REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC)
Thursday February 17, 2011
3:30 p.m.
Boardroom
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Approve meeting minutes
3. Action Items
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Institutional Effectiveness Indicators
4.2 Planning Agenda
4.3 Integrated Planning Summit
5. Reports
6. Adjournment
CCC Confer
PARTICIPANT DETAILS
> Dial your telephone conference line: (888) 886-3951
> Enter your pass code: 306039
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC)
7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Boardroom)
Thursday, February 14, 2011
NOTES
PRESENT
Sally Frazier, Roxanne Metz, Keith Snow-Flamer, Lorie Walsh, Maggie
White (phone) and Bruce Wagner.
ABSENT
Dan Calderwood, Zach DeLoach and Anita Janis
ACTION ITEMS
BP/AP 3250
Discussion took place regarding approval of BP/AP 3250 Institutional
Planning. Several suggestions were made regarding format and
typographic errors after which, the committee agreed to forward BP/AP
3250; Institutional Planning to College Council.
PLANNING
MODEL &
PLANNING
NARRATIVE
Roxanne asked that the committee take ownership and stand behind the
Planning Model and the Planning Narrative as a working document.
It was noted that there is concern with Program Review taking place in
the Spring rather than in the fall and it was recommended that this be
evaluated.
Keith reiterated that we are trying to build something that work in
progress and the model will be improved in the annual assessment
process. Bruce expressed concern with the timeline noting that faculty
are not on campus during the summer.
Keith will make suggested changes to the AP, the narrative, and the
planning model so that they can be moved forward to college council.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the IEC will be on Thursday, February 17, at
3:30 p.m.
FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
Institutional Effectiveness Indicators
Planning Summit
ADJOURNED
The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY
lw
Redwoods Community College District
Board Policy: BP 3250
Approved by IEC February 14, 2011
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
supported by institutional effectiveness research. This institutional planning process involves
appropriate segments of the College and is inclusive of all constituent groups. The planning and
budgeting systems 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 planning processes,
including institutional and other research efforts.
The planning system shall include plans required by law, including, but not limited to the long
range educational master plan, facilities master plan, technology master plan, and strategic plans
which shall be updated periodically as deemed necessary by the Board of Trustees
The Superintendent/President shall submit to the Board those plans for which Board approval is
required by Title 5.
The Superintendent/President shall inform the Board about the status of planning and various
plans, and seek Board input during their development as appropriate.
Reference:
Accreditation Standard 1.B
Title 5, Sections 51008, 51010, 51027, 53003, 54220, 55080, 55190, 55250, 55510,
56270 et seq.
Redwoods Community College District
Administrative Procedure: AP 3250
Approved by IEC February 14, 2011
Established committees, with representation from faculty, administration, classified staff, and
students, will review and recommend planning decisions related to human, facilities, technology,
and budget resources.
Applying the criteria of accreditation standards, the planning process will be guided by adopted
vision, mission and core values statements and will facilitate development of specific goals,
objectives and strategies, which will 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 for faculty 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 and
decision making processes.
The Board may assist in developing the general institutional mission and goals for the
comprehensive plans through various 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 California Community College (CCC) System
Office in a timely manner when required.
The initial recommendation for integrating institutional planning rests with the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee (IEC).
Processes for developing, reviewing, updating, approving, and implementing plans include:
A. Mission
1. Reviewed and updated at least every three years by the College Council. The updated
Mission will be approved by appropriate governance council(s) as a recommendation
to the Board of Trustees.
B. CR District’s Educational Master Plan (EMP), the Facilities Master Plan, and the
Technology Master Plan.
1. Reviewed annually and updated at least every five years by the College Council. The
updated EMP will be approved by appropriate governance council(s) as a
recommendation to the superintendent/president.
2. The program-review process and the budget-development process, as well as
planning and budgeting within each division of the college, shall be implemented on
an annual basis.
