Office of Instruction and Student Development Update
Reorganization Update
Although we began the planning process at the close of spring semester, most of the implementation
of the new instructional structure took place on August 1st. The administration, Academic Senate
and CRFO leadership recognize and appreciate that moving away from area coordinators will take
adjustment in our operational processes and mind set. The conversations we’ve recently had have
been two way discussions that have become essential to finding solutions to problems that we see.
One issue that the administrative team has been wrestling with over the past few weeks is faculty
concerns over the role of associate deans and directors in program review, assessment, course
scheduling, and organizing discipline meetings. We’ve created processes to address this issue based
on feedback from faculty.
In terms of Program Review, the associate deans and directors have the administrative oversight for
program review and will work with the faculty to determine the most appropriate way to complete
the program reviews based on the data sets supplied by IR (more details are provided in the
following section).
The deans and directors also have administrative responsibility to ensure that course and program
level assessment are completed and that faculty have the support they need to complete their
assessment work. The deans and directors, as well as Dave Bazard, are available to answer
questions about the assessment procedures.
Over the course of the next few weeks, Tracy Thomas, Erin Wall, Joe Hash and Sheila Hall will
work with faculty to build a sustainable level of course offerings that best meets the students’ needs
at each location. The draft spring schedule developed last year for the Eureka campus was
forwarded to the associate deans and directors for them to review and revise in consultation with
their faculty. The associate deans and directors will work directly with the Del Norte, KlamathTrinity and Mendocino faculty to build the spring schedule taking into account the specifics needs
of those locations.
The administrative secretaries are busy setting up meetings with faculty and the associate deans and
directors to talk about program review, assessment and scheduling. Executive Dean Cummings and
I will attend as many of these meetings as possible in the coming months to talk and make sure we
understand your needs and concerns.
The administration, CRFO and Academic Senate leadership agreed to move forward with the new
administrative structure not because it was new (we’ve had deans before), but because we believe
that it will work. We know there will be things that we did not foresee, but the leadership is
committed to engage in constant, straightforward and honest conversations about the problems that
develop and the solutions. Everyone’s patience and willingness to provide honest feedback has
proven to be invaluable as we move forward.
A discussion of the implementation of new processes as a result of feedback from faculty will be
discussed in next week’s weekly update.
1
Program Review Update
There’s a fundamental logic that we all agree has been anchored in our institutional culture—that is,
to be successful, we must continually determine if we’re accomplishing what we set out to do. This
logic underlies program review. Of course, it’s satisfying to have written evidence of program
review successes, and it’s necessary to document program review results to people outside of the
program and the accreditation agency. The 2011 Accreditation visiting team noted that:
“The team found evidence that the current program review planning process is broad based
and offers opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies. At the department level,
faculty and staff reported involvement and a familiarity with the process, including the
distributed resource request prioritization process, and indicated they may not have received
all of their requested resources but that the system appeared equitable and transparent.”
The length of time that program review has been a part of the college’s planning process illustrates
a long standing systematic commitment to involving all faculty and staff in the program review
process. The administration, Academic Senate and CRFO leadership are dedicated to sustaining
that commitment and ensuring that all faculty and staff have a voice in maintaining and improving
high quality instruction and services as we incorporate our new academic structure in the program
review process.
The leadership has agreed that it is the responsibility of associate deans and directors to ensure the
program review process is coordinated and completed through collaboration with faculty, associate
faculty, program directors and staff. In instructional areas, associate deans will meet with
disciplines to determine the best way to accomplish this district-wide.
It is intended that the following steps be detailed and prescriptive enough to give clear guidance to
those people who will begin the program review process, yet flexible enough to allow each
associate dean and director to work with their respective disciplines and programs to develop a
review process that best meets its particular needs.
Step 1: Associate deans and directors will work with faculty, staff and the Program Review
Committee to group disciplines into “rational” linked clusters or programs. While it may
appear obvious initially, sometimes defining a program for purposes of review has been
difficult. Programs are not disciplines, although in some cases, such as Nursing, the
disciplines’ sole responsibility is the Nursing program. But Philosophy as a discipline, for
example, does not have any programs completely within its purview. Rather, the Philosophy
department may find itself being asked for information in support of other program reviews,
and it will certainly be one of the participants in the review of the A.A. degree.
Step 2: Associate deans and directors will work with the faculty in their different disciplines
in different ways as appropriate to complete the program reviews based on the data sets
supplied by IR.
Step 3: Associate deans and directors will invite all faculty (full and part time) to participate
in the program review.
2
Step 4: Associate deans and directors will forward program reviews to the Executive Dean
and then to the PRC by October 31st.
Step 5: The PRC will forward all classified and managerial staffing requests to Human
Resources and all faculty requests to the Academic Senate Co-Presidents and to the Deans’
Council by November 8th.
Step 6: Faculty prioritization committee will meet and prioritize position requests by
November 16th.
Our long standing program review process has become the most important method by which we
evaluate the effectiveness of our instructional and service area programs and justify resource
requests. The process will be made richer and institutional decision making will be more
meaningful with faculty and staff involvement.
Strategic Planning Funds
The Associate Deans, Executive Dean and the Vice President have set aside one-time funding for
small initiatives to support implementing actions that will move the college toward achieving its
annual plan. The funds will be disseminated based on the information contained in program review.
Please talk to your Associate Dean or Director for more information.
