Winter 2015 Meeting
February 12-13, Bellevue College
Research & Planning Commission/IT Commission Joint Meeting
Thursday, February 12, 2015
HYATT HOUSE, BELLEVUE – GROUND FLOOR
8:00 a.m. Welcome from host college President (Dave Rule), ITC president (Mike Potter) and RPC
president (Susan Murray).
Administrative/host college announcements (Mike Potter)
8:30am Susan Murray called to order the RPC – specific meeting
Discussion: Logistics of this 1st joint meeting with ITC/RPC. Members introduced themselves.
9:00am RPC Committee Meetings (see reports in Business Meeting section)
Accreditation, Communications, Data Quality and Technology, Outcomes and Performance
10:30am Mid-cycle Accreditation Panel
Overview of the new NWCCU mid-cycle evaluation process from college and evaluator perspectives.
Panel members who had participated in the October Mid-Cycle Evaluation (MCE) as evaluators and/or
hosts of evaluation visits talked about their experiences. Susan Murray (Wenatchee Valley), Wendy Hall
(Lower Columbia), Joe Montgomery (Columbia Basin), Patty James (Bellevue), Summer Kenesson
(Olympic) and Jennifer Tuia (South Puget Sound).
Key themes: The MCE is a new process, and colleges found out in June about the changes from what had
previously been a Year 3 Accreditation Report (formerly conducted as a standard re-accreditation
process) to the new, “formative and collaborative” process. The reporting and evaluation experiences
varied widely.
The MCE evaluators do not write formal commendations or recommendations, but do review any
recommendations the college had related to Standard 1. Findings are submitted as a confidential memo
to the NWCCU.
Whereas previously evaluators based their analysis and writing on the standards, the MCE is rather a
dialog between the evaluation team and the college. A point of discussion was the draft assessment
rubric handed out at the June 2014 NWCCU training for evaluators. Some teams used the rubric, others
did not, and some colleges only saw the rubric at the end of the evaluation visit or not at all.
Overall message was that the MCE is an opportunity for colleges to do self-reflection about their metrics
and processes, and to ask themselves the question of the extent to which they integrate student
learning into their processes, including looking for ways to provide evidence.
Panelists recommended colleges seek to develop clear processes, demonstrate that they are in
alignment, and also that there are continuous improvement mechanisms including assessment evidence
that can be readily communicated.
11:30am Begin ITC/RPC Joint Meeting
IR and IT Functions (Susan Murray) Genesis of this meeting – Russ Beard (ITC) has been attending RPC,
RPC has been in conversation with ITC. It is an important time for more formal discussions. We are all
being called upon to do more reporting, for initiatives and accreditation. Language and processes
around culture of evidence relates to accreditation, Dept of Education college rating systems.
Additionally ctcLink is an entirely new data system that will affect all the colleges. Goals:
1. Better understanding of roles and functions. Variability across colleges, but also common elements.
2. Increased awareness of opportunities to work collaboratively. No longer an option to be successful
working in siloes. Necessity to leverage resources, face budget cuts.
3. Necessity to identify barriers – structural, processes.
This discussion is a starting point.
RPC Perspective (Susan Murray) IR work with data, and are charged with providing data for many levels
of compliance reporting. E.g., IPEDS, grants and other funding that requires metrics, SAI, other elements
we use to monitor success. Deans – enrollments. BoT – outcomes, including interpretation
Colleges must conduct assessment, which requires evidence. E.g., longitudinal tracking of academic
paths of specific subsets of students, survey results (national like CCSSE, design internal use surveys,
analysis, interpretation and communication of results).
Some of us report to VP, others, Presidents. We have other responsibilities, including strategic planning
and accreditation (ALOs, evaluators). We are all staffed differently based on local needs and resources.
ITC Perspective. (Mike Potter) IT are self-reliant with respect to data. People call, IT grants access to
systems/reports, but IT may not be proactive in looking ahead at what could be needed. Point number
one is IR should ask IT. IT intends not to be an impediment. IR can work with IT services for troubleshooting. Look to Building Bridges conference for additional time to communicate. ITC would like to
know: What does IT need to build as base layer so college size/budget is not a barrier for IR at the
smaller under-resourced colleges?
