REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
Monday, February 7, 2011
1:10 – 2:40 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Approve January 31, 2011 Meeting Minutes*
3. Action Items
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Status Update - Summer Schedule Task Force
4.2 AP 5055
4.3 Student Dismissal (Goodlive)*
4.4 101 Corridor Data - What does it mean to EMC?
To review all data please see electronic files included in email
4.5 EM Plan – Goals
4.6 Communication Update – Matrix *
4.7 IEC
5. Reports
See Matrix
6. Announcements
6.1 Next meeting February 23 (rescheduled from February 21)
7. Adjournment
(* denotes attachment)
Next Meeting:
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE
February 23, 2011
1:10-2:40 p.m.
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
Monday, January 31, 2011
1:00 p.m.
Draft
NOTES
PRESENT
Zach DeLoach, Anna Duffy, Kathy Goodlive,
Melissa Green, Anita Janis (phone), Alan Keppner, Pam Kessler,
Geisce Ly (phone), Juana Tabares, Tiffany Schmitcke, Keith SnowFlamer and Bruce Wagner.
MINUTES
The minutes from the January 12, 2011 meeting were approved with
changes.
ACTION ITEMS
SUMMER
SCHEDULE TASK FORCE
A task force for the summer schedule was formed consisting of the
following members: Rachel Anderson, Tiffany Schmitcke, Barb
Franklin and Juana Tabares.
The charge for the Summer Task Force will be to review the draft that
Tiffany has completed based on the wish list submitted by the deans.
The task force will also check to see if anything is missing or
duplicated and what the historic rate of filling courses is. A status
update from the Summer Task Force is expected in approximately one
week.
There was discussion about how the guiding principles were
determined and Keith explained that Cabinet met and developed them
as a starting point in addressing the budget concerns.
Committee members voiced concern regarding the “forcing” of
summer night courses to the 101 Corridor. Keith explained that this is
only for consideration at this time and that the summer task force will
evaluate what the effect of moving night courses to the 101 would be.
Keith also noted that the task force will share their findings with EMC
before going forward to Cabinet.
There was discussion regarding the need for ongoing communication
not only when an action is taken, but also as a process develops.
The committee expressed concern regarding how the Guiding
Principles were developed and that the EMC was not asked for input.
Bruce requested that an explanation be given by cabinet on the
rationale used for development of the Guiding Principles.
Keith stated these are just guidelines to use as a starting point to move
forward. He also stated that BPC is using Guiding Principles to make
budget determinations.
COURSE
SCHEDULE –
TASK FORCE
The membership was confirmed for the Course Schedule – Task Force
which will consist of Rachel Anderson, Mike Peterson,
Allen Keppner, Kathy Goodlive, Zach DeLoach, Joe Hash, Geisce Ly,
Tiffany Schmitcke and Anna Duffy.
The task force will look at TLU allocations, site efficiencies and
student success as well as any other factors that may contribute to the
development of the course schedule. The timeline for a status update
from the task force is approximately 3 weeks.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS
AP 5055
NEXT STEPS
Keith noted that AP 5055 was on the College Council agenda last
week for discussion. He would like the multiple measures group to
work on comparing this to the most recent recommendations from the
LAO. A subcommittee was developed consisting of Cheryl Tucker,
Allen Keppner, Melissa Green and Pam Kessler to determine next
steps.
EMC- SPRING
PLANNING
AGENDA
Cheryl reviewed changes made to the EMC Planning Agenda noting
that work is still under development however, an effort was made to
delete over inflated goals and improve language. Committee members
recommended several changes, which Cheryl made note of. There
was overall consensus among the committee to approve the plan it
will be forwarded to the Budget Planning Committee.
EMC 2 YEAR PLAN
Keith suggested that the task force that has been working on the spring
plan stay intact and continue to work on the 2 year plan.
Keith and Bruce will make a formal request to the PRC for trends and
assessment/planning program reviews and the executive summary for
inclusion in the 2 year EMC plan.
DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATION
Bruce and Keith developed a table that shows status updates on
actions taken or pending by the committee. The table will be updated
after each meeting and distributed with the agenda packet for approval
by the committee. The status update will also be posted on the EMC
website.
Pam suggested that each semester EMC chairs provide an update to
Academic Senate.
BUDGET
OPTIONS LIST
The Budget Options list developed by BPC was briefly reviewed.
SUBMITTED
lw
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
Monday, January 12, 2011
1:00 p.m.
Corrected
NOTES
PRESENT
MINUTES
Rachel Anderson, Jennifer Bailey, Zach DeLoach,
Anna Duffy, David Gonsalves (phone), Kathy Goodlive,
Utpal Goswami, Melissa Green, Barbara Jaffari, Anita Janis (phone),
Alan Keppner, Pam Kessler, Geisce Ly (phone), Mike Peterson,
Tiffany Schmitcke, Keith Snow-Flamer and Bruce Wagner.
The minutes from the December 13, 2010 meeting were approved as
presented.
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
SUMMER
SCHEDULE
Keith reported that the current FTES projection is falling short of the
target of 5201. He proposed loading the preliminary summer schedule
into Datatel so that calculations can be made to determine FTES with
summer included.
Committee members expressed concern regarding the reoccurring
practice of delving into next year’s budget to pay for summer. It was
also expressed that in order to get out of this cycle decisions must be
made regarding what student population to serve during summer, and
what courses to offer. In addition the following topics were discussed:
 Who are the students served during summer
 Limit course offerings for summer
 Development of a two year schedule
 How the budget was built this year and how it will be built
next
 TLU allocations
 Anticipated budget cuts
Next steps:
Bruce and Keith will contact the Deans requesting that the course
templates for summer be completed and returned as soon as possible.
