Attendees:
Name
Dr. Patti Frohib
Deb Stencil
Ellen Riely Hauser
Jennifer Kunselman
Anne Whynott
Alex Sielaff
Jamie Stroh
Jill Metzger
Kaye Krueger
Shelley Higdon
Laura King
Margaret Dickens
Art Marson
Zach Geier
Laurie Landry
Tracy Dryden
Colleen Wagner
CJ Iglinksi
Karen Kraus
Tom Heaney
Annie Neuberger
Mike Gagner
Linda Gage
Amy Loy
Barb Tucker
Tanya Wasmes
Ben Konruff
Kathy Ebert
Sheila Kahler
Kanni Rees
Viktor Brenner
Dawn Voight
Vicki Csida
Sue Zittlow
Anne Kamps
Beccie Bennin
Nadine Allen
Jeff Johnson
Beth Ellie
Milwaukee
Madison
Madison
BTC
BTC
SWTC
SWTC
MPT C
MPTC
MPTC
FVTC
FVTC
WCTC
WCTC
NWTC
NWTC
NWTC
Lakeshore
MPTC
Gateway
NTC
College
Fox Valley
NTC
WITC
WITC
GTC
WCTC
WCTC
WCTC
FVTC
LTC
CVTC
CVTC
Western
Western
Western
Western
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Title
Director of College Effectiveness
Dean - Educational Support
AVP - Institutional Effectiveness
Research and Planning Coordinator
AVP, Research, Planning, and Development
Program Development/Evaluation Coordinator
Institutional Effectiveness Specialist
College Advancement Coordinator
Manager of Institutional Effectiveness
Team Lead - Research
Institutional Research and Data Analyst
Planning, Research, Grants
Director of Research and Grants
Research Technician
Academic Assistant
Academic Quality Improvement Specialist
Associate Dean/Data Analyst
Data Analyst
QRP Facilitator/faculty
Supervisor, Research and Planning
Admin. Planner
Director Institutional Effectiveness
Research and Grant Development Specialist
Evaluation Facilitator
Director - Institutional Advancement
Business Intelligence and Info Systems Partner
Research Specialist
Program Design and Evaluation Associate
R&D Manager
State Reporting Analyst
Institutional Research Coordinator
Program Development and Evaluation
Program Development Specialist
Manager of Learning Products
Dean Learning Solutions
R & D Analyst
AQIP/Quality Improvement Associate
QRP/Program Effectiveness
QRP/Accreditation/Research
1

Welcome
General introductions
TSA Discussion with Julie Tyznik

Julie Tyznik fielded questions about TSA initiative

Indicated that there is a report available on the WTCS Systemattic - VE701330 Program Instructional Area
Systems - provides a status of each program o Use this report to identify which colleges have the program o Has CIP codes associated with it



Once the college receives Phase II approval - begin reporting assessed or not assessed
Julie is checking into an apparent error in which programs should be reporting through client or not
Kathy - Moraine Park - does the college need to keep the rubric as evidence for a certain amount of time.
Julie will ask the Feds how long does each college need to keep the evidence of student learning.

Group needs to figure out what the best practices are in tracking student level assessment

Program improvement side of the TSA is what really matters - and this is where the evidence will be used

TSA has no bearing on graduation

Should be used to determine what should be changed - the program/

Julie recommends that someone at the college needs to facilitate the next step and be realistic about what is collect and how it is connected

Moraine Park has graduation requirements - if they do not pass the TSA - they DO NOT graduate (course level) - Kathy Ebert

Milwaukee - walks groups through doing the paperwork - they submit the paperwork after the programs do the basic paperwork - CJ

NWTC, Moraine Park, Milwaukee, and Western - has a point person to facilitate

CVTC is looking at Strategic Planning Online to track TSA

CVTC couldn’t find a solution with Blackboard
TSA Demo - Viktor - Waukesha

Viktor connected the group to a webinar from a company that they are working with to pilot software to track
TSA efforts (Data 180). Early Childhood is one of the programs in the pilot.
Enrollment forecasting - How do colleges do this? Has anyone done any projection models?