Example IR and IT Collaborations:
Whatcom, Lake Washington Ward, Emily- Software programmer, Kim -Res Analyst.
Initial challenges – competing priorities, lack of data access, lack of staff knowledge base, lack of tools.
Used Excel, Word, a little MS Access.
Prior to 2010 – Data-X, DW MS Access, IR website was static
2010 SW development begins. – First IT SW developer. Set up initial SQL server. No data provided to
other areas of the college.
2011 – ODBC access for Faculty/staff: used AtD funds to hire consultant.
2012 – second programmer hired – helped bridge gap between IT, IR and Registration. Knew HP3000,
college policies and procedures
2013 – Beginning of Collaboration: IR analyst in IT office. IR got test server and training to learn SQL
server, got training.
2013 – Staff training: Selected 8 key people who were trained in SQL tools. Tools are trainable, more so
than operational knowledge of the data/operational use of data. Ongoing, weekly meetings w/IR
2013 – Results of additional SSRS report writers: 8 staff attended training. One year later they are using
SQL regularly, but few use Reporting Services.
2014 – Tableau – IR analyst attended Tableau training. Put all Tableau dashboards on Whatcom’s public
website. Idea is for people to get their own data and be able to answer their own questions.
Ongoing Challenges: Competing priorities, continued training for existing writers, training additional
report writers, software updates and licensing (Tableau is expensive, needs to be updated every year)
What worked to encourage collaboration: importance of knowing your data; standardization of
processes; control of data and databases. Gives Read Access to everyone. Report writers has access
needing to write reports. IR now has own server, able to store views.
Q – WRT reporting, only 2 staff use reporting services why? A: Not at that level of skill/too early to teach
them, take training more slowly.
Q – Timeliness of data? A: Mainly SMS, data pulled 6:30am each day,
Q – Tableau vs SQL BI? A: For future consideration
Q – How to assure consistency? A: Bigger problem, including for e.g., Gates grant reporting and so on.
Q – Discussion of difference between data for reporting vs data for analysis and forecasting? A: People
now have the data they need for reporting (locally among the 8 trainees), so now IR will be able to get
to analysis. Goal is to make data available for analysis.
Q – what version of Tableau? A: Tableau desktop, connect to SBCTC Tableau server. $1200 plus $300/yr.
Lake Washington
Cathy Copeland (director) BoT requested Tableau. Developed Tableau data extracts based on MS Access
DW data. Discussed process and examples. Take home: Tableau reporting possible even without IT
support, shows what IR can do by herself. At Lake Washington, IT/IR co-chair Institutional Effectiveness
committee, which uses/advises on data dashboards
Website to view: www.lwtech.edu
2:00pm ctcLink: Tonya Benton
Tonya’s PPT is available on request. It covered definition of reporting: getting data out; Environment
updates and resources; Reporting types and tools; Questions, Food for thought .
At this time, First Wave SQL server production data can be mapped to PeopleSoft. DV1 is the preproduction environment. SBCTC security analyst working with FW colleges to set up permission matrix
PRR Production Replicated Reporting – 15 min lag, will be basis for reporting; it will be tapped via linked
server capability by local SQL (scripts being written, so not full access to data on PRR; yet to be clarified
which data will be accessible locally) Ongoing conversation at SBCTC level regarding resources for scripts
support, link support, mapping support.
Types and Tolls – February 2015
Internal change management, realm of understanding tools, providing access. Intent is to work
collaboratively. Linked server is a resource for IT to use to build local data stores. IR accesses those local
data stores. Process to be developed for requesting additional tables to be added to Linked Table
schema (Carmen McKenzie has a role).
Colleges need to identify their own script-writers; but the colleges do not have access to the schema so
they are not able to develop scripts. Tonya will escalate the concern, suggests IR/IT colleagues escalate
on each campus.
Issue is that there needs to be a production environment in order to see what will actually be available.
Compliance reporting is highest priority. There is a list of canned reports – 50 in campus solutions
(mostly financial aid-related), finance, 280 (GL, Asset Mgt, receivables), and HRM 100+ (HR, payroll)
Biggest concern: ad hoc piece, which is critical to IR (self service BI has limits because people always
have additional questions) Q of how we support ability to do managerial ad hoc. Compliance is covered.