Once the course templates are reviewed by the committee the
preliminary summer schedule will be loaded into Datatel. After spring
census is calculated FTES will be reviewed and a determination will
be made regarding the number sections that will be offered for
summer.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS
FALL FTES
PROJECTIONS
There was discussion regarding what the FTES trends have been over
the past few years. Different scenarios were discussed regarding
growth or maintaining current number and what the impact would be
to a particular site or campus. It was noted that it seems that the level
of FTES is returning to where it was 2 years ago. Concern was
expressed regarding the ramifications of generating FTES beyond
what will be funded and what will happen if growth cannot be
maintained. Committee members also voiced concern regarding:
 How best to serve students?
 How can we support additional sites in lean times?
 Sustainability of current growth projections
Committee members considered the proposal of a “no growth”
scenario based on the current budget concerns. It was decided that
discussion needs to continue on this subject and a determination was
not made. This subject will be carried over to the next meeting
agenda.
COMMUNICATION
Keith asked how as a committee we should report out to the college
community. Something more needs to be done other than saying “read
the minutes.” He asked that thought be given to this so that a process
can be established.
LATE ADDS
There was concern regarding the late add cards. Kathy noted that
some changes are being made to the cards. Mike stated that if a faculty
member signs an add card after census he, as the dean, will sign it
without question relying on their judgment.
SUBMITTED
lw
Email from Kathy Goodlive 2/01/11
I‟ve been thinking about enrollment priorities and how we should be prioritizing our
limited resources and two thoughts occurred to me.
Academic Dismissals: a huge amount of human resources are spent in contacting
students who have been dismissed, whether for academic or progress dismissal.
Once all grades are in for a spring or fall term, I run processes which calculate the
academic standing of each student. At the end of a third term, students may be
o In good standing
o Honors (either president‟s or vice president‟s honors)
o Probation level I (either for progress or academic probation or a
combination of both)
o Probation level II (same as above)
o Dismissed (either for academic or probation or a combination of both)
So, what happens? After these processes have run, I send a spreadsheet to
advisors/counselors and there is a flurry of activity to try to “save” these students
by calling them, bringing them in, and creating an Academic Success contract.
As the time between semesters is so short, there is only about one week to do
this. At the end of the fall 2010 term, there were, district-wide, 159 students who
were dismissed and who were in classes for spring. If, by the Friday before the
spring term began, advisors/counselors had not contacted me that the student now
had an Academic Success contract on file, I dropped them from their spring
classes.
Registering to repeat a sequential class…OK, it has been the practice of the
college to allow a student to register to repeat a class during priority registration
based on the instructor‟s verification that the student will not likely pass the
class. Other colleges make the student wait until grades are in, then, if there are
seats available the student may register to repeat the class. The reasoning is that
the student HAD his/her opportunity to pass the class and now the college is
offering first priority to students who didn‟t, well, for lack of a better term, screw
up.
It is my contention that especially in these austere times, the college is obligated to spend
its resources in a manner that benefits those who are meeting their responsibilities as a
student. I further contend that we cheapen the value of education by providing the best
opportunities to those who have not met their obligation as a student. If we do not value
each seat in each class, why would our students?
I would truly love to have this discussion in the Enrollment Management Committee in
the very near future. I contend that the above practices are merely operational and not
policy and could be changed even in time for the fall semester. We could send out emails
to all instructors in sequential courses to announce the new practice, and we could send
emails to all students as well.
OK, I‟m off my soapbox. Thanks for listening even if it doesn‟t go to the committee.
Kathy
2011 Spring Heads by Location
EKA
MCKL
ARC
EDTN
5%
3%
2%
90%
Comparitive Fill Rates over Time (Eureka Campus vs. 101 Corridor)
0.994207317
0.972189153
0.988857496
0.951686508
0.977209514
0.960946574
0.901627279
0.873115079
0.82609127
0.695998677
0.659442256
101 Corridor
Eureka Campus
0.312830688
0.054447937
0.022916667
Average of
Jan12_Fill
Average of
Jan07_Fill
Average of
Dec22_Fill
Average of
Dec15_Fill
Average of
Dec06_Fill
Average of
Nov22_Fill
Average of
Nov10_Fill
Where do students in the greater Arcata-McKinleyville area take
classes? (Unweighted by units?)
MCKL
14%
ARC
16%
DTN
7%
EKA
63%
Where do students in the great Eel River valley area take classes?
(Unweighted by units?)
MCKL
1%
DTN
5%
ARC
2%
EKA
92%
ARC
BIG
BLOCKSBURG
GASQUET
JUNCTION
LEGGETT
LEWISTON
ORLEANS
PHILLIPSVILLE
SMITH
WEAVERVILLE
ALDERPOINT
F. DICK
KLAMATH
MYERS
PETROLIA
F. BRAGG
BRIDGEVILLE
BURNT
SALYER
WEOTT
KORBEL
ORICK
CUTTEN
MIRANDA
WHITETHORN
KNEELAND
HOOPA
WILLOW
SAMOA
FIELDS
CARLOTTA
REDWAY
GARBERVILLE
CRESCENT
HYDESVILLE
BLUE LAKE
SCOTIA
BAYSIDE
LOLETA
TRINIDAD
FERNDALE
RIO
FORTUNA
MCKINLEYVILLE
OUTER EUREKA
ARCATA
EKA
DTN
MCKL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
7
1
6
4
2
9
56
22
156
1
2
2
3
4
3
3
5
4
6
6
8
9
14
16
16
15
21
22
26
23
32
35
23
35
28
45
30
69
99
386
294
586
486
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
3
6
1
6
4
6
2
6
3
6
20
39
81
43
1
1
2
1
6
2
9
1
3
115
14
68
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
5 Del Norte
5
6
7
8
8
9 E. of Blue Lake
16
17 Trinity Alps
19
21
25
26
26
30
34
35
38
41
43
48
51
76
108
418
504
703
753
EUREKA
41
8%
17
6%
1125
4237
0.075695 0.76711 0.099395 0.057799
313
3172
411
239
Eureka
ARC
EKA
DTN
MCKL
CUTTEN
6
2
EUREKA
41
893
174
17
FIELDS
21
4
OUTER EUREKA
22
586
81
14
SAMOA
1
15
3
2
3%
81%
14%
2%
4135
Near North
ARC
ARCATA
BAYSIDE
BLUE LAKE
CRESCENT
KORBEL
KNEELAND
MCKINLEYVILLE
TRINIDAD
Eel River
CARLOTTA
FERNDALE
FORTUNA
GARBERVILLE
HYDESVILLE
LOLETA
RIO
REDWAY
SCOTIA
893
77%
EKA
156
7
3
DTN
486
28
23
32
4
14
294
30
63%
1
56
6
16%
ARC
EKA
1
4
9
1
1
2
2
2%
174
10%
MCKL
43
6
6
1
1
1
39
6
7%
DTN
22
69
386
23
35
45
99
26
35
92%
8
1125
25
703
21
1882
68
2
6
1
1
115
9
14%
MCKL
3
3
20
6
753
43
38
34
6
16
504
51
1445
Total
3
2
6
1
4
5%
0%
26
76
418
30
35
48
108
26
41
808
Relative Productivity, Spring 2011, EKA=100
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
EKA
MCKL
ARC
Series1
EDTN
#
Recommendation/Action
Item
Action Taken
Status
2010-11 Enrollment Management Plan
Forwarded the spring
plan to the MC and
Senate for their
information.
