learning and Growth

Continuous improvement / dynamic

Technology – innovative/state-of-the-art

 

Doug commented that some of these words are guiding principles. They are how we accomplish our vision. It shouldn’t be too wordy.

Sandra noted that we’re rural, and this may need to inform our vision.

Natural Resources – Marc noted we have resources that other schools don’t-

Sandra said that we should not be compared with larger, urban districts when we seek to win national distinction.

Cathy likes the phrase forward-thinking. She also noted that we are the only opportunity that many of our students have. This is a distinction.

Kevin noted that our vision has to, at some point, align with what the state does.

Peggy said that we are going to try things, and some of them are going to fail. Kevin said that the Ed Code in this state is a list of what you can do, and if you’re not doing that, then you risk being outside what’s allowed.

Kevin – Shasta C is a nationally recognized community college which excels in students learning `and meets the needs of our community.

Adjourned at about 4:15 pm

We’ll meet on 4/17 at 3 pm in the boardroom.

BELOW ARE PDFS OF DOCUMENTS JOE WYSE DISTRIBUTED.

Vision Framework

Planning Handout

Vision-Mission-Goals-Objectives – From Doug Meline

Joe’s Vision Draft

**Addendum from Doug Meline

When we think about our vision statement, we need to be able to recognize that it is attainable without getting “hung-up” on and exactly how it is measured.  If each of us can see a way to contribute to its attainment then it follows suit that each of us could identify a way to measure success. Focusing on the measurability of one’s vision can become a limiting factor for innovative approaches for attaining that vision.  What is presented below, “…needs to be attainable, without needing to be measurable” qualifies at best as an internal contradiction and at worst nears ingnoratio elenchi status.  If that is what actually came out of my mouth I apologize.  Using words similar to those in the first sentence above, I meant to convey the following; Let us not limit ourselves today by codifying our measurements of attainment in 18 years.  Maintain our focus on attainment and short term methods of measurement will certainly be identified in each subsequent strategic planning cycle.   There should be at least 5 of those cycles through which adjustments can be made.  As new ideas and innovative approaches develop in each 3 year planning cycle, we can adjust both our understanding of measurability and how we measure success.

 

Thanks,

dm

Posted in College Council, Educational Master Plan | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Recent Shasta Documents Of Interest

Posted on April 4, 2012 by Robb

These documents include our financial summary for accreditation, and our student metrics, such as the SLO breakdown and enrollments, FTES for accreditation  as well as Joe Wyse’s draft vision/mission statement. This is a work in process, and you may direct comments to him or to me

03-29-12 Annual Fiscal Report Final Submission (2010-2011)

03-29-12 Annual Report Final Submission (2011-2012

Joe Wyse – DRAFT2-VISION – march 2012College Council Minutes DRAFT. 2012-03-06

Posted in Accreditation, Budget | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lightfoot’s Unofficial College Countil Notes of 4-3-2012

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Robb

Executive Summary

Topics covered included the progress of the Educational Master Plan, and the need for a stepped-up meeting schedule. The reports regarding accreditation were discussed, including the fact that only 27% of all the classes in our catalog have SLOs. This is because, in part, many classes have not been taught in more than 2 years. We may need to review this. Sandra Slane is developing a EMP lexicon, and Morris Rodriquez discussed the rubric for evaluating area programs.

Joe discussed his ideas for a vision statement, and will be sending along some suggested language.

The new VP of instruction was announced by Joe Wyse, it will be Dr. Meridith Randall, will be joining us. She has served as CIO of Mendicino College for 12 years and is the incoming president of the state CIO organization. Peggy Moore called her “an excellent choice.”

 

Raw Notes

College Council – 3:02 kickoff

Minutes – Sue Loring sought clarification on a motion where our goals become our values. The minutes have this backward.

Reports – Joe explained that the two reports were submitted as of 3/31.

These reports were submitted, and these numbers (SLOs) will be continuing to improve. Item 16, 76%, is the courses taught in the last 2 years. If we look at all the classes in the catalog, it’s 27%. Peggy noted that we need to look at the classes that have not been taught in some time and make sure our catalog is a living document and does not mislead students by containing courses that may not be offered again. Peggy said that the goal that our course inventory is clean.

Peggy said that in the past few days, 25 SLOs have come in on courses. We are moving forward.

Marc noted that we excluded worksite learning and special topics.

Accreditation Update – Educational Master Plan

Joe – Has been working with Kathryn Gessner, she is awaiting more information from Joe. He also said that many of the small groups have met.

Sue – Counseling and assessment has met twice and has an initial draft. They need a little bit more data related to counseling.

Lisa on transfer –

Morris said that Tom Orr has taken the lead on facilities

DE – Doug Meline – met 5 times. Has bullet points that they have extracted and are looking across the curriculum.