For operational we are getting there. But for managerial ad hoc reporting – not enough attention paid at
the outset of this project.
Q: what is timeline for accessing “all of the college’s data”? There is core functionality needed on local
campuses that require specific data to be available on campus, for e.g., local data tools (enrollment
management, etc)
A: For FirstLink, there is a subset of highest priority global reports that will be addressed first. Resource
constraints are based on what was originally purchased.
Attendees are exhorted to bring these issues to their presidents. Look for KS State report about Oracle
implementation on Sharepoint site, which Tonya is sharing more broadly.
Take-Aways
Data quality and validation need to be front loaded. ITC also needs all the data and is responsible for
companion data bases (e.g., student password reset) Built infrastructure is SQL Server, in addition to OBI
tools. In the end, we will have dual Oracle/MS environment.
IR and IT Collaborations:
Edmonds. Jim Mulik, Edmonds, Joe Duggan, Eva Smith, Vic (IT)
Eva served in IR role as an interim, then got Title III grant and hired Jim; shared hiring across IT/IR, used
IR/IT exercises in screening interviewees. Joe Duggan (IT background) spends 1 day/week in IT dept.
Formerly distinct roles of end user, analysts, programmer model, now, IR is analyst/programmer. IT is all
about protecting the data, but can be convinced that IR read-only access is OK.
It is a 2-way relationship. E.g, parking. IT creates applications to collect data. Users want reports/analysis
that IR can provide. Vic has 2 DBAs who developed applications. Joe put together Tableau based report
of heat map showing parking violations when/where. IT team is directed to support Joe’s work on that
one/day per week.
Gearing up for CtClink – working with faculty, others to look at the data, identifying areas where data
need to be cleaned up, developing systems to hold cleaned data. IR works with end users, works
collaboratively with IT to design and implement solutions.
Bottom line: empathy between IR/IT seeing the challenges more clearly and operationally, unified front
when it comes to the college.
Green River Chris Johnson (Institutional Effectiveness), Camilla Morgan (IT)
Change – Chris’ office now responsible for all data, whereas previously a lot of separate shadow
databases, most of which had been developed one-by-one by IT. Chris and Camilla serve on Executive
team together, generally present a unified voice. People on the respective teams work together well.
Security versus access – Institutional Effectiveness is responsible for content, and how it is portrayed. IT
folks come at it from the security aspect and must assure that data are protected. Need to come to
agreement; shared understanding of projects such as e.g., website, other systems.
Wrap-Up. Susan Murray
A lot more technical expertise required and starting to be realized on IR side, and this challenges IT and
provides the basis for an evolving approach for the future.
How can we improve collaboration so that IT and IR can both be more effective in our respective fields?
Hiring, ctcLink data access and reporting, etc. Joint talking points are under development, starting from
the RPC perspective. We would like ITC to share out and make it a joint statement.
Adjourned at 4:30pm
Friday, February 13, 2015
BELLEVUE COLLEGE, BUILDING C – ROOMS 120 & 130
Called to order at 8:48 a.m. (Susan Murray)
Roll call (Cherisa Yarkin)
Quorum requirement: simple majority. Present: 26, Absent: 10. (72% present)
Colleges with representatives present (26):
Bellevue College
Bellingham Technical College
Big Bend College
Clark College
Columbia Basin College
Edmonds Community College
Everett Community College
Grays Harbor College
Green River Community College
Lake Washington Institute of
Technology
Lower Columbia College
North Seattle College
Olympic College
Peninsula College
Pierce College - Fort Steilacoom
Pierce College District
Renton Technical College
Seattle Central College
Skagit Valley College
South Seattle College
Spokane Community College
Spokane District
Tacoma Community College
Walla Walla Community College
Wenatchee Valley College
Yakima Valley Community College
Not present (12)
Bates Technical College
Cascadia Community College
Centralia College
Clover Park Technical College
Highline Community College
Seattle College District
Shoreline Community College
South Puget Sound Community
College
Spokane Falls Community
College
Whatcom College
Motions:
1. Approval of Minutes from Fall 2014. No changes.
Moved. Second. Unanimous voice vote of approval.