Two Year Enrollment Management Plan
In development
The EMC approved the spring enrollment management plan
developed by an EM task force.
Another task force has been created to begin working on the
two year enrollment management plan.
Task Force members: Pam Kessler, Allen Keppner, Melissa
Green, Cheryl Tucker
A request has been forwarded to the PRC for Trends &
Assessment/Planning program review summaries to inform
the Enrollment Management Plan. Once developed by the
EMC the two year plan will be vetted through the integrated
planning committees, Management Council, Academic
Senate, Cabinet, College Council, and the Budget Planning
Committee.
IR Status-101 Corridor Survey
Forwarded to IR
EM Scorecard
Forwarded to Cabinet
for approval.
Forwarded to the IEC
for review and
discussion.
Employee and Student Satisfaction
Survey Action Plans
Forwarded to
subcommittee of the
EMC to review and
revise the action plans
Task Force members: Pam Kessler, Allen Keppner, Melissa
Green, Cheryl Tucker
Deployment of the survey has been delayed given the lack
to an adequate number of staff in Institutional Research. Dr.
Goswami reported to the college in a December 17 email
that the process to fill the IR direction position will be
started.
Cabinet approved moving forward with populating the
scorecard. IR is in the process of gathering the data.
IR is populating the data fields.
The scorecard has been forwarded to the IEC for review
and discussion for possible use as indicators of institutional
effectiveness. The IEC may be asked to validate possible
targets.
The subcommittee's work will culminate in a set of
achievable goals for Spring semester, with a proposed
budget, based on a realistic assessment of the college as it is
now for the EMC to consider in January.
Next steps are to: EMC review the task forces‟ work and
revise the spring plan if necessary and convene a task force
to develop a two year EM Plan for submission the EMC by
April.
The college has made the commitment to redeploy a student
satisfaction action survey in April, 2012.
Multiple Measures
Forwarded to
subcommittee of the
EMC to review and
revise the action plans
The IEC will be asked to discuss how to use these results
in measuring institutional effectiveness.
English and math faculty and student services managers
have worked together on development of multiple measures
for English and math placement
The Academic Support Center web-site has been updated to
include more up to date information on preparation for the
Accuplacer test and appointments available
The English and math faculty have provided English and
math course level descriptions and samples that will be
utilized by advisors to assist students who fall within zones
between two different courses in choosing the course they
would have the best opportunity to be successful in.
Data from IR is being utilized to further analyze the
relationship between Accuplacer scores and course success
in math for validity purposes and to help inform
improvements for the assessment procedures
The matriculation flow process is being updated to ensure
students are informed about the importance of placement
results and engage in adequate preparation for the
Accuplacer tests and the advising component informs
students about the difference between various levels of
math and English and utilizes intake questions in a
consistent manner to determine the potential for student
success.
Waitlist procedure
Student Feedback Online Form
Forwarded to
Administration
Forwarded to IT for
implementation
Task Force: Pam Kessler, Judie Hinman, Melissa Green,
Mary Grace Barrick, Cheryl Tucker, Bruce Wagner, Todd
Olsen, Amber Buntin
Approved and has been implemented for Spring 2011.
Co-chairs of the EMC worked with Maggie to develop the
appropriate questions, and has uploaded the form to the
website and MyCR site.
When a student fills out the form, an email will be sent to
Tiffany. She can then forward that problem if necessary to
the appropriate person.
AP 5055 Review and Revision
Summer Enrollment
Over the next few weeks, we can observe what kinds of
problems are reported, and we can discuss the form further
at the next EMC meeting. Any appropriate changes in the
form recommended by the EMC can be made at that time.
A small group of EMC members have been asked to review
the proposed AP 5055 against the LAO recommendations
for enrollment priorities.
Task Force members: Pam Kessler, Allen Keppner, Kathy
Goodlive, Bruce Wagner, Melissa Green, Cheryl Tucker
A task force has been created to develop a draft district
summer schedule with the guidance that we‟re looking at
offering 100 sections this summer. Initial summer schedule
guidelines were created by the Cabinet and forwarded to the
EMC for consideration as it develops the schedule:
1.
2.
100 calculated sections
Focus evening courses to 101 Corridor beginning
Summer „11
3. High FTES generating classes
4. Online classes (increase online without stipends
(use currently trained faculty))
5. Lab sciences
6. Mendo, Del Norte, KT parity
7. 19-20% evening
8. no evenings in Eureka if possible
9. Two courses in Southern Humboldt if possible
10. Look to online for Mendo or Del Norte students
as a possible substitute for low enrolled traditional
classes
The EMC understands that one of its key responsibilities is
to recommend scheduling, instructional and student support
strategies to enhance student access, success, retention,
persistence, and goal attainment. The task force will use the
cabinet‟s initial guidelines, the EMC‟s charge, and IR data
in its deliberations as it endeavors to provide a draft
schedule for full EMC review at the February 7th meeting.