Waukesha - uses some demographics

Milwaukee - has an unemployment model that informs projections (correlation with enrollment trends) - has been using it for the past three semesters- push projection process down to the associate dean level to get the input at the closest level; rolls up; VP of finance makes adjustment; has an enrollment management team; health enrollment capped by clinical so enrollment projections were similar each year

Madison - may have more to do with economic status of students

Viktor will share if he comes up with anything
Payback calculator - Madison - Tom Heaney
2


What is the return on student investment based upon employment status?

Might be a tool to help recruit students. A marketing tool.

The financial aid coordinators were involved in some discussion about this. They may have more information on this.

Different from net price calculator from AIR - the payback calculator looks at specific programs, the net price
 calculator looks at college cost

Milwaukee uses the DOE version

Reservations - are we putting ourselves in a legal position with promoting this to students?
Several colleges interested in seeing - Tom will provide an update at the next IRC - can search on UW Madison http://payback.wisc.edu/
Status of WTCS IRC Web site - Viktor - www.institutionalresearch.wordpress.com

A blog that is being used as a web site

Viktor would like handouts to be included in the website and linked to the agenda

Be sure to alert Viktor to changes in IRC membership

Check to see if WTCS will link to it - Viktor will do this
AIRum - Excellent event to go to http://www.airum.org/
Presidents’ Association - areas of focus

Working on economic development

Alternative funding and grants

Working with green initiative - want to revitalize the group that had worked on o Tracy, Patti, Jamie and Laura King - conference call to clarify our work related to green jobs (Mike
Lanser)
Grants Update

Western, CVTC, and Southwest received partnership grant with Iowa - bridges to healthcare; 47 counties, 3 states, Mayo is part of it; CVTC and Western = $600,000 per year for three years

CRD listserve - has more information - another round due in January -

Grants people are interested in resubmitting; NWTC took the lead on this one

Working on Accelerating Opportunities grant
General Discussion on CCSSE - Community College Survey of Student Engagement

CCSSE - Madison, Moraine Park, Southwest, Fox Valley will do, CVTC/Western - March, - CCSSE is more about activities that help student learn, CVTC does every three years; CVTC does one major survey each year (Noel
Levitz, CCSSE, PACE)

Southwest - had a consortium with Western and Madison so that there was a benchmark; having the customized information for the WTCS schools was very beneficial

CVTC and Southwest were both recognized at the national level - CCSSE helped them; Washington Monthly
Community College ranking comes from IPEDS graduation rate and CCSSE results

Faculty has a version of the CCSSE they can use. CVTC compares faculty results and student results.

AQIP Systems Portfolio - good information to include.
3

AQIP

Requires one action project related to helping student learn

Colleges with student learning assessment-related AQIP Action Projects - Lakeshore, Moraine Park, Waukesha and FVTC.

Blackhawk o April 25-27 - Quality Visit o In the process of using strategic plan to align with AQIP categories o 2 documents for check up visit

CVTC o Next portfolio in 2013 o Elected to do the AQIP Baldrige option - will be writing the WFA due in April, anticipate portfolio in May
2013 o Getting started on the pilot

Fox Valley o Submitted portfolio in October 2010 o Systems appraisal in March 2011 o Couldn’t get a Wisconsin strategy forum to happen o Getting ready to go to third one in November, 2011 o Just finished strategic plan (included in packets) - key component was getting measurement in place o 2 day summit in January - 8 major inputs study (last systems appraisal, facilities plan, monetary reports, and others), 35 member team, not a growth agenda, strategic items were more focused on student success, center piece of strategic plan o Driving what they do in AQIP (the Strategic Plan) o Action project - redesigning QRP - how do they tie to the college strategic objectives? Making the QRP drive the objectives in the strategic plan. o Will maintain compliance with WTCS, but will redesign so that it fits with the strategic plan.