2. Election: proposal to suspend the rules, allowing the nomination committee until the first week
of March to find a slate of candidates. Elections will be opened prior to March 13.
Moved. Seconded. Unanimously approved by voice vote
3. RPC as a group team-building opportunity, will reach out to Debbie Reynvaan (Grays Harbor)
with a gift to express support. Moved. Seconded. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
President’s Report Susan Murray (highlights)
BAS degrees are a focus of interest. Legislation is being drafted addressing various topics affecting CTCs.
One issue relates to faculty qualifications for College in the HS; CTCs are following internal practices
strictly, but 4-yrs have not been following those in the same way. Student qualifications are also being
discussed
Presidents at Nov meeting invited K-12 and university partners, discussed Smarter Balanced, placement,
alignment of curriculum. Presidents felt it was a productive meeting with engagement by all parties. An
agreement has been developed based on Smarter Balanced scores.
Ed Services getting progress report on Competency Based degrees (hosted by CBC). Currently five
colleges will be on board at the start, will rise to seven by fall. Twelve expressed interest and will likely
all eventually come on board. Each college must get NWCCU substantive change approval individually.
Nursing programs have extra layer of approval about curriculum, student qualifications via Nursing
Commission. Changes are out in draft
Reverse transfer. At least one pilot project in process, discussions starting about statewide agreement,
and in particular what will count for CTCs with respect to SAI points. There is a lot of presidential
momentum behind this effort. Currently, there is not consistent processes to identify these students
and this effort aims at a state-wide approach. A few individual colleges have specific agreements
currently in place.
WAC meets monthly. Susan has attended all but the last one. Wendy Hall attended January meeting.
Chancellor of the Spokane District brought Best Practices report to WAC, for initial discussion. RPC’s
work on updating the Best Practices document is relevant to this discussion, and RPC will work to make
sure it is part of the discussion.
Q: What does Ed Svc look for from RPC? Reports on issues identified as a commission, updates on work
plan. RPC representative comments on the elements of Ed Svc for which there is RPC input. It is
important to be there and be engaged.
Discussion: It seems that RPC can suggest to be on committees; a suggestion that RPC seek
representation on Strategic Vision and Technology committees, not just Ed Services. This decision can be
made by RPC Exec, who will follow up. At this point the Technology Committee is most critical of the
two, given ctcLink.
If RPC seeks representation on more committees, it would require that RPC have more people to
participate, since there are monthly meetings and all meet at the same time.
Treasurer’s Report – Starr Bernhardt
Draft: Bellevue College processed all the cash for this meeting, since it is joint RPC/ITC.
RPC balance was ~$13,600, 2 travel stipends of $200/each were paid. Remainder is approximately
$13,200. There are preliminary discussions going on for travel funding for Exec to attend WAC
Committee meetings, which will be brought forward when those guidelines are ready.
Issue for members’ consideration: Elections for 2015-16
With several changes this year including this first-ever joint ITC/RPC meeting and moved forward spring
meeting from June to March, we are not able to meet by-laws guidelines regarding the election
timelines.
Past practice has been to announce officers at spring meeting. In order to do so, would have to waive
the number of days between announcement of slate and the election of officers.
To change election timeline requires vote to suspend rules. To announce outside of spring meeting,
need a separate vote.
Motion to suspend the rules, allowing the nomination committee until the first week of March to find a
slate of candidates. Moved. Seconded. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Elections will be opened
prior to March 13.
Additional discussion: Timing of RPC meetings is affected by resources and meeting space
availability/geography. As a commission, RPC needs to set meetings based on timing of WAC and
calendars. To balance attendance of multiple representatives from member colleges means a large RPC
group and this is challenging for host colleges.
Next steps: identify options. Master list of colleges that have space to accommodate a group of RPC size
when classes are in session. Identify nearby meeting space. Action item for future: develop an annual
RPC calendar.