I reported out on EWD and mentioned that they are looking at strengths and weaknesses, we’ve met twice, and they want to make sure that their language correctly communicates what they do, in working with clients (when the college’s mission statements refer to students.) The relationship in EWD is more complex. Employers are an important part of the mix.

Marc said that he has met with all the groups, and been providing them with an abundance of data.

Peggy Moore praised the people for their work. It’s hard to project even five years out. With our budgets year-to-year, then having to look at 18-30 years out can be daunting.

Marc noted that they next step will be for the College Council to get the 9 committee drafts, and then we’ll face two kinds of questions. 1. How do we assimilate this and come up with goals, and 2. Did we miss anything. Marc noted that each team is submitting a little “parking lot.”

Joe said it’s like doing a dissertation. Once we do it once, we’ll know how to do it and then we won’t have to do it for a while. He’s pleased with the progress, and that we ought to have a draft by May.

Now we turn to III – Glossary

Sandra Slane said we need to have this Lexicon because we use words sloppily. She gave the example of area and then …. Sandra is looking at other schools documents, dictionaries….

The changes she is planning on making are reflected in the EMP Lexicon – She is looking at clarifying the language so that it correctly places types of managers, by the title, in a specific level.

Sandra noted that we’re looking at a second-level report.

Lisa said that there needs to be clarification of the terms “first-day handout” or “course information.” In her area, they first day handout is a small document, where the syllabus is quite large.

Terms to consider – “License” and “Program Review”

Cathy noted that this draft will need attention from the Cathy and Shelly to make sure the terms align with what they have found and developed.

Vision Statement

Joe  – Vision – Administrative Council – draft of the long-term vision statement. “Shasta College is a nationally recognized as a model school for improving student learning and growth.” Big thing that isn’t true yet but could be true as the years go by. How do we know this? Perhaps that we win a national award.

This is broad enough that each department could see itself. He listed theater and basic skills as an example.  It might be that we win regional or state awards.

Joe wants discussion on this around campus as to what’s a very big stretch goal. Vision is a one sentence thing that captures our imagination. Cathy asked if the vision statement has to be measurable. Joe said that it may not be in percentages, but that you’d be able to see if it’s done.

Vision – provides a long-term picture of the future that inspires…. a tension exists between now and then.

Mission … Joes sees it as access, equity and success…..

Doug – Long-term, “reach” goal. It tends to be complex. It is what we do and for whom. This should not get bogged down in operational or tactical analysis. It may be measurable, but it’s out there a ways.

Joe said we’ll continue to look at this, and he will send out some of the language he’s worked up.

Now, we’re looking at college goals. It’s up to this group to come up with this, and the college goals will give the strategic plan the marching orders. The area plans will then length to those.

Marc noted that it’s the first of April, and we want the writing teams to respond to these institutional goals. We need to produce those in time to respond. This also will involve when and how often we can meet in College Council.

April meetings – Tuesday afternoons  may need extra meetings. We may need to meet every Tuesday.

We may need to meet every Tuesday, or even more often than that.

Peggy talked about the area reviews, and how they are proceeding. Instructional council.

Evaluating Area Plans – The New Rubric

Morris spoke to his rubric, and indicated that some areas may not hit the categories. I expressed concern that some areas, such as art, don’t see themselves as being able to articulate their value to the institution. I also said that the conversation I’d had was that this is a work in progress. Joe noted that a category is student success, and that art fits in there. I also noted that the top box, strategic plans and college goals, are areas the liberal arts want to see themselves included in so their area plans can be pegged to this. Morris said that he could see that our process of forming goals and plans may well include this.

 Announcements

Cathy Anderson announced SLO workshops. She and Shelly Presnell have run one so far, it was well attended and well received.

Dr. Meridith Randall will be our new VP of Academic Affairs, from Medicino Lake College. She’s been the CIO there for 12 years, about 3k FTEs. Pres elect of the CIO organization, Peggy called this a wonderful choice.

Posted in College Council, Educational Master Plan | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel Valdivia – Simpson Tour March 14th

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Robb
Simpson Tour/Presentation on Wednesday, March 14th

 

Please encourage your students to attend this planned tour/presentation.  Students will provide their own transportation to Simpson.  We will start the tour at the Owens Center Lobby (next to the floating globe).   Students can sign up in the Transfer Center.  Faculty are welcome to attend as well.

 

Itinerary
Arrive 2pm
Admissions and financial aid presentation – 30 minutes
ASPIRE presentation – 30 minutes
Nursing presentation/tour – 30 minutes
Campus tour – 30 minutes
Depart 4pm
Thank you,
Daniel Valdivia
Transfer Center Director/Counselor
(530) 242-7959
Posted in Transfer Information | Tagged , | Leave a comment