Lakeshore o Year of the AQIP portfolio o Portfolio update - 3 rd one o Hoping for more leadership buy-in and involvement

Madison o Started process for creating next portfolio o Trying to connect systems with strategic plan - better linkage with unit planning (developed a database) o Trying to tie in a benchmarking effort, National Community College Benchmark, trying to make board monitoring tied to the benchmarks and the college strategic goals

Mid-State

Milwaukee o Using the Baldrige option o November 2, 3, 4 visit - used fast track
4


Moraine Park o Last strategy forum February 2011 (third one) o Has already received feedback on AQIP Action Projects o Updating efolio - more comprehensive update o Looking for suggestions on other efolio tool o CVTC is using Strategic Planning OnLine (Think Education Solutions) - planning, accreditation, budget and assessment - looking at assessment module for TSA, intuitive, nothing but positive feedback

NTC o Attending third strategy forum in November o Looking into discontinuing use of efolio o Looking at aligning planning processes - trying to map out all planning related processes o President is doing community visits - exploring strategic directions

Southwest o Attending strategy forum in November o Looking at alignment of strategic planning, QRP, AQIP alignment

Waukesha o Final phases of systems portfolio o Second due in November o Is interested in seeing how the AQIP Baldrige Option is going o Pretty quick turnaround on Action Project Updates o Recommends paying attention to the instructions on the Action Project template for those that extend out past the target o Plans to do a WFA in the future o Last strategic plan - began to align with AQIP categories - administration trying to change o Working under old criteria

Western o AQIP Baldrige Option

Indianhead o First systems portfolio o Will get appraisal right about the time they will be finalizing the strategic plan o Do have an additional location visit coming up o Feedback from other colleges indicate that that site visit is over planned o eFolio - just getting started

Gateway o Had site visit in October - got 10 year reaffirmation o Launched three improvement teams as a result of the visit
 Faculty evaluation - didn’t have it, but received feedback on this, raised by the visit team, not formally following up on; Milwaukee has implemented peer coaching that incorporates peer coaching; anticipate big changes with non-union environment Feb 2014; WCTC is already changing - contracts have all ended, HR is working on employee handbooks, launched several new teams from master planning and AQIP, one is focused on improving performance of faculty
 Data access team - centralized data web site
5

 Technology

NWTC o Had visit a year ago o Good for ten years o The new pathways - assurance and quality - has ten years and really doesn’t have to do anything until 2020; will have to do an AQIP-like project

Nicolet - not in attendance

Patti shared a copy of the beta version of the new criteria

Recommends looking at Criterion Three, Criterion Four

Alignment of strategic planning is an emphasis (3C)

Long-range planning (3E)

Student Learning (4A) - assessment of student learning, assessment processes informed by scholarship and good practice

Institutions goals for persistence and completion are clearly stated (this is new) 4B

They will be asking about how we are collecting data and using it to improve

Role of IRB

Next phase is scheduled for November (review of the gamma version of new criteria)

Next HLC in April will have training available

November 2012 all Systems Portfolios will address the revised criteria
Tracy Dryden - The Quality Academy

Send materials to Viktor to post on web site o Agenda o Examples of forms o Survey

Basic Skills Scorecard

Apprenticeship - just beginning to discuss this at the system how the scorecard will change

Targets and thresholds - new calculation model (has not yet been implemented) o Julie shared proposed model o Emphasized the three year average versus a one year approach to setting targets and thresholds o Need to clarify what years the average make up o Take the information back and try to determine if this is helpful as part of the QRP process - after Julie provides clarification o Does this impact how we lay out our college indicators on the scorecard? Will it still fit with the reporting style? - Julie will check on o Schedule a QRP Wisline to discuss - December

Scorecards are available 2010-2011 - Client reporting is closed

Colleges can now send their college-specific indicators

Has there been any validation done at WTCS to check?
6


Fran has asked people to spot check each type (associate degree, technical diploma)

Action step - next week all colleges should do some validation on the QRP scorecards and let Julie know

New scorecard has numerator/denominator - need to look at this also

Dream catchers

Relationship with IT is crucial

Building a culture of evidence

Provided training for individuals called “Got Evidence” - showed people how to use data and evidence - trained the deans and associate deans first, then used a train-the-trainer approach to spread to the faculty teams; uses a blog; newsletters; Dream Catcher Thought Spot - blog

Metaphor “the importance of knowing the score” so that you know what to do next

Role of institutional research and Dream Catchers o Analyze student level data for past five years - to identify factors in student success o Natalie was hired to do the research specifically for student success - trying to better understand their students; started in January o Trying to develop a profile of a student that has been successful
 Has found some pretty clear indicators
 Actively involved in disseminating the results across the college o Actively involved in evaluating the work that is being done under Achieving the Dream o Has a four year plan and an evaluation to with it