Committee Reports
Accreditation Jim Mulik. Dr Pam Goad will attend RPC March 2015 meeting, Jim Mulik will open Google
doc for questions. General discussion of NWCCU policies and procedures including fees e.g., for newly
required annual audit reports ($1500). Impact of new substantive change review process on workforce
programmatic timelines. PLU report to be shared with RPC members.
NWCCU training happening March 11 – MCE. March 12 – ALO training. March 13. Year 7 report.
Additional discussion: Possibly offer service to presidents of building mock teams to do pre-accreditation
visits to play role of evaluators on campus and give feedback. Float idea with other commissions. Would
be a good professional development for RPC members.
Outcomes and Performance - Ty Jones. Committee currently has most of the assessment and outcomes
paperwork listing different accountability and performance measures. As those documents are located
on Skagit Valley website. Kelley volunteered to work with Evan to move to SBCTC website. The list also
needs to be updated.
Committee members will test the best practices rubrics that Maureen Pettitt has developed, by
evaluating one of their local practices. Committee members will do so and report back next month.
Communications. Evan Picton. The committee has drafted a proposal to address cases when the
committee is assigned a task for which they need professional development to accomplish, so that RPC
funding can be used. Proposal is under review by Exec.
Currently, such a task is the Sharepoint site development. Fortunately, there is a new committee
member with Sharepoint experience and members have accessed free web resources for training so
funding not urgent right now.
The committee will also help articulate RPC concerns regarding ctcLink.
Data quality Hal Royalty. Carmen brought up topic of Intent Codes for new Data Warehouse from
PeopleSoft (DW2.0). Idea is to be as close to DW1 as possible, but sourcable from PeopleSoft. This is to
cover the transition period when some colleges will be in the legacy system, others on ctcLink.
IPEDS – Patty brought up the status of the analysis. Will keep working on it. One issue is how IPEDS data
will be handled via PeopleSoft
LGBTQ data. Not every college has access to those data. Draft notes are being developed about dealing
with these data, possibly to be passed on to the Code of Ethics group. Still vague and under
development.
Data Warehouse 2.0. Joe Duggan update - Fields under review include Kind of Student, Intent. One
impediment is the lack of real data from ctcLink, but he working with Carmen.
Question about fate of ODS. Because of overlap with ctcLink issues, this discussion will continue.
Colleges need to support the concept of a standard ODS versus the current proliferation of variations.
Other topics
Cynthia Requa The Association will take a focus and run across entire year. Kick-off March 6, keynote
Walter Bumpass. Topic is diversity, creating intentional practices.
Will look at college data, all funding sources, Employee and Students, run by Devon at SBCTC (3 years of
fall qtr data).
Q: Colleges will vet own data? A: Reports will be shared with colleges.
Q: Should exclude Continuing Ed who do not provide race/ethnicity. Also, there are variation in data
practices. Sometimes incomplete to the point of inaccuracy, or default categories (e.g, white as default)
A: Will show trends. Will have HR counterpart to clarify what cannot/can be done with those data.
Requests colleges to raise concerns to her. Criteria so far is only MIS reportable.
RPC members expressed an interest in spelling out limitations of the data to users. Members were asked
to suggest language for a footnote for the data from their college, and also invited to suggest data they
would prefer to see.
Cynthia noted that WAC Strategic Visioning committee has already looked at these data, looked at the
aggregate for the state, and then identified some specific colleges that showed increased diversity. The
idea is to give colleges the opportunity to work with their own data to develop strategies that are
‘wonderful and legal.’. Perhaps data can be used for methodological purposes, rather than specific
numbers, some of the data quality concerns could be mitigated.
Upcoming Association meetings: August – access, different cultures, November – solutions and best
practices. Other ideas – Low SES, disability. There will also be a “Leading from the Middle” management
retreat April 12-15 (check with Starr for information about what happened last year).
State Board Updates - David Prince
SBCTC Math Taskforce. 15 members, SBCTC members, math faculty, VPs, OSPI, Council of Presidents,
Tony Lee, 2 RPC reps (Wendy Hall, Cherisa Yarkin). Based on Bill Moore’s work; has grant to create
transition classes for HS seniors who score one level below on Smarter Balanced. Classes will enable
students to demonstrate “college readiness” without placement test. Also took inventory of colleges
strategies.