Task Force members: Rachel Anderson (lead), Tiffany
Schmitcke, Barbara Jaffari, Juana Tabares, Barb Franklin,
Zach DeLoach, and Anna Duffy
2011-12 FTES Target
Keith Snow-Flamer is the liaison.
A task force has been created to develop recommended
FTES/TLU allocations, annual schedule, and other issues
associated with the FY11-12 district schedule. The cabinent
provided some initial guiding principles for the committee‟s
consideration.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Target FTES is 4950 resident FTES
a. equal % cut in annualized FTES based on
2010-11 actual (5200)
Number of calculated sections funded is
determined by site productivity
Selected adjustments permitted for
instructional/schedule integrity
All new program/class initiatives (e.g. EMP
driven) may be funded with excess reserves
101 Corridor is considered separate entity
Virtual campus will be a stand-alone division and
function like the 101 Corridor as it relates to TLU
allocations
Focus evening courses to 101 Corridor Summer
„11
The EMC and the task force must balance the question of
whether we focus on opportunity (access) or focus on
student success.
Task Force members: Mike Peterson, Allen Keppner, Kathy
Goodlive, Zach Deloach, Joe Hash, Rachel Anderson,
Tiffany Schmitcke, Geisce Ly.
Bruce Wagner is the liaison.
1
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Thursday February 3, 2011, 3:00 p.m.
Boardroom
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Approve meeting minutes—None
3. Action Items
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Review of draft BP/AP 3205 Institutional Planning documents (attachment)
4.2 Review of draft Institutional Planning Narrative and Integrated Planning Model
Flowchart (attachment)
4.3 Review draft IEC Planning Agenda February-October (attachment)
4.4 Possible measures of Institutional Effectiveness: use of the enrollment scorecard
(developed by the EMC)—missing indicators? (attachment)
4.5 Discuss assessment survey to measure staff and faculty thoughts on our institutional
effectiveness planning efforts (attachment to follow)
5. Reports
6. Adjournment
2
Redwoods Community College District
DRAFT Board Policy: BP 3250
Institutional Planning
The Superintendent/President shall ensure that the College has a comprehensive, broad-based
ongoing planning and evaluation cycle that is driven by the College’s Mission and Goals and is
supported by institutional effectiveness research. This planning process involves appropriate
segments of the College and is inclusive of all constituent groups. The planning and budgeting
system shall be linked, and planning priorities shall be established annually.
The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning processes by systematically
reviewing, evaluating and modifying, as appropriate, all parts of the cycle, including institution
and other research efforts.
The planning system shall include plans required by law, including, but not limited to:
Long range educational master plan, which shall be updated periodically as deemed
necessary by the Board of Trustees
Facilities plan
Faculty and staff diversity plan
Student equity plan
Matriculation
Transfer Center
Cooperative Work Experience
Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) plan
Equal Employment Opportunity plan
The Superintendent/President shall submit those plans for which Board approval is required by
Title 5 to the Board.
The Superintendent/President shall inform the Board about the status of planning and various
plans, and seek Board input during their development.
Reference:
Accreditation Standard 1.B
Title 5, Sections 51008, 51010, 51027, 53003, 54220, 55080, 55190, 55250, 55510,
56270 et seq
3
Redwoods Community College District
DRAFT Administrative Procedure: AP 3250
Through established committees with representation from faculty, administration, classified staff,
and students, the College will review and recommend planning decisions related to human,
physical, technology, and financial resources.
Applying the criteria of accreditation standards, the planning process will be guided by adopted
vision, mission and core values statements and will develop specific goal, objectives and
strategies, which have measurable outcomes and specific accountability.
Action plans will be reviewed and revised annually and approved by the respective planning
bodies.
Academic Senate will be the representative body in all academic and professional matters, as
defined by Title 5, Section 53200.
Institutional effectiveness research, program reviews and individual unit plans are utilized in the
planning process, which is intended to complement and inform the resource allocation process.
The Board may assist in developing the general institutional mission and goals for the
comprehensive plans through a variety of means, including, but not limited to, the President’s
evaluation process, the Board retreat, and any time the Board reviews curriculum items.
Planning documents will be submitted to the System Office in a timely manner when required.
Reference:
The initial recommendation for integrating institutional planning rests with the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee. Institutional planning processes shall be submitted to the California
Community College (CCC) System Office when required.
Processes for developing, reviewing, updating, approving, and implementing plans and
processes include:
A. Educational Master Plan (EMP), including the Academic Master Plan, the
Facilities Master Plan, and the Technology Master Plan
1. Reviewed annually and updated every five years by the Budget and Planning Committee. The
updated EMP will be approved by appropriate governance council(s) as a recommendation to the
superintendent/president.
4
2. Implemented continuously via the annual program-review process and the annual budgetdevelopment process, as well as planning and budgeting within each division of the college.
B. Program Review Process
1. Reviewed and updated annually by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee as a
recommendation to the College Council; approved by the Academic Senate Council as a
recommendation to the superintendent/president.
2. Implemented annually by all programs and services.
C. Program Review/Budget Development Linkage Process
1. Reviewed annually and updated as needed by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and
Budget and Planning Committee and recommended to the College Council.
2. Implemented annually by all programs and services and supervised by the Budget and
Planning Committee.
D. Budget and Planning Calendar
1. Reviewed and implemented continuously and updated and approved as needed by the Budget
and Planning Committee.
Reference: Accreditation Standard I.B; Title 5, Sections 51008, 51010, 51027, 53003,
54220, 55080, 55190, 55510, 56270 et seq.
5
Draft Institutional Planning Model (IPM) Narrative
Revised November 22, 2010
Revised December 11, 2010
Revised January 17, 2011
Revised January 25, 2011
Revised January 27, 2011
Purpose
Planning allows the college to efficiently distribute resources and coordinate action plans that
contribute to achieving the college’s mission. College of the Redwoods is committed to
comprehensive institutional planning that is strategically focused, on going, and outcomes
orientated. Planning and evaluation are included in college- and unit-level planning, budgeting,
and evaluation processes. The planning process includes institutional effectiveness of the
college’s educational programs, student services, and administrative areas. Through planning, the
college ensures that its policies, budgets, and decisions reflect its mission.
