EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING In Attendance: John Akins, Peter Allan, Margarita Barbosa, David Bell, Mark Clair, Fay Freeman, Andie Glebe, Carol Golliher, Steve McDevitt, Gary Menser, Jennifer Menser, Tom Miller, Joe Pendleton, Pamela Penland, Marc Skuster, Paul Tonning, Pat Wagner, Sharon Walker, Jim Williams 1. Update on planning process: Tom welcomed everyone to the meeting. Tom, Carol Golliher and Marc Skuster have been meeting frequently on program review and annual review updates/forecasting.. Mark Clair has been a great help in acquiring the necessary data. Mark will be training people how to access this data. By November 15th we should have the annual updates/forecasting forms back from the instructional programs. The non-instructional forms will be distributed soon. Tom hopes to have an Ed Master Plan Table of Contents draft ready for our next meeting. There was discussion regarding the College Mission Statement. Tom noted that the mission statement defines who we are. We need to begin work on re-drafting the mission statement immediately. Sharon questioned the need to update the mission statement. Marc responded that the present statement does not correspond to the accreditation criteria. Gary noted that the statement should be revalidated periodically. Carol stated that we can’t be “too generic” in our statement. Carol just returned from a accreditation site visit at Pasadena City College, and noted that the first thing the team looked at was the mission statement. Fay stated that the accreditation standards specify that we review the mission statement on a regular basis. 2. Including learning outcomes assessment: Tom stated that the State is adopting a new master plan, which includes student outcomes and issues. Fay spoke about student learning outcomes, (SLO’s) noting that the new accreditation standards emphasize them. We also must include SLO’s in our mission statement. It is important that we begin a dialogue on SLO’s. Fay, Andie Glebe, and Judy Solis recently attended the California Assessment Institute Conference in Rancho Mirage (Sept. 29-Oct. 1). Mt. San Antonio College, Riverside Community College, College of the Desert, and Foothill College presented workshops at the conference. Marc stated that we should be covered on the course level. The challenge will be at the institutional level in assessing outcomes. Andie said that the sessions she attended at the conference dealt with faculty accountability. A lot of frustration was expressed by faculty conference attendees. It was emphasized that we will be held accountable; all departments must come to a consensus on how to accomplish this, as it must be done. Tom stated that his department (Music) measures effectiveness – students have to demonstrate knowledge of what they have learned when they transfer. Tom asked “what do we measure?” Marc stated that this is covered by course outlines. This is not done on an institutional level – this may not even by meaningful on that level. Marc wondered why there is so much faculty opposition to the SLO’s in the accreditation standards. Andie reiterated that there was a great deal of opposition. Fay noted that the matter of faculty evaluations being tied to contracts was a big issue. Andie stated that some faculty feel that the language used in the standards is hostile. Fay said that the conference workshops were outstanding. More workshops will be coming up. Also, we can visit other colleges, many of whom have excellent models. Mark Clair stated that many people are apprehensive of exit exams, as they tend to “individualize” instructors. The new standards support the idea that knowledge should no longer be assumed based upon a satisfactory grade alone. Marc said that a grade is indirect evidence of knowledge. Andie stated that the accreditation process has to be supported by administration, (i.e. financial support, release time, etc.). Tom noted that there are a lot of issues and “hot buttons”, and we need to understand why some instructors are so hostile toward the new standards. Carol stated that we have approximately 2 years to get our dialogue rolling. Fay said that we will collect data and will share models, creating a “culture of evidence.” 3. RT program forecasting document: This document was distributed, but was later “taken back” as Peter Allan noted some potentially touchy legal issues with the document. As these documents are turned in, the Planning and Resource Development office will be compiling summations for distribution. 4. Prioritizing the Plan: Tom stated that we definitely need to prioritize our goals. We need to ascertain who makes the decisions once we do prioritize. Everyone always wants to know if all this work is going to pay off. The answer is “yes, everything is driven by this plan.” Marc asked “who does decide?” Jim Williams responded that for facilities (buildings), we file a five-year plan each May, listing the projects we’d like to see funded. At present, the process doesn’t reach out to the campus; this is something we need to change. Sharon stated that we need programs to occupy any given space; a lot goes into decisions regarding buildings. Jim would like to see the college move on local bond issues. Jim noted that the Ed Master Plan and the Facilities Plan sometimes move in different time frames. He asked if the group would be interested in hearing from experts in facilities planning. The group responded affirmatively. Tom stated that any proposed bond should be for what is really needed. Marc noted that the Ed Master Plan should identify our needs. Marc also noted that we need to make sure that educational master planning is driving facility needs, and these decisions are not being made by a few administrators. Tom asked “where do faculty requests go?” Gary responded that they go to the Office of Instruction, then they are prioritized. Tom noted that in the old division structure, requests were prioritized at the division level. Gary stated that requests work their way up through the Deans to the V.P.’s. Then the V.P.’s, in consultation with Cabinet make the decisions. Marc stated that there is currently no procedure for program deletion in place. We must rectify this, as it is called for in the accreditation standards. Gary said this is something all districts should have, but few actually do. Fay noted that we did get a recommendation from the accreditation site visit team last time. We need to bring this back as a future agenda item. Carol asked if we could address these topics at our next flex day. It’s important that we don’t wait until right before our next site visit to begin working on these issues. Peter informed us that our next flex day is schedule for January 10, 2003. The Ed Master Plan, accreditation, and budget matters should take priority at flex day. Committee members were encouraged to keep working on the “macro issues” assigned to various committee members. If anyone has forgotten what they should be working on, see Tom. The meeting adjourned at approx. 1:45 p.m. Next Meeting: November 1, 2002, 12:30 – 2:00 p.m., Board Room.
|
|