C. Strategic Plan
1. Reviewed annually and updated at least every four years by the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee. The updated Strategic Plan will be approved by College
Council as a recommendation to the superintendent/president.
D. Program Review Process
1. Reviewed and updated annually by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and and
recommended to the College Council.
2. Implemented annually by all programs and services.
E. Program Review/Budget Development Linkage Process
1. Reviewed annually and updated as needed by the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee and Budget Planning Committee and recommended to the College
Council.
2. Implemented annually by all programs and services and supervised by the Budget
Planning Committee.
F. Integrated Planning Process
1. Reviewed annually and updated as needed by the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee and Integrated Planning Committees and recommended to the College
Council.
G. Budget Planning Calendar
1. Reviewed and implemented on an annual cycle and updated and approved as needed
by the Budget Planning Committee.
Reference: Accreditation Standard I.B; Title 5, Sections 51008, 51010, 51027, 53003,
54220, 55080, 55190, 55510, 56270 et seq.
Institutional Planning (IP) Narrative
Approved by IEC February 14, 2011
Purpose of Planning
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, ongoing, and outcomes
orientated. Planning and evaluation are included in college- and unit-level planning, budgeting,
and evaluation processes. The planning process includes institutional review of the college’s
educational programs, student services, and administrative areas. Through planning, the college
ensures that its policies, budgets, and decisions are reflective of its mission.
Planning is an ever evolving process. Over time, as the needs of the college change and gaps are
identified, the college continually engages in planning in its drive to meet accreditation standards
for program review, planning, learning outcomes and ultimately institutional effectiveness.
College Mission
The college’s mission statement is central to planning. The mission statement is reviewed at
least every three years in a cycle that puts that review one year prior to the development of the
District’s 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 presently 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.
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.
January 2011, 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.
March 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 to four years. From these 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
progress on the strategic objectives to reinforce and sustain the dialogue on results of 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 is:
Strategic Plan 2008-2012 (spring 2008 through spring 2012)
Annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports in spring 2011
Final Institutional Effectiveness Report of Strategic Plan 2008-2012 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 Strategic Plan 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 Strategic Plan 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 (IEC) 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 coordinates development of 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.
The Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
The goal of the integrated planning process is the improvement of student learning and service
efficiencies through assessment of outcomes and other measures of institutional effectiveness.
The integrated planning model diagrams the flow of program review information and 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 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.
Programs and departments also undergo periodic comprehensive review. Academic programs
and Career Technical programs are evaluated every five years while Student Services and
Administrative programs are evaluated every three 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 department
members (3) revision of the unit's review plan as indicated by the evaluation conducted by
Program Review Committee.
The specific purpose of the PRC is to evaluate units and programs based on the following
criteria:
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.
To evaluate the college’s progress in addressing the inclusion of basic skills education in
its programs, courses, and disciplines.
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. The Trends subcommittee reviews
student success, student achievement, enrollment, retention, and basic skills components of each
program review. The Assessment subcommittee reviews learning outcomes, 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 (IPFC) 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 will comply with the following:
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.
The committee co-chairpersons are responsible for completion of these responsibilities.
Each committee will make every effort to have representatives from Academic Senate,
CSEA, and ASCR as members of the committee.
Committees will plan with regard to improving institutional effectiveness measures, 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 of 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. Committees will communicate with one another regarding
requests/information as needed.
Budget Planning Committee (BPC)
The allocation of 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 the 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.
Resource Allocation
The resource allocation process links 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 process for allocating resources is transparent. All members of the college
community are informed about the routines and components of planning that lead to
resource allocation.
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
(excess reserves) to support faculty/staff ideas and start ups.
Cabinet
The Cabinet provides initial FTES targets for the EMC and BPC. Cabinet also reviews and
either denies or validates the priority 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 as appropriate.