Metrics portion (involves Wendy Hall and Cherisa Yarkin). Divided between transfer and workforce
students. Begins with college success, builds off SAI. Earn degree, attain 45 college credits (TransferReady), number of students with no college math, previous degree less than Associates degree, how
many get to college level math within a year; students pre-college math get to clvl math in year; newly
enrolled HS students, attain clvl math in first year. Disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age.
Workforce: how many students attain clvl math, or earn a workforce degree (assumes embedded math).
Justification is BAS degrees. These pathways affect the meaning of math within ProfTech. This topic has
been taken to WEC for feedback. Will take extensive conversations with ProfTech faculty. A side issue is
short term and ‘dead end certificates’, as those students are included in denominator.
Draft plan will be brought to next meeting.
Allocation taskforce. Last summer, presidents approved new allocation model. Current model creates
differences in levels of funding per college, but cannot be explained. It embodies various decisions and
adjustments over time.
Focus now is on creating transparency. The process starts from zero and includes:
1. MOA – minimum operating allocation (adjustment for small colleges)
2. Enrollments over multiyear span, compared to targets or actuals (3-year rolling average). Will be reset
periodically, but not determined length of reset period.
3. Student Achievement (5-10% off the top)
Remaining issues: How to weight programs, define “high cost programs” within the enrollment
allocations; level of MOA; how to handle changes eg new aerospace FTEs
Presidents work group is working on the weighting questions. ABE will be weighted more. A decision has
been made on “high cost” based on Student/Faculty ratio and size of program (excluded if too small).
0ther criteria for inclusion being circulated. Consideration being given to adding high demand/mid-orhigher pay programs, STEM courses; BAS programs.
Challenge of what to do with Provisos (arises with legislator) and earmarks (arises with SBCTC). E.g. ABE
earmark to every college (to make up for no tuition). Probably will go away as earmark. Worker
Retraining – problem is that the money must be individually tracked, although it is an earmark.
The group will come up with recommendations by May 2015. Previously, voted to implement next biennium, but did not specify which year. It may be that the first year is a learning year. Afterwards, will
look at SAI data, and develop a min/max band for colleges in any given year.
Bottom line: allocations will be changed.
Q: Approach to weighting? A. Idea of weighting is to create incentive/ acknowledgement of high cost
programs, not backfill cost. Idea currently is 25% of FTEs will be weighted, but this is a mathematical
problem.
Q: International students? A. Separate group working on it, not part of this discussion.
Q: Overall picture? A: Fall enrollments are down 3% fall-to-fall. Projections overall down 1% off target.
Worker retraining off 21%, 40-59 year olds most significant fall-off, but 65+ year olds are increasing.
Younger students also declining. RS growing quite a bit (issue of credits that count toward a degree).
Former RS growing (former contract, now state). New state admissions are up, more students indicating
they are there for a degree. Online learning increasing at a sustainable rate. Entirely online AAs are
being offered by more colleges.
MESA program would like to have an UA to identify MESA students, to improve coordination around
growing STEM degrees and diversity.
Strategic Visioning Committee. Asked to look at diversity, for the system as a whole. Looked at collegespecific data to find colleges that appear to be improving. Conversations are underway with colleges to
identify intentional initiatives.
Students of Color Report – PPT by David Prince. Available on SBCTC website. Looked at each mission
area by access and success. Found equity gaps on success side. On workforce side, looked at underrepresented in state data as under-represented in state higher ed degree attainment profile. Students
of color tend to go into lower wage programs, get lower wage jobs. In Transfer, lower completion rates
of Associate degree, less likely to show up in 4-year institution in following year.
Note that transfer without a degree tend to be higher SES (based on DLOA). Report finds gaps in each
group. Strategic Visioning Cmte want to look at the data by college, David Prince will pool 5 years of
data. Will look at colleges where the data indicate students of color appear to be doing better.
POSSIBLE RPC task – update of SES indicator
HS database. Devon DuPree. Current agreement allows SBCTC to share with colleges – students, high
school graduated from, date graduated (came 1, 2, 3 years after graduation). Also has info on students
who came to college without graduating. Will be able to link to college data. Working with OSPI to get
GPA, transcript data later. Lag is at least 18mos.