Examples of intervention (6 programs - healthcare business services, instructional assistant, web development, criminal justice law enforcement, landscape horticulture, electromechanical) - looking for programs that had issues with completion and persistence rates (didn’t want to pick programs beyond help, programs that had a number of faculty, solid enrollments) o Mandatory orientation - all six programs o Mandatory academic advising - all six programs o Pilot LASSI - all six programs - assess non-cognitive factors in learning - Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory - an inventory based upon 10 different dimensions, time management, test anxiety, o Student success workshops o Course Signals - early alert system - early alert system within a class - early and frequent feedback for students; each instructor is able to set up a way to signal (red, yellow, green) o Learning assistants/coaches - o Placement/pathways for success - the ways in which they look at placement scores and how students are placed in courses

What factors did they learn about? o Analysis of historical data o Focused on program students over past five years (10, 31, 32) o Learned
 categories of factors for persistence
 What a student does the first semester based upon placement scores/course impacts persistence
 Those with higher GPAs more likely to persist
 The higher the percentage of credits earned to credits attempted (early successes)
7

 Those students receiving financial aid are more likely to persist (versus those who do not receive any
- including Pell students)
 Demographic characteristics - 90% white - white students are more likely to persist; male students are more likely to persist (versus female students are more likely to complete - if you can get them to stay around)
Institutional Research Update by District

Colleges shared organizational structure of Institutional Research and related areas
Persistence and Graduation Measures/Data Definitions/Problems

Waukesha had an AQIP Action Project in 2008 - shared what they used for persistence measures

Fox Valley - has non-Perkins indicators on their college scorecard - will be developing a college indicator of graduation; uses “once they matriculate” or enter the core

Fox Valley and Milwaukee were involved in the Voluntary Framework for Accountability

Future agenda item - update on Voluntary Framework for Accountability
Gainful Employment

Waukesha has developed its own definition of job placement rate - denominator includes everyone in the labor market

Have to have 10 students in program to report Gainful Employment

Western calculated its own job placement and included all programs, not just technical diplomas

CVTC has put it on all programs as well - is on web site

Moraine Park - has it attached to the program web page

Blackhawk has on each program page

Have until November 15 th for reporting

Julie will find out why we don’t share the abstracts

Fox Valley o Culinary arts - high enrollment, boot camps, faculty advising o Electronics/Engineering - flexible delivery platform

Blackhawk o Fire Protection Tech

Gateway o Pilot faculty advising

NTC o Auto, CJ, Graphics o Human services associate
 NTO - male; mentoring

Waukesha o Curriculum development - major investments

Western o Faculty advising
8

o New student orientation o Peer advising o Curriculum

Southwest o Nursing bridge from LPN to RN o Focus on NCLX review o NTO and retention in criminal justice program

Milwaukee o Accounting, Marketing, Criminal Justice, Nursing - served 825 students o Had good results from the activities o Supplemental instruction, early alert system with instructor (email based), tutoring

Julie Tyznik o When guidelines come out for strengthening CTE grant - programs will not be required to be in QRP this year o Sometimes programs pop up that need help - will need to do a really solid root cause analysis and more documentation - this is a pilot o Grants guidelines meeting October 6




Did not receive the DOL grant
Looking at other partnerships for WTCS grants
Interested in working together
Finishing up the Accelerating Opportunities Grant

Spring 2011 Meeting - Third week of April - Moraine Park - Collect agenda items starting in January

Fall 2012 Meeting - Western - Fall Meeting Octoberfest - timeframe - Wednesday, Thursday October 3 rd and 4 th are the preferred dates
Plus

Liked not having remote option

Materials ahead of time

Asking for specific items for agenda and to bring along for handouts

Good food

Nice tour

Sticking to timeline was good

Liked the evening gathering - don’t drink the blue berry beer

Hampton was a nice hotel

Agenda worked well

Liked the assembling of handouts and the passing in clusters
Delta
9


Small group breakouts?

Big room tough to hear things

Could we stay connected to other larger groups (Presidents, ISA, grants, etc.)

Can we look into IRC liaisons to other teams?
10