1
SUMMARY NOTES from ALL Groups RAW DATA
(Note that this document identifies comments by the group/table/color)
Morning discussions: A Look at Program Planning
Part I
A. Historically, how have we planned our program offerings and determined how to
schedule our classes?
 How is it done?
 When is it done?
 Who is involved?
 Who’s responsible?
YELLOW GROUP
 Roll over
 Ensure degree requirements for day and evening students
 Coordinate with related departments as much as possible (more difficult if related department
is not in your division)
 Ensure all degree requirements are offered over a period of time and at variable times,
modalities or even two-three and four day options
 Coordinate where it is likely we have common students
 Facility constraints also come into the picture
 Some programs are focused on certain timed blocks due to student population
 The current reality is that students are attending multiple colleges.
 Larger departments use a subcommittee
 Some departments plan course offerings then assign teachers.
 Some departments do the two steps together
GREEN
-Depends on division/dept. It’s dept-driven
-depends on dept---AA-T degrees; basic skills; underprepared; English/math/ESL?
--depends on dept---GE courses; Lack of interdepartmental communication??
BLUE
 Areas decide on program offerings
 Curriculum committee determines what programs can go
 Student-centric time of day for scheduling
 Advisory committees have input
 PrOF influences course enrollment and offerings
 Student demand via surveys and watching enrollment trends influence offerings
 FT/PT mix of instructional FTE determines schedule
GREY
-student-centered
2
-community demand; past enrollment
-unit plan & prof. . .
-look at how courses fit into the overall program (GE)
-look at faculty demand
-done in conjunction w dept
-room availability
-student availability
-think about what other courses a student would be taking
-map at course over a 2 year period
-balance between basic skills & transfer
-top down by necessity
-turnover issues
-formula (more beginning classes)
PURPLE
-rolled over & then affected by the FTE & budget cuts
-curric changes (from staff, advisory cmt, & dept) modifies schedule & offerings
RED (also see note from Colette Harris-Mathews)
-History---always done the same
-A group member gave a chronology from 1995- where he cited the need to do things differently.
Looked at where we wanted to be & determined that we could not provide a good product with how
things were. We decided to be more involved with COB, expand m0odernization, student
instrumentation, & look at resources. We coordinated w/ other depts. & interest groups. We had to
consider resources financial issues, resources in the future, & be transparent. We asked: What do
students need? Faculty prioritized the needs working together collegially, guided by goals to
determine programming. When FTE contracted we were well prepared to ask what programs do we
have to serve our students?
-It just rolls over from semester to semester
Who’s involved?
-Conservative tend to prefer status quo over change
-depends on who’s asking. . . deans; faculty
-COB process----no longer driving programming
-should be checking w students, chairs, faculty, considering the voice of students
Part II
A. What is working well? (faculty, students and the college....not separated because some
of these apply in multiple categories)
YELLOW GROUP
 It is a fairly collegial process
 The schedules get turned in and are published in a timely way
 There are processes in place that work for large and small departments
3