Data are messy, will want RPC collaboration to figure out how to make data useful; no common
standards on e.g., conventions for naming, and so on.
Spokane District has local agreement that is more extensive. Others might be too. Spokane has
discovered how messy it is. Currently data from 70+ HS, the HS do the data extract and send it in. Lag is
extensive. Devon will be looking at Running Start and College in HS students for example.
SBCTC using Gates grant funding, with consultant from Seattle who has experience using HS data.
Working on learning how to deal with the data.
Other Discussion:
Q: Practices identified at colleges showing diverse employee profiles? A: E.g., engage HR using NeoGov
analytics, and training hiring committees, including student voice.
Q: What will become of the AtD data tool which will not be needed for AtD reporting at end of grant? A:
Darby to be asked for update as to what data will continue to be provided. RPC will get queries
underlying the tools.
Task Force Updates
Smarter Balanced work group Angie Rogers. Decision has been made to move forward with Smarter
Balanced, now talking about implementation. Requested feedback on issues, especially feedback on
how to track the students. Bill Moore looking at putting together small group of Registrar/IR.
Completion rates, longitudinal tracking, reciprocity agreements.
Next 3 yrs will be a pilot, then re-assess use in 2017. Juniors taking it this year. Some students will show
up via RS this coming fall. This year, will get students’ test scores. For students who give permission,
SBCTC can look at data. Statewide agreement only covers “if student takes math first quarter where FQ
is fall” Otherwise, individual colleges will need to make local agreements with HS.
Requests RPC members send feedback.
RPC Ethics Code taskforce – update will be provided at spring meeting
RPC Governance guidelines taskforce– outline of where we want to go will be provided at spring
meeting
Other topics:
Veterans Survey Joe Montgomery There have been 63 results so far. Half employed/ half not. Would like
to expand number of colleges participating in order to get a larger pool. RPC members to contact Joe
Montgomery if interested.
NonCognitive assessment tools. Mark Macias asks for instruments for assessing non-cognitive factors. A
discussion thread to be developed on Researcher listserv.
Resources for RPC newcomers Spring meeting will include a newcomers session. Members dicussed
resources, including list assembled by Communication committee. Ideas – Augment rosters with links to
IR website.
Motion: RPC as a group community-building opportunity, reach out to Debbie Reynvaan with a gift to
express support. Moved. Seconded. Unanimous approval in voice vote.
ctcLink. Chris Johnson. Draft RPC ctcLink talking points disseminated. Exec shared with ITC leadership
who responded positively. Technical aspects might be in one report, and a more general less-technical
document for wider discussions. This process will evolve so that RPC members/their colleges have
talking points to use. Responses to Tonya’s suggestion to escalate issues of particular interest. Tonya can
provide specific location of relevant documents on Sharepoint site. Chris Johnson is working on
identifying RPC-relevant documents on Sharepoint.
Notes are from RPC exec draft, have not been sorted/refined so there are varying levels of context
needed to frame the different issues identified in the document. View it as internal document, which
has been shared with ITC, with input solicited from them. It captures RPC perspective; will have more
traction going forward if issues are represented in form that includes more input from others.
Idea is “now is time to be engaged, not just wait for First Link colleges to figure it out.” One issue is
turnover (presidents, IT leads). Talking points are one way of getting everyone on the same page, and
have the information out there so we all know what is going on.
First Link and First Wave schools in particular need to be on same page. Tonya sent 3 messages
yesterday: 1. ctcLink design did not include a plan for managerial reporting; 2. We are not the only ones
not being communicated with; that includes internal to the ctcLink itself. 3. We need to get out there
and escalate issues. The report makes note of various concerns.
ITC group is project managers. They are worried about parallel issues. RPC can to come up with a plan to
address issues raised for IR. Between ITC, RPC and ctcLink, we can solve this problem, but the various
groups had not been talking. Carmen is communicating to Mike Scroggins.
Members sang Happy birthday to Chris Johnson.
Motion to adjourn. Moved. Seconded. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Meeting adjourned at 12:07 pm