West Los Angeles College Educational Master Plan Workgroup
Notes on Relations with Other Plans, Processes, and Standards
Matthew C. Lee, Ph.D.
October 17, 2013
1. Mission, Vision, and Values
1.1. The Mission is the foundation for the EMP. All Strategic Directions must support or
contribute to pursuit of the Mission, either directly or indirectly.
1.2. The EMP must be consistent with the Vision and Values.
1.3. The EMP should build on, not merely echo, the Mission, Vision, and Values.
2. Student Services Plan 2011-17 (SSP)
2.1. The new EMP is explicitly required to integrate student services planning with
academic planning at the strategic level, and thus render a separate SSP unnecessary.
The new EMP will therefore not just guide the SSP; the EMP will actually
incorporate the new SGs, Objectives, and Actions that would otherwise comprise a
new SSP.
2.2. In the SSP, Goal 4 is the one most directly related to the existing EMP: “Increase the
number of students who graduate with an AA/AS degree, transfer or are prepared to
transfer.” The other five goals are designed to support student success and/or
improve student services operations.
2.3. Selected goals or strategies in the SSP, to the extent that work on them is incomplete
and requires additional effort or focus, might be revised to serve as SGs, Objectives,
or Actions in the EMP. In addition, certain Student Services programs might appear
as links in the summary table for one or more SGs that involve student support.
3. Facilities Master Plan (FMP)
3.1. The Goals in the 2004 FMP changed dramatically in 2008, and then again in 2010.
As of one year ago, the FMP Goals were as follows:
3.1.1. To design for future growth and accommodate projected student enrollment on
College campus in light of available funds
3.1.2. To modernize and improve academic, sports, recreational and aesthetic amenities
on the College
3.1.3. To increase amenities available for College students
3.1.4. To improve campus circulation and access to the College campus and promote a
pedestrian friendly environment
3.1.5. To ensure that design considerations for people with mobility limitations, visual
impairments, or other disabilities are incorporated into the overall design
3.1.6. To continue to create a strong sense of place that supports the academic and social
life of the College
3.1.7. To improve aesthetics in and around the campus
3.1.8. Maintain flexibility in use of spaces
3.2. An effort to identify linkages between these FMP Goals and the EMP Goals and
Objectives in September 2012 was unsuccessful, based on my analysis: The cited
relationships were mostly forced, tenuous, or unclear.
3.3. The latest approved facilities projections at the program and institutional levels
assume overall enrollment growth and reflect the establishment of some new
programs as well. For the EMP, such growth might suggest SGs, Objectives, or
Actions concerning organizational capacity, professional development, facilities
maintenance, distance education, or potential implications of a larger number of
students on campus carrying a larger number of units.
3.4. I recommend that at least one SD, SG, and/or Objective provide clear guidance to
facilities planning and the next iteration of the FMP. Assuming that the FMP Goals
remain for the time being as they were a year ago, candidate concepts for
consideration as guides for facilities planning in the 2014 EMP might include the
following:
3.4.1. Student engagement in campus life, in part through extracurricular activities and
opportunities (as promoted by amenities for students in campus facilities)
3.4.2. Inclusiveness (as expressed in facilities design considerations for people with
disabilities)
3.4.3. Curricular or pedagogical innovation (as supported by flexibility in the use of
spaces)
3.5. In addition, the creation of the successor EMP will necessitate review and possible
revision of the FMP Goals, to ensure that their relationship with progress on the SDs
and SGs is clear.
3.6. The Facilities Committee might appear as a link in the summary table for any SGs
that involve facilities.
4. Outcomes Process
4.1. One major function of educational master planning is improving institutional
effectiveness and student learning for the long term. The results of cyclical
assessment of student learning outcomes (particularly at the institutional level) and of
service and administrative outcomes can therefore serve as important indicators of
progress on the applicable SDs and SGs.
4.2. If outcomes processes require more focus or energy to become more meaningful or
effective, an SG, Objective, or Action in the EMP might help the College move in
that direction.
5. ACCJC Standards and Rubrics
The Standards and Rubrics all require integration of the EMP with other evaluation,
planning, resource allocation, and decision-making processes aimed at improving student
learning and institutional effectiveness.
5.1. Evaluation in the EMP, as in all integrated planning, must be based on analyses of
both quantitative and qualitative data.
5.2. Institutional planning must integrate planning for human, physical, financial, and
technological resources. Therefore, the EMP should take into consideration these
four areas of planning, as applicable.
5.3. Educational planning must be “integrated with resource planning and distribution to
achieve student learning outcomes.”
5.4. Results of program reviews and learning outcomes assessment should be integrated
into the educational master planning process.
5.5. The EMP must be part of an “ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated
planning, resource allocation, implementation, and reevaluation.”
5.6. The EMP should take into consideration institution-set standards for student learning
and student achievement, certainly in the evaluation of overall College progress, and
possibly explicitly in an SD, SG, or Objective.
5.7.
Communication and dialogue about institutional effectiveness, the EMP, and its
results are essential.