The process is primarily focused on students
The process is responsive to the needs of industry
The process looks toward the future
The process is responsive to shifts in demographics
The process is responsive to local data about student success and challenges
The process looks at ways to streamline our programs
In some areas there is good coordination between different departments
Students are getting through
We do have and use the special projects option to help students complete programs
when we can’t offer a class.
The process involves ongoing evaluation and revision
GREEN
-Faculty:
-engaged in tough conversations; autonomy--faculty division experts;
-open access Dean;
-diverse approaches
College:
-dialog increased/recognized;
- diverse offerings
Students:
-recognition of student demographics;
-recognize skills levels/needs;
-different modalities instruction;
-student support services;
-innovative approaches to address changes in demographics;
-student-centered---important value
BLUE
Faculty:
-Use of technology – such as electronic rosters with contact links, PrOF that feeds data into other
processes
-Reductions in FTE have forced the focus on specific courses
-Pushing the completion of Program Review makes faculty look at and review their program and focus
on what might need to change
-Dean and Department chair conversations are positive
College:
-Use of technology – such as electronic rosters with contact links, PrOF that feeds data into other
processes
-Reductions in FTE have forced the focus on specific courses
-Pushing the completion of Program Review makes faculty look at and review their program and focus
on what might need to change
4
-Dean and Department chair conversations are positive
Students:
-AA- T and AS-T degrees should be a benefit for students
-Articulated degrees in general
-time frame for selecting courses
-good programs are offered at CRC
-HCD/Freshman Seminar have good outcomes for students
-IGETC
Does it work better for certain students? ----For students who have a defined goal do better
GREY
Faculty:
-Transparent
-advisory cmt; helps with courses
-TMC
College:
-TMCs
Students
-student centered planning
-faculty willing to accommodate student needs
-adaptability to student needs (changing demographics)
-dynamic (online)
-transfer (TMC)
PURPLE
(for all groups):
-rolling over helps consistency
-deans & fac working well together
-fac working well together making scheduling decisions
-dept chairs effectively balancing costs; creative scenarios
-support from administration for innovative curriculum
-counselors effectively informing students
-new emphasis on faculty communicating program related info to students
RED
Faculty:
-autonomy in classroom
-responsible input (later changed to astute & good faith input)
-good communication between faculty & students toward fulfilling student needs
5
College:
-autonomy at various levels organizational structure/groups
-overall college culture is friendly & welcoming to students. Programming is working well for some
-good programs for targeted populations
Students
-considering students future needs
- overall college culture is friendly & welcoming to students. Programming is working well for some
- good programs for targeted populations
--good communication between faculty & students toward fulfilling student needs
B. What’s not optimal or not working as well as possible?
YELLOW
-Again we did not separate the groups – as many of the conditions apply to multiple groups
 Limited FTE
 Faculty interest/available affect planning – in some cases they may be more important than
student need
 Facility constraints sometimes have too big of a role in determining our program offerings
 Limited ability for students to test out
 Poor learning environments (physical constraints) restrict effectiveness of our program
planning
 Difficult to prioritize competing missions/student groups within the program (e.g. basic
skills/transfer and GE/majors courses, day and evening)
 Inconsistent course substitution and waiver process
 Intensive and lengthy curriculum process
 Students take classes they don’t need because of misinformation and/or other interests
(having a full load for financial aid, inconsistent advising process, being advised by peers,
etc.)
 Tension between providing access and supporting success
 No automatic pre-requisite checking
 Unreliable enrollment data (students signing up for more units than they will keep and then
shopping around at the beginning of the semester)
GREEN
(missing those notes)
BLUE
-More programs are needed for academic advising
-programs should be coordinated better between colleges in the district
--the new demands (e.g. SB 1440, enrollment priorities)
GREY
6
For faculty: no transparency; more uniformity of good practices; lack of info from CSUs; when
personality inserts itself in practices; territorial faculty; lack of participation/interest; timeline;
schedule due too far our (too much lead-time for changes); demands—external--accreditation/workforce
For college: unknowns; last minute decisions; surprises
For students: lack of classes offered; multiple classes (college too lean); students out of sync with their
plan; students not knowing
New demands being put on colleges (SB 1440, enrollment priorities)
PURPLE
 Lack of district-wide collegiality
 Competition for FTE
 Faculty competition for rooms/times
 Not enough classrooms
 No clear enrollment guidelines/priorities
 Students can’t get core classes
 Students confused by new policies
 Statewide changes w/ inadequate time for implementation
 Students having to attend multiple campuses to complete program
 Faculty availability conflicting with student demand
 Time conflicts between major & GE classes
 Not enough sections of core courses
 Confusion between counselors & program
 Full time faculty only wanting to teaching during day
 Lack of clear guidelines for online teaching assignments
 No clear enrollment priorities
 Not maximizing use of facilities afternoons & weekend
RED
 For faculty/staff: staff not represented in planning; staff not adequately represented; we reward
large programs in our resource allocation. Planning favors large programs
 For college: Following history; cannot scale specialized programs for all students; we reward
large programs in our resource allocation. Planning favors large programs; we are good at
innovation, but not good to follow through usually due to lack of effective institutional
methods to implement; food & places for community building
 For students: students in the middle not benefitting by programs that don’t scale or have
resources to scale up; cannot scale specialized programs for all students; priority registrationstudent enrollment process not fair
 For the new demands being put on the college: priority registration-student enrollment process
not fair
C. What might be improved? Brainstorm strategies. Be creative!
7
YELLOW GROUP
 Strengthen the ISEP process
 Be able to use ISEP data to inform program offerings
 Enhance the data that is provided and available to inform (course rotational data,
degree/certificate awards, assessment, pre-requisite info, etc.)
 Streamline our ability to evaluate previous work
 Strengthen the connection between enrollment priorities and completion of the
matriculation steps
 Develop/institutionalize faculty advising
 Document the scheduling process and the reasons for decisions that are made
 Strengthen the electronic pre-requisite checking process
 Implement basic skills pre-requisites for some of our college and transfer level courses
 Develop and mandate an intervention for students who fail or withdraw two times before
they can enroll again
 Increase/expand cohort models and/or team teaching opportunities
 Enhance the information available to students (sort of a student-self assessment site) to help
them make more informed choices when they enroll (put all syllabi online?).
 Increase college success courses and/or imbedded activities
 Develop and more nimble and realistic SEP process that takes into account students’
Workload and is responsive to contingencies (such as dropping a class)
GREEN
-greater integration instruction/student services
-strategically schedule high demand courses
-complexity of change
-bottom up culture
-basic skeleton of schedule
-Faculty: ranking schedule courses in accordance to interest
-Goals: tone of dialog; role of civility
-re-evaluate the culture of 3 unit lecture courses as “normal”
BLUE