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee ensures 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 College Council for dissemination and discussion by the constituencies and
the college community at large. The IEC accomplishes its purpose by:
1. Identifying, defining, reviewing, and reporting performance measures of institutional
effectiveness;
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 the college's needs are
met;
4. Providing assessment of the integration of the resource allocation process and the
Strategic and annual plans (budget, staff development, staffing, etc);
5. Establishing annual communication with the campus community regarding the
institutional planning process and gaining input from the college community regarding
planning issues;
6. Providing an annual assessment of the effectiveness of the various planning committees
and the institutional planning process to the College Council.
College Council
The College Council ensures that the collaborative process of institutional planning is adhered to.
If the process is not followed, the College Council will provide a report to the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee as to how the process may be improved.
Integrated Planning Implementation
Because the institutional plans 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
Timeline and Process for Integrated Planning
January-March 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
All program reviews are submitted by authors to the PRC.
The PRC subcommittees (Trends, Assessment and Budget) appraise each program review
according to a set of committee agreed upon rubrics.
Late March/Early April 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
The PRC creates a final executive summary for each updated program review.
The PRC forwards budget requests to the Budget Planning Committee for inclusion in
preliminary budget.
Outcome assessments will be forwarded to PRC in the program review documents. The PRC
will summarize their assessment/outcomes findings and forward their summaries to the
appropriate Vice President, who will then work with departments to discuss the information and
make any necessary changes.
Staffing requests will be processed through the appropriate Vice President with final prioritized
recommendations forwarded to Cabinet for review.
May-June 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
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
outcome assessment and student achievement data, or other appropriate efficiency measures.
July-August 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
IPFCs forward their ranked priorities to the Budget Planning Committee (BPC) for
consideration.
The BPC forwards their ranked priorities to the Cabinet for review. If any alterations are made
to the BPC version of the ranked priorities, the Cabinet will report back to the Divisions and the
IPFC.
Assessment of Progress on Institutional Effectiveness Measures
The annual Institutional Effectiveness (IE) report, a widely distributed report of the college’s
progress on its goals and plans, is a key benchmark of accountability in the integrated planning
process.
Timeline and Process for Assessing Institutional Effectiveness Measures
May 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC calls for progress reports IE indicators which are documented in the IEC minutes.
June 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC reviews reports and compares the reported achievements against the goals.
IEC identifies specific barriers to success for unmet goals/plans. The Superintendent/President’s
Cabinet removes barriers where possible.
July 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC prepares the annual report on Institutional Effectiveness to document and quantify the
progress on each of the college’s measures.
September 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC distributes the report on Institutional Effectiveness college-wide and presents the report to
the College Council.
Assessment of the Integrated 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 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 as appropriate.
Timeline and Process for Assessing the Integrated Planning Process
February 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC creates a venue for dialog among appropriate groups and individuals to provide feedback on
the integrated planning process.
April 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC consolidates the feedback on the planning process and distributes this feedback to College
Council and the integrated planning committees.
IEC recommends changes as needed in the planning processes and submits its recommendations
to the College Council.
September 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
IEC updates the Institution’s planning narrative as needed for use in the planning cycle that begins
the following year
College of the Redwoods – Scorecard
Growth Rate
Improvement Rate
‐5.0%
4.5%
Effectiveness
Indicators
Retention
Persistence
Access
Access/Revenue
Per 320 Report
Success
Satisfaction/Perception
Productivity
Maintenance Rate
1%
89%
94%
2010/11
Actual
87%
96%
2011/12
Target
89%
96%
97%
96%
94%
94%
93%
92%
63%
48%
96%
97%
94%
93%
93%
90%
66%
45%
99%
97%
96%
96%
94%
94%
61%
44%
98%
98%
96%
95%
94%
93%
68%
50%
15%
10188 : 1
3396 : 1
46.4%
10188
28%
14%
5381 : 1
1538 : 1
50.9%
10763
6%
4633 : 1
1324 : 1
55.7%
9266
6%
51.5%
10173
8%
8%
2%
4%
5468
5260
8%
8%
2%
4%
5528
5260
9%
9%
3%
5%
5479
5220
8%
8%
3%
4%
5205
4959
52.7%
49.2%
69%
529
54.9%
52.4%
68%
600
47.4%
52.5%
68%
159
56.2%
55.9%
69%
590
30
32
5
18
41
35
8
25
3
11
1
8
37
35
7
22
64%
2.7
72%
2.82
81%
3.22
77%
3.04
Outcome Measures
2008/09
2009/10
Course Retention Rates
Term Retention Rates
Term Retention Rates (by cohort)
Athletes
Veterans
First‐Time Students
First Generation
100% Online Students
Former Foster Youth Fall to Spring
Fall to Fall (from previous Fall)
Average Number of Semesters to obtain 60 transferrable units.
