March 19, 2015 Meeting
Agenda
Minutes
Strategic Planning Committee
2:00 p.m., Thursday, March 19, 2015
Cafeteria Conference Room
Goals and prioritization
Possible goals from last meeting
o Calendaring/scheduling system
o Comprehensive Program Review
o Program review
Where to focus our efforts
o Comprehensive Program Review needs to be built on Annual Program Review
o Time to re-examine Annual Program Review
Discussion of “why we do Program Review”
o Required
i. by Title 5
ii. by ACCJC (throughout standards, but particularly I.A (mission) and I.B (effectiveness)
o Functional, not compliance
i. Motivate/support resource planning (planned requests)
ii. Provide criteria for other resource decisions (unplanned requests)
iii. (Re)assess external demand
iv. Create (standard) performance profile (# students, etc.)
1. Measures workflow (budget, SLO’s) => Governance Council
v. Motivate program improvement
vi. Provides link with institutional planning
vii. (Re)align with mission
Discussion of what it would look like to accomplish the “why’s”
o Baseline data/analysis
i. Use existing program review (baseline) data set – no change needed
ii. Augment with baseline “analysis”
1. Discussion what should that analysis look like?
2. Need to focus, use “minimum viable” strategy, progressively focus
Comprehensive PR => PR => baseline analysis => 80% => triage
May be more to work on than can be done immediately – use idea of “triage” to
focus even further on highest priority sub-80% courses
Incorporate “half done is not done” strategy – do less, to completion of full
improvement cycle
3. Broad use of 80% rule on course completion as the baseline analysis
a. Flow into student success (SSSP), equity, budget, Academic Senate
4. Augment with retention
5. MVPR (Minimum Viable Program Review) addresses courses that fall below
80%,
6. More strongly – need to have addressed sub-80% courses before proposing
beyond that
o Establishing spending “criteria” more than soon-to-be-outdated decisions
i. Captures alignment with mission, strategic intent and priorities better than fixed set of momentary “needs”, “wants”
o Timeline that is short-cycle
i. Not current problem of decision sets that are 1-2 years old
ii. Quick process anchored in standard analysis, adaptive, agile
o Make real the alignment of SLO’s student achievement budgets
o MVPR – Minimum Viable Program Review
i. Purpose is to tell a story that supports both planned and unplanned spending decisions
ii. Could be as short as couple of pages if properly anchored in the standard analysis
(NOT just presenting standard dataset without the story…)
o Incremental/Integrated
i. Extend idea from accreditation discussion that *defines* committee work in terms
of accreditation standards
ii. Similarly, *define* program review work in existing context(s), not a periodic
chore unrelated to the regular work of the college
1. Academic Senate
2. Committees (e.g. budget)
3. Division/departmental meetings
Where to start? Next steps?
o Bring these ideas to the Governance Council – essential role in all resource decisions
o Create standard analysis
i. 80% rule to identify disproportionately impacted courses vis-à-vis completion
(Not disaggregated by demographics for purposes of Program Review – that work done
elsewhere by Student Success and Equity committees)
ii. 80% rule vis-à-vis retention
o SPC to analyze/refine the “standard analysis”
o SPC proposal for process to create budget
i. Decisions – for long-cycle, strategic decisions, (generally) larger scope
ii. Priorities, criteria – for short-cycle, tactical decisions, (generally) smaller
scope
iii. Define “thresholds and exceptions” processes for decisions/priorities/criteria
1. For District funding
2. For categorical funding
3. For grants
o Bring budget decisions/priorities/criteria *process* proposal back to Governance Council for discussion
MW/by