Add more courses
Align CC Classes with 4 year university (from program to program)
Content of course should be manageable for students
Student instructional tutoring
Registration priorities
Decrease fees
Goal driven academic counseling – give students what they need
District-wide coordination of program offerings
More academic advising
Help students understand the educational environment and how to be a successful student
Better communication between CRC and students in all area
8
GREY
-more uniformity --spread good practices
-open communication
-less turnover in deans
-strengthen CRC culture---at all levels----faculty, students, while respecting diversity of opinion&
thoughts & ideas
-chair training
-maintain civility
-share best practices--faculty
-students are unprepared
-access college preparedness
-be sure people who are prepared can still succeed (enrollment priorities)
- finding ways to support
-strive to support students on a successful track
PURPLE
 Get more FTE
 More dialog, summits
 More dialog between counseling & teaching faculty
 More communication w students & early
 Faculty flexibility in scheduling
 Fair rotation of courses/scheduling with depts.
 Closer collaboration w other Los Rios colleges
 2 year schedules/flow charts---especially for smaller programs---documented in the catalog
 match schedule w GE needs
 review curric for possible course consolidation/deletion
RED
1. Registration priorities for students—inform, understand, choose priorities based on graduation,
buffet model
2. Better alignment of student preparation & enrollment choices. Give remedial students a
chance to fulltime student status
3. Enable students in remedial classes to be able to fulfill required coursework prior to taking
higher level courses.
4. Add pre-reqs to courses. Aids completion rates (legal issues)
5. Allocate resources to basic skills instruction
6. Improve relationship with student services & instruction. Make sure all students are
successful.
7. Strengthen communication between divisions & sister campuses
8. We need to become better advocates for adult ed programs
9. We need to better utilize restricted programs (EOPS, Honors, etc.)
Afternoon Small Group discussions: Visioning & Values
Part I
9
A. What stood out in these data presented and the readings we did in preparation for today? What
themes emerged? Are we lacking any information?
YELLOW GROUP
 More college-wide data (such as that about program completion, course rotations, assessment,
results from the new degree audit system? etc.) needs to be available to inform the scheduling
process
 Local data about the scheduling process, and reasons for various decisions that have been made
in this process, need to be written down and available to incoming chairs.
 The scope/impact/needs of basic skills students are not well understood
 Relatively few students complete their educational goals
 The external world sees us primarily in the context of economic development
 Our value of open access is in conflict with calls for greater efficiency
 There has been a de-factor change in our mission
 Students take a long time to finish!
GREEN
 Communication
 Inter connectiveness
 Value liberal arts
 Alignment w/ K-12 & 4 years
 First year experience; demographic filter
 Coordination needs
 Pre-reqs---paradox
 Total # of transfers
BLUE
 We can do better if we collaborate
 Change does not happen quickly (real change)
 Stop planning too much and take action
 Sometimes when actions are taken it is criticized or challenged
 View may be too narrow
 Not enough time or structural support to implement plans that we do make
 An idea system we could have a person who is in charge of our planning “warehouse” (PrOF)
and can help push and remind us of the plans we’ve made so we don’t “drop” them
 Are we looking at larger community needs when we decide how to add programs?
 How are we orienting our students so they know how to succeed?
GREY (note---I could not read some parts)
 It’s a different world than historically
 Finite resources
 legislature is in our business
 No money
 We are missing addressing a certain population of students
 Too many certificates that no longer have value
 Xxx what us the virtue of our degrees or certs?
10





