REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Wednesday, February 22
10:00-Noon
Boardroom
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Notes of February 6th Meeting
3. Action Items
3.1.1 Plan linkage diagram with general timetable
3.1.1.1 Finalize the Strategic Plan—March
3.1.1.2 Update Education Master Plans—April
3.1.1.3 Update Annual plans (Enrollment Management, Facilities, Budget, Staffing,
Technology)—May/June
3.1.2 Assessment of the planning process/Review IPM Calendar
3.1.2.1 IPM, PRC conduct self assessment—March 1
3.1.2.2 Redeploy survey to committees—March 7
3.1.2.3 Planning Summit—Saturday March 24
4. Discussion Items
4.1.1 Identification of “watch list” areas of concern
4.1.2 Report out of “watch list” concerns with timeline for completion to relevant
committees/governance bodies
5. Director’s Report Out
6. Agenda items for future meetings
6.1 March 7th 9-11 in the Boardroom
7. Adjournment
1
Process and timeline of annual assessment of the planning process
IEC inform IPMs and PRC to conduct self assessment by March 1
IEC deploy survey to committees on March 7
IEC put on planning summit for IPM members on Saturday March 24
o Facilitators: Roxanne Metz and Mary Grace Barrick
Planning Summit Topics
Ascertain the degree by which planning actions are aligned with institutional goals and
SLOs.
To what degree did the committee’s satisfy the themes developed from last year’s summit
findings?
Dialogue with each committee about what worked and what didn’t work this year
Developed list of improvements/next steps for next year.
2
Proposed Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Master Calendar 2011-2013
Committee
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
Divisions
Review of
Addendums
8-30-11 thru 10-2-11
Review of addendums
8-30-11 thru 10-3-11
Addendums due 10-3-11
Program
Review
Committee
(PRC)
Institutional
Effectiveness
Committee
(IEC)
All planning books
complete
Integrated
Planning
Functional
Committees
(IPFCs)
Budget
Planning
Committee
(BPC)
Cabinet
Initial emails
Committee schedules
All committees formed
Review of previous
prioritized requests/info
College
Council
Outline IPM evaluation
process
Academic
Senate, VPs
and Deans
November 2011
December 2011
Review of Program Reviews
Membership and IPFCs
membership
Addendums are due 10-311
Addendums are analyzed
Review of in-progress and
competed requests
All addendums are added
to planning books
Review for double
requests
Spring Process review
Norming rubrics
Subcommittee workload
review(No PRC meetings)
Rubric norming
Planning books available
to all IPFCs
Prioritization begins
Ranked priorities
Priority themes
Finalize priorities
Posts requests to web
Information finalized for
Spring process and sent to
District
Resource allocation tracking
process complete
All prioritized requests
complete for BPC
Written requests sent to BPC
Discuss report-out to BPC
Fall Process review
Schedule for IPFC report-outs
complete
Cabinet reviews IPFCs
priorities
Recommendations for
committees
Outline committee
evaluation process
Prioritization begins
3
Review PRC and IPFCS
process
PRC and IPFC reports
complete
All prioritized requests
(positions) complete for BPC
Committee
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
Divisions
Continue review of
PRs
PRs due starting
1-28-12
Program
Review
Committee
(PRC)
Group 1 due
Group 2 due
Group 3 due
Group 4 due
Final PRs due
Executive Summaries due
Planning Summit
Executive summaries
Final master executive
summary complete
Discuss Program (IRD)
continue in Fall if necessary
Institutional
Effectiveness
Committee
(IEC)
Post all PRs
Post all subcommittee
rubrics
Planning Summit
Coordinate master plan
reports
Tear-offs (June/July)
Integrated
Planning
Functional
Committees
(IPFCs)
Budget
Planning
Committee
(BPC)
IPFC report-outs to the BPC
Committee selfevaluations
Planning Summit
IPFC report-outs
Preliminary budget
finalized
Cabinet
College
Council
Academic
Senate
Budget assumptions
announced
Executive summary booklet
complete
Tentative budget finalized
PRC resource allocation
linkages
BPC prioritization of IPFC
rankings
Master planning- integrating
annual plans into master
plans
BOT reports on master
planning
Budget report out on resource
allocation tracking
Budget adopted
Finalizes priorities and
sends to BPC
(Alterations if needed)
Review BPC, Cabinet and
whole IPM process
IPFC report-outs to the BPC
4
Final evaluation complete
Committee
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
Divisions
Review PRs
Program
Review
Committee
(PRC)
Institutional
Effectiveness
Committee
(IEC)
Integrated
Planning
Functional
Committees
(IPFCs)
Program(IRD) if needed
All planning books
complete
All executive
summary booklets
complete
Initial emails
Committee schedules
All committees
formed
College Council
evaluation
Review of in-progress and
competed requests
Review of previous
prioritized requests/info
Planning books and
executive summary booklets
available to all IPFCs
Rubric norming
Prioritization begins
Budget
Planning
Committee
(BPC)
Post and share with District
Ranked priorities
Priority themes
Finalize priorities
All prioritized requests
complete for BPC
Written requests sent to BPC
Discuss report out to BPC
Fall Process review
Resource allocation tracking
process complete
Schedule for IPFC report
complete
Cabinet
College
Council
Academic
Senate/VPs/
Deans
December 2012
Cabinet reviews IPFCs
priorities
Review PRC and IPFCS
process
Recommendations for
committees
Informed of program(s)
(IRD)
Prioritization begins
5
PRC and IPFCs report due
All prioritized requests
complete for BPC
Committee
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
Divisions
Continue review of
PRs
PRs due starting
1-20-13
Norming rubrics
Group 1 due
Group 2 due
Sub-committee work
begins
Group 3 due
Group 4 due
Sub-committee work
continues
Final PRs due
Executive Summaries due
Planning Summit
Sub-committee executive
summaries
Author presentations of
executive summaries
Final master executive
summary complete
Programs(IRD)?
