“Lightning Round”Table Responses - October 22, 2010
Comments on the questions that formed the taxonomy used for the 2006-07
Situational/Needs Analysis
At the joint meeting of the four goal teams for 2010-11, the teams discussed the four internal
and four external questions that formed the taxonomy used to produce the Situational/Needs
Analysis in 2006-07, on which the 2008-13 strategic plan is based. The goal teams were asked at
the October 22 joint meeting to review those questions and comment on whether any new
questions are needed or if any edits should be made to the questions. The comments will be
shared with the senior staff and the College Planning Council, who will finalize the taxonomy to
be used in the year ahead, as the Data and Situational Needs Task Force begins to collect the
data that will be used in writing the Situational/Needs Analysis in 2011-12, on which the 201318 strategic plan will be based.
The questions on which comments were offered are:
External Question #1: What are the potential changes to our community and its needs between 2003 and 2013?
What are the most significant changes that will impact the programs and services Valencia deliver to the
community to meet those needs?
External Question #2: How might our relationships with community partners support, enhance, and
detract from our ability to meet needs arising from community changes?
External Question #3: Who are our current competitors and how might they change by 2013? What are
our competitors’ targeted populations and programs, who are their successful recruits, and what is the
volume of the enrollment?
External Question #4: What is our current and projected public policy environment, our strategy for
navigating that environment, and the results we wish to achieve in garnering resources to serve our
employees, clients, and students?
Internal Question #1: How does Valencia invite or restrict access to higher education?
Internal Question #2: What are the perceptions of students (current and prospective) about access to the
college and their experiences in attending Valencia?
Internal Question #3: How do the experiences and characteristics of successful and unsuccessful students
differ, beginning with their initial contact with Valencia?
To what extent can we demonstrate “value added” and what measures of learning are available to us?
Internal Question #4: How do our fiscal, facility, technological, student affairs and human resources
capabilities, policies and strategies support and/or hinder students in meeting their learning goals?
On October 22, 2010, each table offered comments on the questions, which were captured in a
“lightening round” of reports, as follows:
External Questions
Questions 1, 2 and 4 are generic and will always apply.
They were written during a different economic situation, so answers could change.
What are the potential changes that effect funding?
Not in a competitive mode, so question 3 is iffy. But on-line learning could be of interest. Look
at partnership, not competition.
Under #1, knowing that Valencia has an impact and drives change, what are our future plans for
impacting community change?
Are there relationships we can establish to meet future needs?
Are there potential opportunities on which we can capitalize?
Restate question 2: How WILL our relationships with partners . . .
#1- change – based on changes that will continue to occur . . .
#4 remove clients and focus on employees and students
See community in an expanded way, not just two counties.
#3 – consider competitors differently. Who are they?
#1 is perfect.
Definition of partnerships and competitors are important.
Re-order the questions 1, 4, 2, 3.
How to we ID a partner? What issues matter to the community that we should address?
New – what programs, business practices, and services are our competitors engaged in that
makes people value them?
#1 – consider our incoming students, FCAT changes etc?
#2 partnerships that can help meet student needs?
#3 – competitor can be the workforce when economy recovers
Add to 4 – how do we center our policy work at the state on our students?
Add to 2 – how about other organizations helping to meet our needs? Can they add to our
capacity?
How can we start conversations earlier – middle schools – educate parents.
#4 may ask too much. Shorten it. What is our strategy for navigating the projected policy
environment . .
#2 – redefine or eliminate “detract.”
#3 - who do students believe are our competitors? What competes for their time and
resources?
We are all competing for the same philanthropic dollar. How do we compete?
#1 – how will we know what our listening posts are? Are we asking the right people and the
right questions? Satisfaction surveys? Grad surveys? Advisory boards?
#2 – expand on building new relations with industry. Do we need our own advocacy group on
policy?
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Maybe we have partners in people we think
are competitors.
What message do we send to the community and how do we define community?
Comments on internal questions
Develop a common language
Add to #1 – are there circumstances when we should restrict access?
#2 – definition of students may be too broad. Perhaps segment students, at least current and
prospective?
#3 reword – what is needed for ALL students to achieve success?
Value added should be an external question in terms of community needs and desires.
Measures of learning should focus on Goal 2.
How do we use our resources to support or hinder students in their goals – less of a laundry list,
perhaps. Less cumbersome wording.
First 2 questions should expand to through and beyond Valencia.
Human capacity constraints. Who do we plan to include and exclude. Quality?
Do we need a new developmental model based on who our students are today?
Is access defined broadly enough? #1
#2 – educate support systems, not only the students about what we have to offer
#3 – what are students experiencing in both traditional and on-line classes? Any difference in
their experiences? What can we do to help them if they are not doing well?
Value added – use support systems and model SL in student affairs, and also faculty can provide
SL-style support to the adjuncts, as mentors or advisors.
#4 is really 7 questions. How do you collaboratively develop and communicate changes in all of
these aspects. Don’t silo.
Examine access issues carefully. Who will be restricted and how will we plan and control that?
#3 – speak in terms of different types of students, not using the lens of successful and
unsuccessful.
Look at how our resources etc hinder or help. Adjust the question a bit.
All 4 questions are still valid. #1 needs more focus on ways to minimize restrictions in today’s
economy.
In #3 – the second piece about value added may need to be a separate question.
In #4 – add how does a multi-campus environment impact student goals?
#1 – two questions here – one can get lost. Revise. How invite access? How do we put up
barriers?
#2 like as is
#3 revise – measure results, learn from students who met academic goals, and from those who
did not
#4 balance access with inclusion and quality.#1 – define terms – include AS and workforce dev
work
#2 – ask what are the actions that need to be taken to change the perceptions?
#3 unsure of meaning
Include branding with perception of students. Why are you coming, what does Valencia offer?
#3 lengthy with many components. Experiences may be qualitative, and the other quantitative.
How do we define success/ Same as students do?
Want does value added mean?