REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF PIERCE COLLEGE
May 11, 2016
Pierce College Puyallup
1:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1.
Call to Order/ Establishment of a Quorum.
2.
Flag Salute
3.
General Matters.
A.
Changes or Additions to the Agenda.
B.
Approval of Minutes
4.
Executive Session.
Under RCW 42.30.110, an executive session may be held for the purpose of receiving and evaluating complaints against
or reviewing the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or reviewing the performance of a public employee;
consulting with legal counsel regarding agency enforcement actions or actual or potential agency litigation; considering the
sale or acquisition of real estate; reviewing professional negotiations; and/or reviewing recommendations relative to the
award or denial of tenure or renewal or non-renewal of faculty contracts.
5.
Public Comment
6.
College Input and Reports
A.
Associated Students of Pierce College Fort Steilacoom (ASPCFS) President.
Alyssa Garrido
B.
Associated Students of Pierce College Puyallup (ASPCP) President.
RoxAnne Simon
C.
Pierce College Federation of Teachers (PCFT) President.
Beth Norman
D.
Washington Public Employees Association (WPEA) Chief Shop Steward
Bryan Torell
7.
Setting Direction/Vision
A.
Chancellor’s Report
8.
Board Action
A.
Board Action 2016-34 Amendment to Sabbatical for Denise Hartley
B.
Assessing Fees and Services
1. Board Action 2016-35 Pierce College Technology Fee
3. Board Action 2016-36 Pierce College Student Services & Activities Budget for 2016-17
C.
Board Action 2016-37 Governance Policy
9.
Innovation and Student Success
A.
The Library’s Immediate and Long-term Impact on Student Success
TAB 1
Institutional Effectiveness Monitoring Report
A.
Employment and Earnings Outcomes
TAB 2
10.
11.
Board Business
A.
Board Chair Report
B.
Activities Calendar
12.
Date of Next Meeting- June 8, 2016 Fort Steilacoom
13.
Adjournment.
Tab 1
Innovation/Student Success
The Library’s Immediate and Long-Term Impact on Student Success
Brief Description
Pierce College Library is a teaching and learning library that supports our students’ academic and life success through
instructional programs and services that emphasize information competency and complement classroom instruction, as
well as learning spaces that foster independent and collaborative inquiry. We have ample evidence that both campus
libraries are heavily used by students, and we have always firmly believed that our instructional programs and services
were contributing to student success. However, since course integrated library instruction largely does not regularly
involve assessing students’ work in graded form, and since we do not work over whole quarters with large groups or
cohorts of students whose progress we can follow, as other faculty do, it can be challenging for us to measure the degree
to which our instructional programs and services contribute to student success. In order to root continuous improvement
of our instruction and services in evidence of student success and have more direct evidence of institutional
contributions, Library faculty participated in a national grant program, Assessment in Action, a 14-month program
sponsored by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Supported by a blended learning environment
and a national peer-to-peer network, Pierce Library faculty led a campus team in the development and implementation
of an action learning project examining the impact of the library on student success and contributing to assessment
activities on our campus.
We wondered:
 Does using the library impact retention?
 Does participating in library course-integrated instruction help students achieve better grades?
 Is there a connection between working with librarians to develop research strategies, and higher graduation
rates?
How This Reflects Mission, Core Themes or the Board’s Annual Goals
The Library’s instructional program, encompassing its credit-bearing courses, its course-integrated instruction program,
and one-on-one instruction at the Reference Desks, has always focused heavily on teaching and assessing students’
achievement of a core ability: Information Competency. We believe, as the College does, that the ability to find,
evaluate, effectively use, and create information is key to continuous self-guided learning, and to academic and life
success. Additionally, these skills are increasingly vital in today’s workplaces. As a result of the AiA project, we now
have evidence that the Libraries’ instruction program very likely contributes to other indicators of student success such
as GPA, course end grades, and retention.
Potential Questions



What will the Library and the library faculty do differently as a result of these findings and recent assessment
work?
How have the Tableau Dashboards changed the way library faculty engage with assessment within the Library
and with faculty in other disciplines?
How will the library faculty work even more directly to assist the college in closing the equity gaps and other
key goals?
Tab 2
Mission Fulfillment Monitoring Report
Employment and Learning Outcomes
Brief Description
In evaluating post-graduation success of Pierce students, employment and earnings outcomes are among key measures of meeting
our Mission. In a context of increasing support for students along the entire college experience pipeline, the College has consistently
sought to identify best practices and establish policies that promote student success: up to graduation and beyond. As part of this
effort, Pierce relies on a larger system for tracking students after graduation supported by the SBCTC called DLOA. This report will
give an overview of both longitudinal and recent wage data—along with comparisons—as well as describing the limitations of the
data and the current state of data quality improvement.
How This Reflects Mission, Core Themes or the Board’s Annual Goals
This reflects the Core Themes of Contribution to the Community (Workforce Education) and Student Learning and Success
(Professional/Technical Completers Employed).
Background Information and Analysis
This evaluation is based on data from two graduating cohorts: 2009 and 2013. Comparing students using these cohort
bases, we ask the following questions:
1. How did the 2009 cohort fare, earnings-wise, compared to the SBCTC system average one
year after graduation (2010)?
2. Longitudinally, did the 2009 cohort continue to improve on earnings five years after
graduating, relive to the first year after graduation?
3. How did the 2013 cohort fare, earnings-wise, compared to the SBCTC system average one
year after graduation (2014)?
4. How did the 2013 cohort fare, earnings-wise, compared to the 2009 cohort?
Potential Questions
1. What is taking place at the national level with regard to improving colleges’ abilities to evaluate ROI for career pathways?
2. What is taking place at Pierce to improve data-quality on our graduates after leaving and going into the workforce?
Prepared by: Erik Gimness, Director for Institutional Research