Redwoods Community College District
Meeting of the Education Master Plan Committee
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009
Board Room: 1:00pm-2:30pm
Present:
Allen Keppner, Keith Snow-Flamer, Melissa Green, David Bazard, Jason Leppaluoto, Justine Shaw, Jim
Sylvia, Carol Mathews (phone)
Others Present:
Lynsey Parker, Karen Nelson, Cheryl Tucker
Not Present:
Toni Sartori, Paul Kinsey, Michael Bailey, Lance Courtney, Julie Hatoff, Fred Sturner, Arturo Levenfield,
Mike Mendoza, Joe Hash, Matt Malkus, Michael Thomas, Geisce Ly, Pat Girczyc, Martha Davis
I. Announcements & Additions/Adjustments to Agenda
A. The Education Master Plan and Facilities Master Plan Committees are very much in agreement
that before the committee minutes and concerns are passed forward to the Board of Trustees or
whoever has the final review that the committee members have the time opportunity to review
before final decisions are made.
II. Approval of Minutes of February 11th joint EMP/FMP meeting, EMP meeting 03-04-09
A. Minutes Approved
III. Review Feedback by Section (Keith, Allen)
A. Revisions of section 5 available.
B. Future VP of Instruction had commented that she felt that EMP seemed to be more of a business
plan than an educational plan. Should be more student oriented.
C. There also seemed to be a big jump between the demographics of the community and the growth
model in section 4.
D. Melissa recalls that the process was to have subcommittees revise sections using current
feedback and comments, then post the next draft for further feedback from college community to
produce second draft.
E. Dave explains the way section 5 subcommittees approached the section. Many of the comments
and feedback regarding portions of section 5 had been provided by consultants and other reports.
Proposed to put this information into appendixes. Create appendixes for Skunk Works, BSI, etc.
There seemed to be information that was too specific for an Education Master Plan.
F. Keith will work with Susan on Section 2
G. Keith suggested having each subcommittee give revised section to the Planning Support Team to
put EMP sections together and present a more finished document to the EMP Committee for
review.
i. There are concerns about the document not flowing together, which would be similar to
the first draft.
ii. Also concern that the feedback received may not be reflected in the document.
H. There are many documents with goals and directives that can be referred to, such as the 2020
Report, Facilities Master Plan, Strategic Plan, etc.
i. Many people may not be aware of other documents
I. Cheryl summarized that Planning Support will:
i. Incorporate revised info from different groups
ii. Organizational and formatting items
iii. Pull pieces out that might be more appropriate in an appendix
iv. Small group to revise document, Karen Nelson to oversee
v. Sources grouped together and verified
J. Dave requests that committee goes through the major issues of each section to give Planning
Support a direction to go with any revisions to the subcommittee’s sections.
K. Justine will send ESOL to Karen Nelson
Section 1 Executive Summary
A. Should this go back to the President to be written as an executive summary or does it go back to
the chairs of this committee?
a. If the president writes this section, it would need to be done after revisions have been
made.
b. Seems to be a general summary
c. “Executive” may not be the proper term
d. Appears to be a roadmap of what will be read and how the document is supposed to be
read
e. Should be written by Planning Support
B. Preamble is presidents letter to the reader (signed by President)
C. Possible re-title of this section to reflect contents
Section 2 Introduction
A. Suggestion to blend Section 1 and Section 2 as an introduction and how the report should be
read.
B. “Provides the framework of the college to fulfill the college mission.” This is a helpful
statement to give the reader an idea of what the EMP is.
C. Area in this section regarding program review has some updates and changes that were included
in the ACCJC response letter that better reflect
D. Check with Susan Nordlof about the assessment component – Susan wrote a draft, but it has
been revised.
E. Some items, Skunk Works, for example, and history of the plan should be moved into Section 2
from Section 5
F. Full time faculty prioritization process needs to be revised or removed
Section 3
A. Suggestion to leave vision statement out at this time.
a. Since EMP is an evolving document, latest vision statement should be included in the
document and can be revised again later.