Institutional
Effectiveness
Committee
(IEC)
Post all PRs
Post all subcommittee
rubrics
Master plan updates
Planning Summit
Coordinate master plan
reports
Tear-offs (June/July)
Integrated
Planning
Functional
Committees
(IPFCs)
IPFC report-outs to the BPC
Program
Review
Committee
(PRC)
Budget
Planning
Committee
(BPC)
Budget assumptions
announced
Cabinet
Finalizes priorities and
sends to BPC
College
Council
Academic
Senate/VPs/
Deans
IPFC report-outs
Master planningintegrating annual plans
into master plansevaluation
Planning Summit
Committee selfevaluations
Planning Summit
Preliminary budget
finalized
Executive summary booklet
complete
BOT reports on master
planning
Tentative budget finalized
Budget report out on resource
allocation tracking
Budget adopted
(Alterations if needed)
Review BPC, Cabinet and
whole IPM process
IPFC report-outs to the BPC
6
Final evaluation complete
Watch list/Areas of Concern
General
Location of 2009-2020 Education Master Plan, MC and DN and 101 Corridor and KT
Education Master Plan, Strategic Plan, Technology Plan, and Facilities Master Plan?
Unclear on how the plans fit together
If they all have the Mission of the college guiding them, why don't they work together or, if
they do, why can't we prove it?
How do the planning committees work interface with these “higher level” plans? How do
committees interface with each other?
How do we engage the committees so that they are working cooperatively to improve
Student Learning?
How does assessment reflect in improving each committees work?
How do SLOs fit in committee work?
How do SLOs fit in the Master Plan documents? How do goals and SLOs interface? What’s
the connection?
On age 23, last sentence of the second paragraph, the report mentions "The college will be
able to share further matters of quality assurance to the public when higher level plans are
implemented and assessed in an on-going cycle". What are "higher level plans"?
The commission report alludes to a Strategic Plan but then says we have to integrate "it's
component plans into a comprehensive Strategic Plan".
Why doesn't the IEC have "Actionable Goals"?
Team Report
The Self Study and the Institutional Research webpage have data on student achievement for
distance learning, but there is no evident data on learning outcomes for varying delivery
systems and modes of instruction. (page 28)
It is not clear where student learning outcome assessment data is housed, aside from what is
reported in annual student learning outcomes updates. (page 32)
The college does not yet meet Standard IIA.1.b, however, with the current institutional
priority given to research, the college will henceforth be in a better position to assure that
delivery systems and modes of instruction are appropriate to the current and future needs of
its students. (IIA.1.b) The assessment reporting process, however, is still fairly new and
requires multiple, cumbersome assessment reports. (page 38)
Assessment at the program level is just beginning, and so the college does not currently meet
Standard IIA.1.c. The Closing the Loop document has not been fully implemented, therefore
the institution has not demonstrated the sustainability of its process of assessment and use of
student learning outcomes. (IIA.1.c) (page 38)
The Curriculum Committee, the Assessment Committee and the Program Review Committee
are all faculty-centric committees which ensure that faculty members are at the heart of
establishing and maintaining quality instructional courses and programs, and all three
committees prompt departments to assess and improve their instructional courses and
programs. None of the three committees have a self-evaluation plan in place to ensure that
they continue to evaluate and update their procedures. (IIA.2.a) (page 38)
The institution does not meet Standard IIA.6 in that it is not ensuring that students in every
7
class section receive a course syllabus that specifies learning outcomes consistent with those
in the institution's officially approved course outline. (IIA.6) (page 39)
The college does not meet Standard IIIC.2. The institution does not systematically plan for
technology needs but rather develops a list of needs, prioritizes that list, and funds what it can
annually. Technology planning is not completely integrated with institutional planning. The
institution does not systematically assess the effective use of technology resources and does
not use the results of evaluation as the basis for improvement. Technology planning is not
fully integrated with institutional planning. (IIIC.2) (pages 69-70)
It would be helpful to integrate the outcomes of the enrollment management committee
planning and how it ties within the process of developing the budget. However, that
information is not within the budget book document. Information and evidence is diffused
over several places when it could help communicate to the district key connections if it were
all located centrally. This would help communicate that there is integration between
committees and the programs within and outside the main campus. (IIID.2.b) (page 76)
The institution does not meet Standard IIID.3. While results regarding resource allocations
are communicated in a systematic way, there is little to no analysis as to whether the
allocation of resources is evaluated to determine whether the allocations result in
improvements. (page 80)
8