Low transfer (?) rates are highly problematic
Why are we offering degrees & certs industry doesn’t need?
Must xxx xxxx of success besides degrees & certs
Must refocus our xxxx, use our resources more effectively
Impact of h.s. success rates (or lack thereof) in out system
PURPLE
 Student access is still important
 6 yrs to graduate or transfer is ridiculous
 relationship: more attention to prerequisites
 we add degrees but don’t delete
 1st year drops demands analysis
RED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
There is need for further disaggregation of the data.
There has been a shift from quantity to quality.
Access will be diminished. Success has been emphasized & will suffer
Access will suffer if we only focus on data
Success numbers will be inflated
SSTF has led to artificially selected students. We are no longer emphasizing access. We need
to inform K-12 of the requirements of college
7. Students need to come prepared
8. Clearly communicate the gap between high school completion standards & college standards
9. We need a glossary of terms for students. Words such as “advisory” are difficult to interpret
for new students
10. We will reduce the quality of education by focusing on higher “success rates.”
11. Basic skills course (success) rates are at the same level as GE courses. We need to reduce the
size of incoming basic skills students
12. What are basic skills? How should we define them?
B. Brainstorm an ideal way to plan for course offerings and schedule classes? (in a perfect
world) If you were to open a brand new college, what system would you put in to place to
coordinate program offerings and develop class schedules? Consider college –wide (though
you may also reflect on department level factors).
YELLOW GROUP







Have all students assessed with an electronic SEP. Use this data to inform scheduling
Research student need/goal to develop a college-wide distribution of FTE model (by class
level, GE pattern and majors courses)
Conduct degree/certificate audit to identify outstanding courses needed for program
completion to inform the process.
Centralize the schedule development for the GE patterns
Implement basic skills block scheduling
Have a strong system of pre-requisites
Ensure coordination
11




Develop a community service program to balance access with the new external demands
Two step process – program offerings/then assignment of personnel
Have a longer term master plan to ensure program completion goals and access at multiple
time and in multiple modalities is accomplished
Automatic pre-requisite checking implemented – blocking enrollment if not met.
GREEN
 Too little Money
 Outcome accountability---internally driven
 Integrated orientation
 Broad definition of success
 Bombarded by legislature
 Clear communication
 Robust, active involvement
 Clear understanding of mission
 Students ready for classes---discrepancies
 Program lead to improve
BLUE
College-wide/Systemic Processes
See above
Easy access to information and environmental scan as well as time to engage
Need to break through the silos – especially between student services and instruction
Changes in one area that impact others should generate communication between the
areas – can’t we use technology?
At manager’s level get more input before allocating FTE to “unify our thinking”
Unify collegial thinking – particularly between planning and budget
Department level Processes
Is there a way to get a better working relationship with classified
We need to work together better




Could we create a distance ed department with a Dean and secretary who are
responsible for managing only (and all) the DE offerings?
Could we have “modality” deans, sort of like the dean of an outreach center crosses
many disciplines, but instead deals with modes of offering.
Consider an Academy model for certain programs (such as ESL) where all students
work through a prescribed comprehensive curriculum as a group.
Implement the planning
GREY (note: I could not read all words)
College wide:
 Assess needs
 Ask workforce, universities what people need
 Don’t schedule in isolation (w respect to GE, day versus evening classes)
12




Consider needs of the students; be strategic
Xxx look at needs based on student data that is dynamic and xxxxxx
Xxx cutting courses shifted to online
Accountability; data-driven. Take a xxx look at resources, xxxx the impact. Balanced xxxx
that doesn’t negatively impact specific courses/programs (e.g. capstone courses)
 Need another measurable tool to assess effectiveness (e.g. completion of course sequences)
 SLOs as measure of success although xxxx faculty concerns to link funding to SLO
performance metrics
Department level:
 Assess how. . .
 Schedules that are based on an assessment of how students access departments, needs of
workforce & holistic/personally
Compare the ideal with reality:
 Chair training for scheduling
 Looking to programs
PURPLE
College-wide
 No. of sections
 Less choice; clear advising; more defined & linear 2 yr programs
 Resources devoted specifically to program planning
 Offer full program of basic skills; effective student placement
 Focus on data-driven decisions, recognizing where students are (placement)
 Longer term planning
 Mandatory assessment
 Coordinating w other Los Rios colleges
Department level
 Using EAP as alternative
 Chairs & transfer faculty need more info on GE patterns
 Counselors attend dept mtgs for purpose of scheduling---review 2 year program
 Flex offering on effective scheduling, transfer requirements, etc.
RED
College-wide
1. Assess degrees & transfer programs that we currently have & (are) creating. Start w/ 2 year
process. The goal would be to maximize breadth of offerings. (see model on white paper and
the red group easel paper)
2. Start from scratch. Don’t look at semester to semester. Maximize getting students in & out.
3. Balance between underprepared students & getting students prepared for transfer level courses.
Maintain access of a full level of transfer courses.
4. Align student level preparation with access to courses.
Department level
1. Consider program and student needs
13
2. Students who pass prerequisites are truly able to pass courses that require the prerequisite.
(Some consistency in grading & course rigor).
3. SLOs are good & bad. Pros/cons.. . . Instructor consistency needed; dept consistency.
Consider how departments design SLOs----instructors, course, dept/college.
Part II
A. As we move forward, what values and guiding principles should we have regarding our
program offerings/ class scheduling?
YELLOW GROUP
Values and Principles





