April 07, 2015 Meeting

Agenda

 

Minutes

Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee
8 a.m. – 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Cafeteria Conference Room

Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Vicki Jacobi, James May, Mark Williams,
Agnes JEguaras, and Brandy Young

Members Absent: Greg Hawkins, Karen Ziegler

 

1. Annual Accreditation Report

The ACCJC Annual Accreditation Report is due April 15th. An extension was granted from the March 15th due date so that the report could be reviewed by both the Strategic Planning Committee and the Governance Council. The areas of focus today:

  • Institution Set Standards – Question # 14a. It was decided that the average from fall 2014 would be used to compute the number
  • Correspondence education – it was agreed that the District does indeed have these types of courses
  • Eric will work with the staff from the Office of Instruction to complete the other areas of the report, CTE, etc.
  • The committee will meet again on April 14th to finalize the report

2. Program Review Data Analysis

The committee discussed the new idea of Minimum Viable Program Review (MVPR). The idea stemmed from the need for a standard analysis of data sets used for program review. The flow of the MVPR was laid out as:

Traditional Program Review data → Other data – ISS, Scorecard, Dashboard → From that data, produce a clear picture – Radar chart → Look at successful course completion → 80% rule → Identify lowest 5% within other areas – look for trends – Equity, SLOs, Gateway courses → Disaggregate courses by discipline → Implement intervention strategies not only within instructional programs but within student services as well → create Program Review goals → defend budget requests using conclusions from MVPR → align process with Strategic Action Plan goals, IEPI measures:

  • Outcome measure – disaggregate
  • Isolate effects
  • Identify and implement intervention
  • Monitor outcome
  • Adjust

3. IEPI – Institutional Effectiveness Program Initiative – tabled for April 14th meeting

4. Substantive Change Monitoring Process

A spreadsheet was created to track Substantive Changes within the Instructional Programs. The spreadsheet lists the ACCJC criteria that is used to determine the need for a Substantive Change report. The Tech Review Committee will review all new courses and programs and use the checklist to determine if any changes trigger the need to initiate the Substantive Change process. If a need is determined, the Tech Review Committee will forward the information to the ALO, Eric for further review. If Eric agrees the process requires submission of the Step-One form, the information will be sent to the Curriculum Committee for further discussion. The Academic Senate and the Governance Council will be included in the discussion. Other points of discussion:

  • The original process to identify the need for a Substantive Change was embedded in the Annual Program Review form
  • The process will need to be initiated for the Welding program
  • The Engineering program did not require a report
  • There is the question of online courses and how many are offered
  • Need to verify the online courses offered for degrees and certificates
  • The process for Substantive Change is the same for both the Chancellor’s office and the ACCJC, but the rules are different
  • The next steps: The General Education and Curriculum Committee will have a discussion at their next meeting. The discussion will be taken to the Governance Council and the Academic Senate

MW/by

 

 

Strategic Planning Committee

Program Review design notes v2

♦ Designing toward the minimum viable program review that meets the why’s of

o Resource decisions ⇔ student achievement ⇔ student learning

♦ PRD*: a new standard data set, building on the existing data framework

o PRD: Program Review data,

 aligned with scorecard data definitions

o Scorecard data –

 suitably disaggregated and generalized,
 not just the 6‐yr cohorts

o Augmented by possibly other data
o Presented graphically in a standard way ‐ (graphs, radar diagram, red/yellow/green lists)

♦ MVPR – successful course completion as the “minimum viable”

o Outcome of governance counsel retreat and presentations => focus on successful course
completion
o Using 80% rule to define disproportionate impace
o To create “the list” of courses that are defined as an institutional focus set
o A prioritized subset of the list – e.g. the 5% to focus on

 Possible other ways of generating / prioritizing a list that are not part of the “minimum viable” program review
 These will be done by other groups
 E.g., disproportionate impact of equity disaggregations
 Division/dept focus on subject codes

o Student success analytical model – e.g. the “gateway” classes
o Outcome of MVPR specifically goes to Governance Council as primary support for resources requests
o Analysis of use of SLO’s to design interventions
o MVPR is the most generic system for focusing attention on courses with low success rates
o Focus is on integrating efforts – all‐hands‐on‐deck, team that engages in

 Outcome measure
 Isolate effects
 Identify and implement interventions (instr, SS, community, other…)
 monitor outcome,
 adjust → cycle back to top

♦ Scaffolding – program reviews beyond the MVPR

o “scaffolded” – programs, depts., divisions decide on subsequent review that addresses the needs of student success, alignment with SLO’s, etc.
o These parts of review also used as basis of resource requests, etc. as normal
o But – need to ensure MVPR is addressed first for all resource considerations – alignment of resources with institutional focus on successful course completion

♦ MVPR Interventions

o Instructional, Student Services, Facilities
o Can be targeted, or aimed and raising ambient success (floating all)

Supporting Docs

©