REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC)
7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Board Room
February 22, 2012
10:00 a.m.
SUMMARY NOTES
MEMBERS
PRESENT
ACTION
PLAN LINKAGE
WITH GENERAL
TIMETABLE
ASSESSMENT OF
THE PLANNING
PROCESS/REVIEW
IPM CALENDAR
Dan Calderwood, Jeff Cummings, Sally Frazier, Pat Girczyc, Kathy
Goodlive, Angelina Hill, Roxanne Metz, Julia Peterson, Mike
Peterson, Keith Snow-Flamer and Cheryl Tucker.
The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) discussed this timeline
yesterday and agreed that by June all plans will be linked. It was noted
that the SPC reviewed the goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan
and some aspects are a little weak and the committee will work on
revisions for district-wide distribution after which it will be forwarded
to the Board of Trustees. The EMC subcommittees are working to
redefine goals so that they link the Education Master Plan. The BOT
and SPC are asking questions about what the plans will look like
specifically. Concern was expressed regarding not assessing the work
that has already been done. In May we will assess indicators and
evaluate the past Strategic Plan. The EMC when doing planning is
looking at the scorecard, assessing and moving forward. We need to
have the evaluation and dialogue for the next plan. Concern was
expressed regarding the timeline and what the outcomes are and how
they are measured. It was reiterated that we need to stick with the plan
and the timeline. In the future we may be able to do the evaluation
piece earlier in the process. As we continue to develop the plans and
processes it is important to assess all the pieces so that they are in
concrete and become institutionalized. We are on track with the
timeline outlined in the IP Narrative that was approved last year.
Assessment of the planning processes will be done in early March and the
surveys will be re-deployed. Concern was expressed about the survey and
it was noted that it is not perfect but we need to stick with it to be
consistent. There is also concern about committees not being prepared to
do self-assessments and we may need to give them an additional week to
pull this together. The rubric that was used by EMC was sent out to all
committees. IR will develop a rubric and it will be on SurveyMonkey. A
request was made to emphasize in the summary notes of this meeting
how important it is to inform the committees of the deadline and of the
importance of completing the assessments. Self-assessment will be done
by each committee and each committee member will assess the
committee processes. IR will collect and analyze the data from the
assessments. There will be a special planning session on Saturday, March
24 and we will have the opportunity to reflect and assess our processes.
DISCUSSION
WATCH LIST
There was discussion regarding the “Watch List” areas of concern and
how to move forward to assign tasks to complete them. The possibility
of closing sites was discussed and it was suggested that we have a plan
in place to do so. Our planning documents should show evidence of
why the sites are closed whether based on low enrollment or budgetary
concerns. Roxanne stated that she thinks this will be addressed by the
Education Master Plan.
Discussion continued about how the EMP and the SP link and if there
is sufficient evidence of that linkage. It was noted that the EMP states
how the plans are linked. How the plans link is a functionality issue
and there is a lot of work that goes into planning at different levels and
if we follow through with what we’re saying. We should have one plan
that shows where we want to go as an institution. Each committee
should be having discussions about how the plans are linked and how
we will meet the objectives.
There was discussion about how we link the sites and centers to the
EMP and a suggestion was made to develop guiding principles to be
used by all committees. There was also discussion regarding the
development of a standardized agenda that would include some
linkage and would be used by all committees. Keith asked that this be
addressed at the planning session in March. Discussion continued
regarding site specific plans and what they should include and if the
commission is expecting to see individual plans. There is a gap with
program review and how this is addressed. Some areas are not doing
program review such as the president’s office. Other community
colleges are beginning to include units in their program reviews. Does
IEC want PRC to go forward and ask for Program Review from the
sites and centers? Institutional Research is already breaking out most
of this data by subject and location. Does the commission want us to
include non-instructional in Program Review?
We are currently doing degree and certificate programs at the
comprehensive review not on at the annual review. It was suggested
that this issue be taken to a work group. Concern was expressed that
we don’t have a clear definition of this work. We need to be better
connected with the work that is being done on a day to day basis and
how it relates to the process. Committees need to figure out how they
fit into the work and find a way to articulate how this fits into the SP
and the EMP. It was suggested that there be an annual planning
summit to walk through the linkages so that everyone can see how
things link together. It was asked if this can this be added as a
discussion point for the March 24 work session? It was also asked if
each committee would have their individual summits prior to the
annual session and the answer was yes. It was noted that assessment
and curriculum are currently missing from the model and these should
be included in the annual session. The annual session should be
referred to as an evaluation and planning summit where assessments
are done on how committee processes are working and how to move
forward. These recommendations will be forwarded to the
Accreditation Oversight Committee.
It was noted that the Curriculum Committee currently does an ongoing
assessment of their process. They also are updating how they are
evaluating and how the process is being done. How do we gather this
information from other committees that are working to do this? If
committees are already doing this it should be formalized on the
agenda. This will be referred to the Standard I work group.
ADJOURNED
The meeting adjourned at 12:00.
SUBMITTED BY
lw