Revised Three Year Enrollment Targets
The final 2013-14 budget was approved by the Board of Trustees this past Tuesday. The budget
that will be sent to the Chancellor’s Office on or before October 10th reflects the assumption that
our resident 2013-14 FTES target will decrease from 4,565 to 4,413 and grow at a modest 2.5%
annually from 2014-16.
Funded Resident FTES
2013-14
4 ,413
2014-15
4 ,523
2015-16
4 ,633
What effect, if any, will the decrease in this year’s FTES have on our spring FTES target? To meet
our target of 4,413 FTES, we will need to offer approximately 845 spring calculated sections to
capture 2,286 FTES. The exact number of sections is dependent on the FTES/section we expect.
2013-14 FTES
FTES Target (Revised)
FTES Summer 2013
Target FTES for Fall 2013
Projected FTES Fall 2013
# under fall target
Target for Spring (revised)
3
4,413
199
2,182
1,931
251
2,283
Need More Associate Faculty
We will not be able to achieve our mission without relying to a large (though certainly not
exclusive) extent on associate faculty. Our recent enrollments and projected growth indicates that
we will need to add to our pool of qualified associate faculty. The associate deans and directors will
work with faculty to talk about the qualities we want new associate faculty to possess before the
searches begin. However urgent the need will be, it will pay for us to define a profile of the
characteristics sought in new associates. This is not always easy, and takes time, communication,
and some self-reflection.
Fitting Counseling and Advising Together
There will be some changes in the Counseling and Advising area as we implement California’s new
student success agenda and add counseling faculty to the department. One question that Sheila Hall
and her staff are working to clarify is the difference between counselors and advisors.
Counseling faculty are professionally trained to address personal issues, resolve academic anxieties,
assist students in choosing career fields and majors, and problem solve other academic difficulties.
With students on academic dismissal or financial aid probation, counselors work to develop
individual success plans, which address the specific issues inhibiting academic success. Generally,
advisors specialize in matters pertaining to educational programs: college policies,
placement/assessment test interpretation, degree requirements, transferability, schedule planning,
and graduation checks, etc. The lists below are not all-inclusive.
Counselors:
 Provide short term personal counseling for issues that may interfere with studies
 Facilitate decision making on student educational plan and career goals
 Facilitate college adjustment for in-coming students (homesickness, time management,
depression, anxiety) and returning adult students (balancing roles of student, parent, spouse,
and/or employee)
 Mediate conflicts in student housing
 Teach coping skills and stress management
 Provide short term crisis counseling
 Develop individualized persistence and retention interventions
 Interpret career inventories
 Teach General Studies and/or Guidance Classes
 Serve as the college’s articulation officer and transfer center director.
Advisors:
 Help pick classes
 Develop student education plans
 Facilitate educational transactions; e.g., schedules, drop/adds, withdrawals, graduation
requirements, etc.
 Clarify institutional policies, procedures and requirements
 Provide general information on special services including academic remediation, placement
testing, courses of study, and registration
 Explain course transfer differences between institutions
 Interpret placement scores and recommend appropriate classes.
4
Eureka Library Update
MaryGrace hired an evening associate faculty librarian to work Monday – Thursday from 4:00
p.m.-8:00 p.m. Terri Bonow has accepted the position and began work this past Wednesday. She
has an MLIS from San Jose State University and a Bachelor of Arts in European Renaissance
History from the University of Washington. Terri has worked in a diverse setting of urban,
suburban, public, academic and research special libraries throughout the United States.
New Academic Buildings Update
Based upon feedback from faculty and staff in the new academic buildings the following are now
available or coming:



Drop boxes for students to submit work to faculty are on order for the Science and
Humanities buildings. A drop box is also on order for the Creative Arts buildings. More
specifics on how this will work will be provided once the drop boxes arrive
Scanning is now available using the copier in the Humanities building. The computer on the
far left side in the Associate Faculty Room (HU 113) is set up to receive scans from the
copier. See directions on the computer and near the copier machine.
There is a “Go Print” station in the Humanities building, upstairs so students can do printing
in the building.
There’s also been some confusion that there is no place in the Humanities building for associate
faculty to meet with students. Remember that HU 119 is an office for associate faculty to meet with
their students. Just use the 436367# key code to use access the room.
Welcome to New Division Colleagues
The Board of Trustees approved several new colleagues to our division:














Eric Naslund—Student Support Specialist II in Eureka.
Joy Lund—Financial Literacy Advising in Eureka.
Jessica Howard—Assistant Professor in Nursing in Eureka.
Ken Owens and Heinz Falenski—Associate faculty in Mathematics Eureka and Del Norte.
Deborah Syrdal--Associate faculty in History Eureka.
Cynthia Bachemin and Shelly Lyell—Associate faculty in Nursing Eureka.
Jason Marak, William Bajcayk, and Sara Obenauer—Associate faculty in English Eureka.
Jordan Hamill—Associate faculty in Coaching Eureka.
Teal Richards-Dimitrie—Associate faculty in Biological Sciences Eureka.
Randy Weaver—Professional Resource Expert in the Academic Support Center Eureka
Elizabeth Buchanan—Professional Resource Expert in the Math Lab Eureka
Delores Brannigan—Art Model in the Art department Eureka
Chris Lyman—Professional Resource Expert in DSPS Eureka
Kate McKinnon—Associate faculty in Non-Credit Reading Eureka
5
6