Planning should be viewed as ever-changing as time progresses, the needs of the college change,
and gaps are identified in the college’s drive to meet accreditation standards for program review,
planning, learning outcomes, and ultimately institutional effectiveness.
Mission
The college mission statement is central to the planning. The college’s schedule for reviewing the
mission statement is every three years in a cycle that sequences this review during the year prior
to the development of the next strategic plan. In keeping with the schedule identified later in this
Narrative, the college’s mission will be reviewed in 2011, 2014, and 2017. The draft college
mission statement is under consideration at College Council.
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges standard most relevant to the
development and review of college missions is:
I.A. Mission
The institution has a statement of mission that defines the institution’s broad
educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to
achieving student learning.
1. The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned with its
purposes, its character, and its student population.
2. The mission statement is approved by the governing board and published.
3. Using the institution's governance and decision-making processes, the institution
reviews its mission statement on a regular basis and revises it as necessary.
4. The institution’s mission is central to institutional planning and decision making.
6
Timeline and Process for Review of the Mission
September 2010, 2013, 2016
College Council forms a task force to review the college mission.
Mission Review Task Force develops a review process to ensure college-wide feedback.
October 2010, 2013, 2016
The Mission Review Task Force submits the process plan to the College Council for feedback.
Mission Review Task Force modifies the review process as appropriate.
November 2010, 2013, 2016
Mission Review Task Force conducts the review so that input from the college community is
solicited regarding potential modifications to the college mission.
December 2010, 2013, 2016
Mission Review Task Force modifies the mission as appropriate and submits to the College
Council for review and recommendations.
The College Council ensures college-wide review of the proposed revision to the college mission
prior to approval.
January 2011, 2014, 2017
College Council revises the mission if appropriate and recommends forwarding the mission to
the Board.
The Superintendent/President submits the revised mission statement to the Board of Trustees for
approval. Following this approval, the revised mission statement is circulated college-wide for
use in all publications.
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan identifies the specific actions that the college must take to implement the
recommendations identified in the Educational Master Plans. This planning process is initiated
by reviewing the Educational Master Plan recommendations and determining which will serve as
the college’s top priorities for the next three-four years. From these college priorities, a number
of specific strategic objectives are identified. In turn each strategic objective is translated into a
number of concrete, measurable action steps to be used to achieve the strategic objectives. Each
action step includes a timeline for completion, a description of indicators of success, and the
assignment of parties responsible for implementing the action.
The Strategic Plan promotes continual improvement over time because the process calls for the
prioritization of a reasonable number of strategic objectives for college wide concentration each
year.
Each year the college will produce an annual institutional effectiveness report that documents
7
progress on the strategic objectives to reinforce and sustain the college dialogue on the college’s
long-term and short-term goals.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee calls for the subsequent strategic plan when the term
of the current strategic plan expires or when all strategic objectives have been achieved. The
schedule for the coming decade is:
Strategic Plan 2008-2012 (spring 2008 through spring 2012)
Annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports in spring 2011
Final Institutional Effectiveness Report of SP 2009-2012 in spring 2012
Strategic Plan 2012 - 2015 (fall 2012 through spring 2015)
Annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports in spring 2013 and spring 2014
Final Institutional Effectiveness Report of SP 2012-2015 in spring 2015
Strategic Plan 2015 - 2019 (fall 2015 through spring 2019)
Annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports in spring 2016 and spring 2018
Final Institutional Effectiveness Report of SP 2015-2019 in spring 2018
These final strategic plan progress reports feed into the Educational Master Plan to be developed
in the 2018 – 2019 academic year.
Timeline and Process for the Developing Strategic Plans
Strategic Plan 2012 – 2015, and 2015 – 2019
February 2012, 2016, 2019
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee analyzes the recommendations in the Educational
Master Plans and recommends the college priorities for the next three- four years.
February - March 2012, 2016, 2020
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee develops a draft Strategic Plan made up of a
reasonable number of strategic objectives and action steps for each college priority. The action
steps identify specific tactics, a timeline for completion, and the party/parties responsible for
completing each task.
The draft Strategic Plan is distributed college wide for feedback.
April 2012, 2016, 2020
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee incorporates the feedback from the college wide
review and prepares the final strategic plan.
The strategic plan is presented to the Superintendent/President and College Council for review
and approval.
Annually in late spring, IEC prepares an Institutional Effectiveness Report which documents and
quantifies the progress on each of the college’s strategic objectives and the unit plans presented
in program reviews.
8
Assessment of Progress on College Goals/Plans
The annual Institutional Effectiveness report, a widely distributed report of the college’s progress
on its goals and plans, will be a key benchmark of accountability in the integrated planning
process.
Timeline and Process for Assessing Progress on College Priorities & Objectives
May 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC calls for progress reports on the action steps and these progress reports are documented in
the IEC minutes.
June 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC reviews and validates the progress reports, comparing the reported achievements against the
goals set forth in program reviews and the Strategic Plan 2009- 2012.
IEC identifies specific barriers to success for unmet goals/plans. The Superintendent/President’s
Cabinet removes barriers where possible.
July 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC prepares the 2010-2011 annual report on Institutional Effectiveness to document and
quantify the progress on each of the college’s strategic objectives and the unit plans presented in
program reviews.
September 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC distributes the report on Institutional Effectiveness college-wide and presents the report to
the Board of Trustees.
Assessment of the Planning Process
In keeping with the accreditation standard on institutional effectiveness the college must
routinely assesses its planning process. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee will create and
publicize an ongoing, informal venue for providing feedback on any aspect of the college’s
integrated planning process.
In addition, each year the IEC will dedicate one meeting to an informal review of the posted
comments and a celebration of the college’s planning process. Members of the college
community are invited to share comments on any aspect of the process; these comments will
result in revisions of processes if appropriate.