Section Cancellation Rates
District Student to Advisor Ratio
District Student to Counselor Ratio
Financial Aid Participation Rates
Student Headcount
High School Enrollment Yield (High school enrollment yield; % of freshmen from feeder high schools)
% of Total Headcount
Native American / Alaskan Native
Hispanic or Latino
Black/African American
Asian / Pacific Islander
FTES (Total)
FTES (Resident)
ARCC Rates Data
Student Progress & Achievement
Basic Skills Improvement
Course Success Rates
Total Completions
Completions of Minorities
Native American / Alaskan Native
Hispanic or Latino
Black/African American
Asian / Pacific Islander
Student Satisfaction‐‐instructional
Student Satisfaction‐‐services
Efficiency Rates
FTES/Calculated Sections (w/o PA)
89%
94%
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Assesses progress on strategic objectives and IE measures, assesses integrated planning model, issues annual report on
planning process and goal attainment, and makes adjustments in action steps as needed. Assessment of outcomes should
be imbedded in the planning efforts.
Revised Planning Model
February 8, 2011
IEC
Program Revitalization,
Discontinuance, &
New Programs
Academic
Senate
Program
Review
Mission/
Vision/
Values
Describes
the college’s
intended
population
and services
it promises
to provide.
This
statement is
the
touchstone
for the entire
planning
process.
Education
Master
Plan
The EMP
uses the
Mission
statement,
and BOT
goals to
assess its
status and
anticipate
future
challenges.
Strategic
Plan
The EMP
drives the
annual
planning
goals,
effectiveness
measures,
and program
review.
The Strategic
Plan drives the
program review
process, which
includes an
analysis of each
academic and
student services
program and
administrative
function, as well
as program
planning at the
unit/department
level.
Furn/Equip
Requests
Trends
Assessment/Goals
Furniture &
Equipment
Prioritization
Enrollment
Management
Committee
Budget
Planning
Committee
Assessment,
Trends, Budget
Student
Success and
Achievement
Data
Facility
Requests
Facilities
Program
Initiation
Program
Revitalization
and
Discontinuance
Tech
Requests
Recommended
Faculty Positions
QIP inform EMP development
Technology
Faculty
Prioritization
(VP, Deans,
Academic
Senate)
Cabinet
College
Council
BOT
Board of
Trustees
DRAFT February 12, 2011
IEC Planning Agenda February-July
February
2011
IEC forward BP/AP governing planning, the draft Integrated Planning
Narrative to College Council
IEC endorse Institutional Effectiveness Indicators (Scorecard) and forward to
EMC and College Council.
Distribute planning process college-wide.
March, 2011 IEC and Accreditation Standard 1 members work with divisions to discuss the
model.
Hold planning summit with integrated planning committees to discuss the
model and narrative, provide initial feedback, and develop action planning
agenda to address deficiencies in the integrated planning process.
April 2011
May/June,
2011
IEC develop report on the planning process.
IEC recommend changes as needed in the planning processes and model and
distribute its recommendations college council.
Update the Integrated Planning Narrative as needed for use in the planning
cycle that begins the following year.
September,
2011
TBD
October,
2011
TBD