Priority 8 Review

1. Priority 8 Review Collect and use data systematically to make informed decisions that lead to continuous organizational improvement. Team 8: Planning Subcommittee M. DesVignes, D. Kinney, J. Moore, M. Siegel, R. Tillberg October 2007

2. 3 Areas of Review • Identify what has been accomplished using vital signs and other key indicators • Identify gap between strategic goals and outcome • Recommendations October 2007

3. Strategic Priority 8.1 Design and implement a system that links assessment results, pre-requisite checking, and placement. October 2007

4. Background Strategic Priority 8.1 Design and implement a system that links assessment results, pre-requisite checking, and placement. A pilot effort was begun in the spring of 2002. A subcommittee of the Matriculation Advisory Committee (research, admissions, counseling and four departments) initiated a series of changes in November 2002. The current plan is to add a few departments each semester while reviewing and improving the process for those departments using pre-requisite checking The goal is to be completed by summer, 2004. (Rev 11.20.02) October 2007

5. Strategic Priority 8.2 Improve and extend the program review process college-wide to provide the means for department-based improvement and to inform the budget process October 2007

6. Background Strategic Priority 8.2 Improve and extend the program review process college-wide to provide the means for department-based improvement and to inform the budget process.EPC –M. Des Vignes A new approach to program review was developed by the Educational Planning Committee and piloted in 2002. In addition, the Management Team is using appreciative inquiry to develop its own approach to program review. That pilot effort begins in the fall of 2002 and extends through the 2003 – 2004 academic year. DesVignes: This process has been implemented and includes annual program review documents completed by departments and IDWG deans, request for additional funds are prioritized by IDWGs, and presentations are prepared and presented to budget subcommittee. October 2007

7. Strategic Priority 8.3 Research the issue of student achievement and implement a pilot project for assessing learning in specific disciplines. October 2007

8. Background Strategic Priority 8.3 Research the issue of student achievement and implement a pilot project for assessing learning in specific disciplines. This is an effort that must be led by the Academic Senate. It acknowledges the fact that the assessment of student learning outcomes is likely to play an increasingly import role in accreditation and is a point of contention for external agencies.(2002) Kinney: The SLO Task Force was formed in Feb. 2004 and has spearheaded a campus-wide dialog on SLOs. An Open Forum was held in Oct 2004 to identify institution wide Core Competencies and input is being sought from various campus constituencies, including SGC, EPC, Department Chairs, Academic Senate, and ASO and should be completed by Feb 2005. At the same time, workshops for academic departments and student services programs are being designed to address SLOs at the course and program levels. A workshop for department chairs and curriculum representatives was conducted in Nov 2004 and another for both academic departments and student services programs is planned for Feb 2005. An all-campus effort to develop course- and program-level SLOs is planned for March 2005. Pilot testing of assessments should begin by Fall 2005. October 2007

9. Strategic Priority 8.4 Create and institutionalize an Institutional Research Council that ensures that our data-gathering efforts match key institutional decisions and is responsible for the vital signs process of this strategic plan. October 2007

10. Background Strategic Priority 8.4 Create and institutionalize Institutional Research Council that ensures that our data-gathering efforts match key institutional decisions and is responsible for the “vital signs” process of this strategic plan. Inst Effectiveness – R. Tillberg The IR Advisory Council is charged with oversight of the “vital signs” of the strategic plan and contributing to the research agenda of the college. Led by the Dean of Academic Research and Planning, the council will meet quarterly with membership from Academic Affairs, Student Services, Administrative Services, as well as from the faculty and students. The first meeting is scheduled for Spring, 2003. Tillberg: IRAC has met regularly, has reviewed the Vital Signs, and has recommended new, behavioral vital signs in response to accreditation recommendations. (Rev. 11.19.04) October 2007

11. Strategic Priority 8.5 Revise the shared governance document 1998 to reflect a renewed commitment to participative decision-making and continuous improvement. October 2007

12. Background Strategic Priority 8.5 Revise the shared governance document (1998) to reflect a renewed commitment to participative decision-making and continuous improvement. SGC – P. Schmolze This effort was begun in the spring of 2002 and a new Shared Governance Model was adopted beginning in July 2002. It eliminated several committees and replaced them with two other committees: a Planning Committee that operates for six months each year and a Budget Committee that operates for the other six months. Shared Governance Model Updated 6/8/05 P. Schmolze, SGC Chair, 2004-2005 October 2007

13. Vital Signs Used as Measures of Success for Priority 8 • Degree to which faculty, staff, and administrators believe the college is increasing available resources (Campus Climate Survey). • Budget Dollars per full time equivalent student. • Percent of college community that believes the college’s budgeting process meets the needs of the institution. (Survey). • Number and percent of prioritized allocation requests that are funded. October 2007

14. Degree to which faculty, staff, and administrators believe the college is efficiently allocating its resources (Campus Climate Survey). October 2007

15. October 2007

16. October 2007

17. Recommendations Priority 8.1 Design and implement a system that links assessment results, pre-requisite checking, and placement. • Ensure that all non-exempt entering students are assessed and placed in appropriate classes. •  Enforce pre-requisites and co-requisites as they exist on course outlines. October 2007

18. Recommendations Priority 8.2 Improve and extend the program review process college-wide to provide the means for department-based improvement and to inform the budget process. . • Continue the established program review process and strengthen the function of program outcomes within that process. Continue to directly link funding to program review. Identify and assess SLOs for academic and student services programs. • Ensure that Administrative Services and the President’s Office participate in the program review process. Identify and assess SLOs for Administrative Services and the President’s Office. October 2007

19. Recommendations Priority 8.3 Research the issue of student achievement and implement a pilot project for assessing learning in specific disciplines. • Ensure that all departments identify and assess SLOs. • Expand the SLO assessment pilot program conducted by the following disciplines: child development, political science, Chicano studies, music, geophysical science, photography, Spanish, Korean, math and learning skills to all departments. • Implement changes based on assessment of outcomes that lead to improved learning and achievement. . October 2007

20. Recommendations Priority 8.4 Create and institutionalize an Institutional Research Council that ensures that our data-gathering efforts match key institutional decisions and is responsible for the vital signs process of this strategic plan . • Continue the work of the Institutional Research Advisory Council and identify additional appropriate assessment measures. • Institutional Research Advisory Council (IRAC) should report to Shared Governance Council (SGC). October 2007

21. Recommendations Priority 8.5 Revise the shared governance document 1998 to reflect a renewed commitment to participative decision-making and continuous improvement. . Continue the process established by Shared Governance Planning (SGP) in 2002 and 2004 whereby the Shared Governance Model is reviewed and updated every two years. October 2007

22. October 2007

23. October 2007