A formal review of the components of the integrated planning process will take place during the
year prior to the development of the next strategic plan, parallel to the schedule for the review of
the college mission. In keeping with the schedule identified earlier the college’s planning process
will be formally reviewed and revised as needed in 2011, 2014, and 2017.
9
Timeline and Process for Assessing the Planning Process
February 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC creates a venue for dialog among appropriate groups and individuals to provide feedback on
the integrated planning process.
April 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC consolidates the feedback on the planning process and distributes this feedback collegewide.
September 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC recommends changes as needed in the planning processes and distributes its
recommendations college- wide for comment.
October, 2011, 2014, 2017
IEC updates the Institution’s planning narrative as needed for use in the planning cycle that
begins the following year.
The Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
The goal and impetus of the model is the improvement of student learning and service
efficiencies through assessment of learning outcomes and other measures of institutional
effectiveness.
The integrated planning model diagrams the flow of program review information, integrated
planning functional committees priorities, the consolidation of those priorities based on
budgetary availability, as well as the continuous communication process between the PRC, the
integrated planning functional committees, the Cabinet and within CR as a whole.
The following descriptions detail the functions within the IPM.
Divisions (Instructional, Student Services, Administrative Services).
Within divisions each discipline/department/unit submits annual or comprehensive program
reviews each year as dictated by the program review calendar. Each discipline/department/unit is
also responsible for ensuring assessment that occurs annually.
Program Review and the Program Review Committee (PRC)
Program Review is an institution-wide process of departmental/unit/program evaluation,
planning, and improvement that is designed for systematic performance and planning reviews of
all instructional and non-instructional functions. Each unit will develop an annual unit plan for
the following fiscal year. Each unit review may contain information that describes the previous
year's goals and intended outcomes, student achievement and student learning outcome data (if
applicable), efficiency measures (if applicable), and the results from the review/assessment
processes.
10
Programs and departments also undergo periodic comprehensive review. Career Technical
programs are evaluated every five years; Student Services and Administrative programs every
three years; and Academic programs every five years. A calendar of comprehensive reviews is
available via the Program Review web site.
Specifically, the periodic review phase of the planning and review cycle includes the following
three components: (1) preparation of a self-study report by the unit (2) evaluation by a
department members (3) revision of the unit's review plan as indicated by the evaluation
conducted by Program Review Committee.
Characteristics of program reviews:
Reviews are forward-thinking.
Reviews are evaluative, not just descriptive. Plans for improvement require judgment about
the program, students, curriculum (if applicable), learning outcomes, resources, and future
directions.
Reviews provide a concise, honest appraisal of programs and department/discipline strengths
and weaknesses.
The PRC is an evaluating and reporting committee with three main tasks to support college
planning. The first task is to evaluate program reviews (annual or comprehensive) via three
subcommittees. The three subcommittees- Trends, Assessment and Budget evaluate different
sections of the program reviews to assure quality evaluation. Each subcommittee evaluates each
program with a normed rubric. The Trends subcommittee reviews student success, student
achievement, enrollment, retention, basic skills components of each program review. The
Assessment subcommittee reviews SLOs/PLOs, annual goals, action plans (if applicable) and
other relevant assessment data (connections between annual plans and assessment results). The
Budget subcommittee reviews the budget of each program in relation to program function,
supplies/equipment, staffing/faculty needs and professional development. All three
subcommittees provide feedback to the authors and allow authors the opportunity to revise their
program reviews before final submission.
Each year the PRC will consolidate all programmatic needs into one executive summary to be
shared with the President, Board of Trustees (BOT), and the District as a whole. This task
finalizes the process of evaluating program evaluation work completed throughout the District
and synthesizes the information to be shared with the various master planning committees.
Integrated Planning Functional Committees
The integrated planning functional committees utilize areas of expertise to make effective
program recommendations for the college. The function of each committee is to evaluate
information within their specialized area. Each IPFC is will comply with the following:
Each committee will have a clearly defined purpose and stated processes.
The purpose and processes will be contained in the Operating Agreement document
published annually. If applicable, the committee will define projects and reports, and have
targeted due dates.
11
The committee co-chairpersons are responsible for completion of these responsibilities.
Each committee will make every effort to have representatives from collegial consultation
(Academic Senate, CSEA, ASCR) as members of the committee.
Committees will plan with regard to annual action priorities and institutional outcomes,
and the college mission, values, vision and strategic goals. The work of the committees
will be data driven and reflect an assessment-planning-implementation-evaluation cycle.
Committees will develop a format for meeting minutes that highlight the results off the
committee’s work.
Committee executive summaries and budget requests will be submitted to BPC for
review and consideration.
Protocols and policy discussions are submitted to the College Council.
Communication between committees and ―establishing priorities between committees‖
occurs at the IPFC level. Each committee will communicate regarding
requests/information as needed.
Furniture/Equipment Needs ($5000 or less)
Will review all furniture and equipment
Will review unit budgetary requests/constraints/concerns
Will review the various needs (furniture, equipment, library needs, professional
development and other)
Output:
Recommends prioritization based on a rubric
Concerns about DIEM account and deferred maintenance
Education Master Plan (EMP)
Will review all unit goals, plans, Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs) as well as unit
changes, action plans (if applicable) and Labor Market data
Output:
Unit prioritization- which units need help connecting to the EMP
Assessment of outcomes of goals/plans and if improvement and/or
adjustments are needed
Assessment of changes
Assessment of labor market data and needs
Annual and long term EMP plan
Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Will design and conduct a collaborative enrollment management planning process,
discuss student achievement and success data, link enrollment targets with budget
projections, recommend scheduling, instructional and student support strategies to
enhance student access, success, retention, persistence, and goal attainment.