B. Section 2 has a comment about the mission statement, but the mission statement isn’t included
until Section 3
C. Strategic Plan is also mentioned, but doesn’t explain what it is or why it is important
D. Conclusion in this Section (Pg 16), about utilizing the Strategic Plan – possibly should be tied
into section 5
E. There seems to be confusion that EMP is smaller than Strategic Plan
F. Maybe a statement to address that EMP is an evolving document and will address future
Strategic Goals
G. The vision statement included in document should be the approved vision statement.
H. Vision statement is written in present tense of where we want to be in the future.
I. Discussion surrounded whether the vision statement should be shorter or longer and many
suggestions given as to how the statement could be modified
a. The current vision statement is long and not easy to remember and repeat.
b. If asked what vision is, each person should be able to remember it.
J. Feedback received on vision statement was very broad. Vision statement subcommittee
K. Keith suggests removing the first sentence of current vision statement.
L. The term “Global Awareness” had been removed from statement.
a. Concern that this takes away from the importance of diversity of the college.
b. “Diverse communities” incorporates the idea of global awareness.
M. Motion to revise vision statement to, “Putting students first we enhance diverse communities
with innovative learning environments that foster personal success.”
a. Second
b. 4 yes, 1 no, 1 abstentions
c. Discussion
i. Jason believes vision statement should be linked to our specific communities
instead of diverse communities.
ii. If this is a vision statement for 2020, do we know what our communities will be?
It is our decision what we want to be in the future. If we don’t foresee this change
should we include it in the vision statement?
iii. The statement can be revisited at a later time. There will most likely be future
discussion.
d. Motion Passed
Section 4
A. Pg 19 bullet that says “Overall growth for district population will be modest; therefore district
will be required to seek new markets.” This statement needs to be explained in some way.
Seemed to change from a scan of what is out there to a predetermined conclusion.
a. Planning is seeing things as they are and to plan for how you want them to be.
b. State will not fund more than modest growth
c. As long as growth is part of plan and as long as ARCC data is improving then this
belongs to the committee.
B. Dave comments that growth can be seen in many things
a. Growth to get back to where we used to be
b. Optimistic growth of what community appears to be
c. Growth way beyond what we would expect
C. Cheryl suggests adding a “measured and sustainable growth statement” to be included.
D. Current educational programs – Distance Education, Early High School Collaboration and Basic
Skills.
a. What is the purpose of these?
b. Should there be other programs included in this section?
c. Is there a scan of ALL Educational Programs or is there a reason these are targeted?
Should we add others?
d. May need to rethink the title of this area.
e. Might need to be moved to front of chapter if it is changed to a scan of all programs.
Section 5
A. Is some of section 5 scan data?
B. Some information might belong in chapter 4 or an appendix
C. Many items could probably be omitted or referenced to the 2020 report.
D. Appendix D – these are what each functional group is doing. Not all groups are included.
Didn’t seem appropriate if they are not being used and are very specific to each area. There is
not time to integrate what each functional group will be doing.
Section 6
A. No Comments
IV. Discuss Feedback and Determine Appropriate Revisions (Keith, Allen)
A. Feedback will go to Planning Support Team for a rewrite.
B. Justine adds that sometimes there are real specific recommendations, would be nice to know the
source of these recommendations.
i. Sources will be sited, attributions included.
C. Each chapter seems to have a section on Distance Education.
i. Put information in that CR actually does with Distance Education, possibly add an
appendix putting in detail.
D. Jason and Justine add that it doesn’t seem important to detail the exact courses in the EMP, make
it broader.
i. Too many specifics
ii. Dave suggests referencing a Distance Education Plan that outlines the goals.
E. Keith suggests using an Ed Master Plan from another college in order to create a similar flow of
the document in our own.
F. Get clarification of the appendixes to be sure they are accurate views of the programs.
i. Many items can be referenced and sited to other documents that already exist.
V. Determine Next Steps, Set meeting date
A. Planning support will receive info.
i. Section 2, Keith
ii. Section 6, Jason
B. Justine suggests that statements from constituent groups be collected
i. Program review summary statements could be incorporated in the future.
ii. AA degree could also be included
C. Next meetings April 8th, 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM
Minutes submitted by
Lynsey Parker
Ext 4273