Program planning should value all constituents. However, the needs of students are
more important than faculty interests.
Program planning should be informed by and responsive to internal (college-wide data
and local) and external data.
Program planning should be coordinated across the college. This is important with
respect to majors courses and GE offerings.
Course offering priorities should be based on student need and their role in supporting
program completion.
College-wide discussions about FTE distribution across basic skills and the GE patterns
should occur. Goals should be set in this area and we should move in the direction of
correcting any imbalances that are identified.
GREEN
1. Clear understanding of mission
2. Plan paths of students
3. Actual planning---not just reactive
4. Ownership in student success
5. Nimble/flexible schedule to allow completion
6. Trust other depts.
7. Engagement in college processes
8. Clear communication w students
9. Holding ourselves accountable/ having students held accountable
10. Prescribed courses/ cohorts
11. Recursive reassessment (individual, program, institutional)
12. Strengths-based approach
13. Honest dialog
14. Willingness to change
15. District dialog; regionally xxxx schedules/program
16. Move from competition to cooperation
17. Use technology effectively
18. Effective resource mgt
BLUE
Values
14









Need someone (an oracle) who knows external trends and analyzes our offerings, then tells
us what we have and what we need in order to maximize our programs’ ability to access
resources and be on track in a unified way.
Really utilize the Program Placement Council
Need broad view and it needs to be widely shared
Is there a rubric for deciding what to do, offer, buy, etc.? Does it impact student success?
Map course offerings across campus between divisions, so we maximize offerings by area
of need such as IGETC, or Area A for transfer. Consider technology driven color-coded
mapping to see what fits what needs and when (how much) it is offered.
Start from square one: reset the entire schedule based on student need (not faculty
preference) but still accommodate the special needs of labs and various schedule issues
with facilities.
Student advocates
Comprehensive awareness
Student success focused
Guiding Principles




Remember the student first!
Access
Internal and external elements for change
Map division and college-wide offerings
GREY (I could not read some words)
VALUES






Schedule as students need; not based on faculty preference
Make completion of programs possible-----xxxx promote program completion & high
achieving students
Access---maintaining access in the face of change
We xxx allocate resources when necessary
Xxxx program discontinuance
Must be some kind of demand for courses
Guiding Principles










Meet the demand (students, completion, industry)
Motivate students to succeed
Promote student orientation/ xxxx
Mandatory online access--- .5 unit
Better orientation for faculty to existence of resources
Provide support for support programs (e.g. MESA, Puente, DIOP?)
Alignment of resources w/ scheduling (e/g/ testing center hours that don’t conflict with classes)
Assess xxx and effectiveness of classes & programs regularly
Revisit curriculum. Emphasize support core curriculum
Data-driven decisions
15

From Maggie: Priority to schedule course required for degree & certs that lead to meaningful
employment/industry demand or helps students transfer (1440?)
PURPLE
VALUES
 students ---“DESIGN A STUDENT”---ask what we see as the ideal student in terms of
learning outcomes, characteristics, “global citizens,” ability to write, speak, calculate, physical
fitness, health & nutrition, arts, etc
 social justice; access
 Transparency & communication
 clear pathways; effective use of resources
 inclusive
 academic excellence
 excellent student support
 students first
 responsibility to the community
 program completion
 more architects is good
 don’t let the “community” be removed from “community colleges.” Don’t forget the impact of
wellness, arts, physical fitness, music & social experiences on creating healthy, enlightened
communities
RED
VALUES







Put students first
Academic integrity. Upholding academic quality & rigor.
Collegiality---interacting as colleagues. Not insular; not as individuals
Dignity to move your class. Fulfilling our promises to students. Flexibility in scheduling
classes.
Resources----consider others. Share the pie.
Making informed, good-faith decisions about FTE
Informed consent---empowering students to make better decisions.
Guiding principles
 Matriculation------opting in, but being able to pot out
 Define student success