Output:
Link enrollment targets to budget creation
Annual and long term EMC plan
Facilities ($5000 or more)
Will review facility data and classroom data
Will review all classroom, building, ADA and health/safety requests and concerns
Output:
Recommends technology priorities based on rubrics
Concerns about the technology replacement plan and deferred
maintenance
12
Database of relevant/current deferred maintenance
Annual and long term facility plan cross referencing FMP
Technology
Will review all technology and classroom technology requests
Will review all technology requests in relation to (if applicable) students served,
SLO/PLOs, and student achievement data.
Output:
Recommends prioritizations based on rubrics
Annual and long term technology plan cross referencing TMP
Concerns about the technology replacement plan and deferred maintenance
Budget Planning Committee (BPC)
Allocating college resources is based on a clear description of the relationship between the
resource requested and its impact on student learning, unit effectiveness, and the vision, mission,
and strategic goals of the college.
The BPC evaluates and assesses the ranked priorities coming from each of the appropriate
integrated planning committees as well as the initiatives coming from the administration, student
government, and Academic Senate regarding potential programmatic changes and faculty
prioritizations. The BPC will essentially reconcile the ranked requests with available resources,
and recommend a reasonable ―cut-off‖ point for these requests.
Since resources are allocated nine to twelve months following the first submission of unit plans,
the Cabinet may exercise discretion in allocating final resource awards to meet the current needs
of the district, but will make every effort to use the broad allocation models as defined by the unit
plans and the collegial consultation process.
Cabinet
The Cabinet provides initial FTES targets for the EMC and BPC. Cabinet also reviews (and
possibly refines the ranked District priorities) and either denies or validates the rankings. If
changes are made, Cabinet will provide rationale for changing the ranked priorities created by the
IPM process and report back to the BPC, the PRC and the Divisions.
Resource Allocation
The resource allocation processes link program reviews and strategic planning to the resources
needed to accomplish the college goals. The guiding principles for resource allocation processes
are as follows:
1. Resources include all assets of the college including its fiscal resources, facilities,
equipment, and the time and talents of its faculty and staff.
2. The processes for allocating resources are transparent. All members of the college
community are informed about the routines and components of planning that lead to
resource allocations.
13
3. The resource allocation processes begin in January of each year with the development of
budget assumptions that forecast the available discretionary general fund resources for the
coming fiscal year and thereby may set the parameters for program reviews and work
plans.
4. Priority will be given to resource requests that support
- achievement of college strategic objectives and
- health, safety, and accessibility.
5. To the extent that it is fiscally possible, the college will sustain an innovations fund (Fund
15) to support faculty/staff ideas and start ups.
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is intended to further support the IPM process by
emphasizing the systematic nature of planning, implementation, assessment and revision.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee ensures the implementation and ongoing assessment
of the institutional planning process, that the decisions made to improve the college are data
driven and are institutional—the plans are developed primarily by the needs identified in the
Program Review, and that the college is moving forward in meeting ACCJC/WASC
requirements as "essential in carrying out the integrated broad based planning process required by
ACCJC that leads to good decision making, planned budgeting, and a system that works toward
institutional effectiveness." Recommendations developed by the Committee are forwarded to the
President and the College Council for dissemination and discussion by the constituencies and the
college community at large.
The IEC accomplishes its purpose by:
1. Ensuring the integration of the planning process, including, but not limited to a
coordinated, institutional approach in addressing college priorities and the
interrelationship among institutional plans;
2. Providing the accountability needed to ensure continued efficacy to the college planning
processes (strategic and operational) and review processes;
3. Monitoring and adjusting the ongoing planning process so that it meets the college's
needs;
4. Providing assessment of the integration of the resource allocation process and the
Strategic and annual plans(budget, staff development, staffing, etc);
5. Establishing semiannual communication with the campus community regarding the
institutional planning process and gaining input from the college community regarding
planning issues;
6. Supporting the ongoing development and implementation of outcomes assessment cycle;
and
7. Providing an annual assessment of the effectiveness of the various planning communities
and the institutional planning process to the College Council.
14
Plan Implementation
Because the institutional plans (Basic Skills, Enrollment Management and Student Equity) in
this narrative include both program review activities and strategic plan action steps, the
implementation of the plans will vary significantly. Therefore, no single timeline and process
will be described.
The individual(s) responsible for implementing plans are identified in the source documents, and
they are charged with:
- developing appropriate timelines and processes;
- assessing success after the plans are implemented; and
- reporting the activities and results to IEC each February/March
College Council
The College Council ensures that the collaborative process of the IPM is adhered to. If the
process was not followed, the College Council will provide a report to the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee as to how the process was violated.
IPM Flow
January-March 2011, 2012, 2013
All program reviews are submitted by authors to the PRC. Program quality and improvement are
the primary focus of Program Review. The specific purpose of the PRC is to evaluate units and
programs based on the following criterion:
To evaluate instructional programs, support services, and administrative services within
the context of the vision, mission, and strategic goals of the College.
To improve the quality of instruction and services, to meet accountability mandates, and
to demonstrate institutional effectiveness.
To identify the goals and plans for any improvements or changes that will enhance
student learning outcomes and overall program efficiency and effectiveness.
To more closely connect the program review, assessment, and planning functions.
To ensure that student success and achievement are more thoroughly discussed.
To provide a means for tracking and evaluating the actions taken to improve program
effectiveness and efficiency.
To identify trends within a program and/or service.
To review all degrees and certificates while continuing to review disciplines.
To serve as a basis to assist the college in initiation, expansion, reduction, consolidation,
and discontinuation of programs and services.
To allow the entire college community to evaluate its strengths and identify and address
its challenges so the college can better set priorities to meet the student and community
needs.
15
To evaluate the college’s progress in addressing the inclusion of basic skills education in
its programs, courses, and disciplines.
The PRC subcommittees (Trends, Assessment and Budget) appraise each program review
according to a set of committee agreed upon rubrics.
The Trends subcommittee reviews student success, student achievement and basic skills
data.
The Budget subcommittee reviews budget.
The Assessment subcommittee reviews the assessment and forwards assessment
summaries to the Assessment Committee for review and action..
PRC subcommittees meet to provide a synthesized evaluation of each program review based on a
non-ranking rubric.
