Dean’s Council
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
8:30am - 10:00am
Health Occupations Conference Room
Meeting Notes
Present: Utpal Goswami, Anita Janis, Rachel Anderson, Pat Girczyc, Joe Hash, Jeff Cummings,
Geisce Ly, Crislyn Parker-notes
1. Assessment Update
Response from the Assessment Tracking Forms that were due Friday, 4/6:

Del Norte: Six faculty to contact, and many have multiple classes.

CTE: Jeff met Friday with all CTE. All programs except Water/Wastewater (WAT) are strong. Full-time faculty will assist associate faculty.

Academic Affairs: Rachel has 320 sections with 100% response. 175 sections have multiple
SLOs; thirteen were identified for closing the loop; 109 are at the program level; eleven at the certificate level; and thirty-three at the GE level.

Mendocino: Geisce will follow up with five faculty.

Angelina and Utpal created email account: artifacts@redwoods.edu
, to submit assessment documents via email, using a specific subject line, for identification and sorting. These documents will include the test question or method used for test assessment and the rubric by which it was graded. The point is to collect this information, print (over summer), and have hard copy available for quick review, until we can modify our assessment tool.

CRFO has not yet addressed the assessment piece in the contract. Because it is unknown when we might get a special trustee, Kathy and Utpal will urge the CRFO to move ahead with the negotiations (proposal for MOU) regarding assessment.

There was some discussion about CR’s policy of evaluating employees by start date, versus other colleges who evaluate during a given time period, for example, after planning for annual goals is completed. The can be a conversation over summer.

Note: Special Trustee, Tom Henry, met with the Academic Senate, AOC, Cabinet, two board members, the Manager’s Council, Kathy and Utpal.
2. Catalog

Per an email from Mandy, most learning outcomes needed for the catalog have been received. The few remaining are for programs either not offered or already on track for deactivation. The Dean(s) will check on the others.

Utpal will try to get the catalog pages with outcomes for May 16, 17 and 18th assessment summit, to proof for accuracy.
3. Program Review – debrief

Program Review is being reviewed by AOC, as well as feedback recommendations from all planning committees. Many of the recommendations are redundant, but the AOC has organized a meeting today at 4pm to review them.

The last one or two PRC meetings deal with self-evaluation, process/template revision recommendations and the executive summary, based on the past year. It is an open meeting(s).

The Centers don’t have input into many areas not directly related (i.e. the bookstore) but affect the centers. PRC will address this.

It is noted that when reading a program review, the reader should get a sense of what a unit is doing. Investigating the possibility of software and/or a programmed form.

4. AOC – update

There is a recommendation from the assessment committee that they work more closely with
PRC. There is an overwhelming need to streamline assessment and needs. Some visualization of the Assessment Committee (AC) being a sister committee to the PRC.

Noted that once we begin dialog about the results of assessments, we need to become more efficient on how we have dialog: look at overall assessment picture, identify the major themes and have dialog. The AC duty will be to identify dialog themes that need attention.
Deans can provide guidance and create initiatives from the themes. Rachel feel the AC create an executive summary at end of year and identify themes which can be included in summer discussions for fall follow-up.
5. Education Master Plan – update

The basic format for EMP is established and each goal aligns with the strategic plan. Utpal would like Deans to suggest things they consider important, sent to Roxanne.

As part of clarifying roles and responsibilities, we still have some work to do in clarifying how a plan is adopted. Ultimately the plan is the plan of the institution and not of the committee or any constituency. Good governance principles place the responsibility of constituents to appoint individuals who can represent the constituency the best. Further vetting by other constituent entities essentially diminishes the work of the appointed committee.
6. Coordination between Eureka, campuses and sites (Pat Girczyc)

Concern regarding programs with components at various sites. They are not always well coordinated.

It was agreed that once the schedule is developed, it should go to a special Dean’s council for 4-6 hours of review. This creates an opportunity for sites to talk and work through issues.
Per Jeff, clearer lines of responsibility, and should include assessment, etc.

This could help with online courses as well.

Utpal will have a conversation with Keith about viewing the fall schedule.
8. Other (Utpal’s handouts)

Utpal would like the Dean’s to review the review rubric for guidance on what we are doing.
He will email to the AOC as well.

One area of concern is Proficiency Rubric Statement 6 (page 5): course student learning outcomes are aligned with degree student learning outcomes . Narrative can include curriculum revisions and course mapping.
Adjourned at 10:05am/cp