6. Program Review (PR)
6.1. Progress on EMP SDs and SGs typically occurs through execution of Objectives and
Actions at the program level, as well as by committees and individuals. For example,
faculty and staff in the Math, English, and ESL disciplines will no doubt be heavily
involved in the execution of any Objectives related to a foundation skills SG. To
facilitate and demonstrate appropriate integration in planning, the PRs of such
programs should reflect their contributions to progress on the SDs and SGs, as well as
progress on their local goals.
6.2. Evidence reported as part of the PR process, appropriately summarized, should serve
as part of the evidence of progress in the EMP, both in its various components and as
a whole.
6.3. The Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee (PIEC), one of the parent
bodies of the Educational Master Plan Workgroup, bears responsibility for
monitoring such integration among all major planning processes, including program
review, outcomes assessment, and educational master planning.
6.4. Board Rule 6801 requires, “Program review shall link the college’s mission with the
educational master plan, and department goals and educational objectives.”
6.5. In their PRs, all programs are required to link each of their improvement goals with at
least one of the “strategic plan” goals. Five of the “strategic plan” goals (Student
Learning, Transfer, Career Technical Education, Foundation Skills Program, and
Diversified Instructional Delivery) are drawn from the existing EMP. The PRs
beginning in Fall 2014 should include analogous linkages to the new EMP’s SDs or
SGs.
6.6. Communication and coordination with the group(s) responsible for coordinating PR
will help ensure that the transition to the new SDs and SGs will be seamless.
7. Technology Master Plan 2009-16 (TMP)
7.1. The TMP was explicitly constructed to advance the goals of the existing EMP.
7.2. I recommend that the new EMP provide guidance for technology planning at the SG,
Objective, and Action levels as appropriate, and for the next iteration of the TMP.
Assuming that the TMP Goals remain stable for the time being, candidate concepts
for consideration as guides for technology planning in the 2014 EMP might include
the following:
7.2.1. Use of technology to improve access to programs, services, and information
7.2.2. Use of technology to improve student learning and achievement outcomes in
vocational and academic programs
7.2.3. Use of technology to support expansion of learning communities
7.2.4. Use of technology in the delivery of instruction and services
7.2.5. Application of technology to enhancing campus infrastructure
7.3. In addition, the creation of the successor EMP will necessitate revisiting the TMP, to
ensure that its goals and strategies contribute to progress on the SDs and SGs.
7.4. The Technology Master Plan Committee (TMPC) might appear as a link in the
summary table for any SGs that involve technology.
8. Foundation Skills
8.1. Student performance evidence suggests that one or more candidate SDs or SGs might
well involve foundation skills.
8.2. The Foundation Skills Comprehensive Plan carries implications for the following
broader concepts that are not uncommon in EMPs:
8.2.1. Learning communities
8.2.2. Tutoring services
8.2.3. Class scheduling to accommodate student needs
8.2.4. Articulation with feeder high schools
8.2.5. Alternative student services models
8.2.6. Improved collaboration, communication, and dialogue
8.2.7. Professional development
8.3. Selected Strategies listed in the Foundation Skills Comprehensive Plan, to the extent
that work on them is incomplete and requires additional effort or focus, might be
revised to serve as Objectives under one or more appropriate SGs in the EMP. In
addition or instead, the Student Success Committee might appear as a link in the
summary table for one or more SGs that involve foundation skills.
9. Achieving the Dream (AtD)
9.1. One or more EMP Strategic Directions (SDs) or Strategic Goals (SGs) might well
align with AtD’s focus on improving student success, or build upon AtD goals.
9.2. AtD, as an explicitly data-driven project, might well provide quantitative and/or
qualitative evidence for progress on such SDs or SGs.
9.3. The AtD Implementation Proposal explicitly asserted that AtD “priorities and
intervention strategies align with” the existing EMP. The creation of the successor
EMP might necessitate revisiting that alignment.
10. Budget Process
10.1. The EMP, particularly since it will also function as West’s strategic plan, should take
into consideration the likelihood of enrollment growth or decline, and therefore
revenue growth or decline, based on the evidence available. Reasonable attention to
such issues helps ensure that the set of initiatives and other actions that the EMP
represents is not wildly out of line with resource expectations. On the other hand,
resource expectations should not dictate the content of the EMP, which should reflect
the College’s ambitions more than its limitations.
10.2. The EMP review and revision schedule should mesh with the annual resource
allocation prioritization and budget development schedules, so that resource requests
associated with the EMP can enter the resource allocation prioritization process in
timely fashion.
11. LACCD Strategic Plan: Vision 2017
11.1. Selected District Goals might be revised to serve as SDs, and selected District
Objectives might be revised to serve as SGs or Objectives, if they fit the College’s
own needs based on the available evidence.
11.2. Because the College will be required to report on the Measures listed under each
Objective, it would make sense to use some of the same measures in gauging progress
on the EMP, but only those that turn out to fit SGs, Objectives, or Actions that are
included in the EMP. It is not good practice to construct an SG, Objective, or Action
merely to match a previously established measurement requirement.
Note on Referral Links in the EMP
Referral links should focus on strong connections and likely contributions, not weak connections
or merely possible contributions, because each referral will entail labor on the part of the
committee/plan/process referred to. Each committee or coordinating body will be asked to report
its progress/contribution annually to the IPW’s successor, which will evaluate overall EMP
progress and might recommend a revised Objective or Action as that body’s responsibility.