All rubrics are posted District wide for each program review. Authors’ are provided the
opportunity to revise their program reviews using the aggregated PRC rubric comments.
Authors turn in revised versions of their program review which are posted online on the PRC
site.
Reviews culminate in recommendations developed by the Program Review Committee in
consultation with the appropriate director or dean. The recommendations are communicated to
the Academic Senate and the Cabinet. This specific recommendation may include a summary
statement indicating the strength of programs or a statement recommending placing the program
in one of the following seven categories:
recommend program initiation;
recommend program expansion;
recommend revitalization
recommend continuation of program in current form;
recommend program continuation, but with adjustments to current funding level and/or
program modifications; or
recommend special attention to program and continuing review.
Late March/Early April 2011, 2012, 2013
The PRC creates a final executive summary for each updated program review. The summary
provides details regarding the program which will be utilized by the various Integrated Planning
Functional Committees (IPFCs) to make planning decisions. The PRC forwards budget requests
to the Budget Planning Committee for inclusion in preliminary budget. The executive
summaries are posted online.
May-June 2011, 2012, 2013
IPFCs review each committee specific ―tear off‖ for all program reviews and evaluate resource
requests/information using rubric.
IPFCs create ranked priorities based on the evaluated specialized needs using a rubric based in
16
outcome assessment and student achievement data, or other appropriate efficiency measures.
Each IPFC’s ranked priorities are posted. Each IPFC constituency group should be aware of the
ranked priorities produced.
July-August 2011, 2012, 2013
IPFCs forward their ranked priorities to the Budget Planning Committee (BPC) for consideration.
The BPC forward their ranked priorities to the Cabinet for review. If any alterations are made to
the BPC version of the ranked priorities, the Cabinet will post and report back to the Divisions
and the IPFC.
Outcome assessments will be forwarded to PRC in the program review documents. The PRC
will summarize their findings and forward their summaries to the appropriate Vice President,
who will then work with departments to discuss the information and make any necessary
corrections.
Staffing requests will be processed through the appropriate Vice President with final prioritized
recommendations forwarded to Cabinet for review. The Vice Presidents will develop transparent,
open, and rational ranking/prioritization processes.
17
Draft IEC Planning Agenda January-October
February
2011
Validate Institutional Effectiveness Criterion and Indicators
(Scorecard)
February,
2011
Quantitative survey deployed college wide to measure progress on
ACCJC rubric on institutional effectiveness.
Hold planning summit with integrated planning committees to provide
feedback on the integrated planning process.
March,
2011
Consolidate the feedback on the planning process and distribute this
feedback college-wide.
April 2011 Begin analyzing feedback data and design action plan.
April 2011 Call for progress reports on the various action plan items and progress
reports are documented in the IEC minutes.
June, 2011 IEC reviews and validates the progress reports, comparing the reported
achievements against the goals set in program reviews, the Strategic
Plan 2009- 2012, Basic Skills, Enrollment Management, and
Educational Master Plans.
IEC identifies specific barriers to success for unmet goals/plans. The
Superintendent/President’s Cabinet removes barriers where possible.
September, Recommend changes as needed in the planning processes and
2011
distributes its recommendations college- wide for comment.
October,
2011
Update the Integrated Planning Narrative as needed for use in the
planning cycle that begins the following year.
18
19
College of the Redwoods – Scorecard
Effectiveness
Indicators
Retention
Retention
2008/09
2009/10
Retention Rates
Retention Rates (by cohort)
Athletes
Veterans
First-Time
First Generation
Former Foster Youth
89%
88%
Persistence
Persistence
Fall-Spring Persistence Rates
Fall-Fall Persistence Rates (from
previous Fall)
63%
48%
66%
44%
Access
Average Number of Semesters to
obtain 60 transferrable units.
Access
Access
Access
Student to Advisor Ratio
Student to Counselor Ratio
Percent Financial Aid Participation
Rates
10188 : 1
3396 : 1
46.4%
5381 : 1
1538 : 1
50.9%
Access
Access
Student Headcount
High School Enrollment Yield (High
school enrollment yield; % of
freshmen from feeder high schools )
10188
28%
10763
Access/Revenue
Access
FTES (annual credit FTES)
Enrollment of Students of
Native American / Alaskan Native
Hispanic or Latino
Black/African American
Asian / Pacific Islander
Student Progress and Achievement
(ARCC)
795
798
250
369
52.7%
857
884
256
452
54.9%
529
600
49.2%
52.4%
30
32
5
18
41
35
8
25
64%
2.7
72%
2.82
Success
Outcome Measures
Success
Completion (number of certificates
and degrees)
Success
Basic Skills Improvement Rate
(ARCC data)
Success
Completion of Student of Color
Native American / Alaskan Native
Hispanic or Latino
Black/African American
Asian / Pacific Islander
Student Satisfaction--instructional
Student Satisfaction--services
Efficiency Rates
FTES/calculated sections without
positive attendance
Satisfaction/Perception
Satisfaction/Perception
Productivity
Productivity
Current
Target
20
Missing Indicators?
Percentage of first-time students who showed intent to complete and achieved any of the following
outcomes within six years of entry into the CCC system: Transfer, Degree/Cert, Transfer Prepared,
Transfer Directed.
Percentage of first-time students who showed intent to complete and earned 30+ units within six
years of entry while in the CCC system
Annual count of Palomar transfers reported by transferred-in system
Annual number of degrees and certificates awarded AA Certificates >=18 Certificates <18 units
Semester to semester continuation rate for ALL first-time freshman
Percentage of first-time students with min. of six units earned in a Fall term who returned and
enrolled in the subsequent Fall term anywhere in the CCC
Successful Course Completion Rates: Transfer, Vocational, Basic Skills
Percentage of students who start out at and attempt a Basic Skills course in English or math who
successfully complete a transfer level English or math course within four years
Percentage of students who start out at and attempt an AA level course in English or math who
successfully complete a transfer level English or math course within four years.
Full-time Faculty Obligation: Number of full-time faculty required by system office based on
growth in credit FTES